http://nueyseritrea.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/eritrea-partner-in-peace-politics/
Mehari Ukbalidet
Peace is the prerequisite for the wellbeing of humans. Without peace sustainable economic prosperity or socio-cultural wellbeing of nations and societies cannot be attained. The fact that the absence of peace in a country doesn’t influence only the one on the spot, divulges that peace is in fact a collective treasury, necessitating everyone’s inputs. Conflicts and political instabilities transcend to victimize a range of populations and regions. In this respect, the quest of bringing peace to favor humans’ development requires concerted and collective efforts and commitments. The bottom line: while living in peace is every individual’s indispensable right, making peace is however a collective responsibility.
Eritrea’s struggle for liberation has been part of this greater human aspiration for peace. Eritreans, after exhausting all possible grounds, shifted from negotiations for a peaceful solution to arms’ combat, thus fighting a bloody war for decades in search of peace. And consequently, Eritrea had a costly victory. Put simply, the hard won liberation makes Eritrea a peace loving nation.
That is why Eritrea is committed to a negotiated comprehensive solution to the range of conflicts across the Horn of Africa, from Darfur to Somalia. Besides, its foreign policy rests on the rationale that regional stability guarantees national stability. As one can’t breathe fresh air in a polluted environment similarly a country can’t live peacefully in a war-torn region.
Despite the above fact, it has become a habit for some parties to blame Eritrea on what goes wrong in the region. Some peace brokers are so naïve to disregard Eritrea’s effective peace approach, which emphasizes on domestic solutions to national problems. But nowadays the tables have turned: Eritrea’s proposal that nations should govern themselves is on top of all peace proposals.
The idea that people should govern themselves has historical genesis. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) since its inception as a front to fight for Eritrea’s right to self-determination is guided by this. Peace can prevail if only all inclusive consensuses could be reached. This was the stand in the 1980s when the EPLF proposed a referendum. Although the front got the upper hand in the military fields, they determined for political solutions.
Similarly, after winning the game through the bullet of gun, EPLF didn’t impose itself as a governor of Eritrea. Instead people were given the chance to decide where their interests lie. As a result of the people’s vote for independence Eritrea emerged as a sovereign state. This belief that people should be left free to handle their issues continues to dictate its policies.
As a manifestation of such political mellowness, Eritrea is a law abiding county. It accepted the international community’s decision two times both on the border cases of Yemen and Ethiopia. It didn’t accept them for it got the lion’s share in the mediation.
Unfortunately, today the region enjoys less peace and blaming Eritrea on what went wrong in the region continues. The foremost accusation is the alleged Eritrea’s role on fragile Somali politics. The sheer distance between Eritrea and Somalia hardly makes any link possible. Besides, Eritrea is a country pre-occupied with its people’s needs and necessities, that it has no money or time to squander ignoring people’s aspirations.
Today, Eritrea is a key partner and actor in the Horn peace politics. Eritrean efforts to bring peace to Somalia and Sudan can be cited here. The nation supported a genuine political process, not encumbered by external interference and that respects the choice of the Somali people. It has provided all concerned Somali national leaders with a ground to discuss the future of Somalia. Similarly, Eritrea’s diplomatic assistance has been crucial at enabling Sudan to resolve its eastern problems.
Eritrea’s firm position is domestic solutions for national problems. Coinciding with the UN principles and a benchmark of the UN charter itself, this concept stresses that the will and decision of locals should prevail over those of the peace brokers. The role of mediators is only facilitating the gathering of nationals so they can reach a consensus.
That is for the fact that peace brokers imposed solutions are failing to accommodate the will and choices of local nationals. In this regard, the ill-fated situation of the Horn is a clear illustration. Several of such attempts attested nothing than disaster and humiliation. Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia in late 2006 and the imposed government is aggravating existing problems.
Eritrea’s peace approach is well recognized and appreciated by some regional peace brokers like the EU, the region’s neutral peace broker. This is for the fact that Eritrea’s policy of resolving conflicts is bearing fruits, as in Sudan for instance where the imposed resolutions failed to bring peace.
When it comes to peace building, Eritrea believes in partnership and diplomatic assistance, as reflected by Eritrea’s role in Sudanese and Somali problems. Though lasting peace cannot be achieved if not everyone is committed for it, Sudanese people signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 with Eritrea as a mediator.
Among disagreeing parties sustainable peace is unattainable unless conflicting parties respect the interest of one another aside from their differences. Eritrea’s diplomatic efforts enabled Sudanese conflicting parties to reach each other and thus it attained relative peace and sustaining that peace is up to the Sudanese people.
All these, to mention the least, emanate from Eritrea’s will for a peaceful coexistence and belief that now is the best time to foster people’s solutions for the good of the region.