Washington, DC — Questions still surround last week's arrest and detention of 11 senior members of the ruling party and government in Eritrea. Although the government has not formally detailed the charges, there are some indications that the detainees - members of the Group of 15, or G-15, who have been vocal critics of the government -- will be tried for endangering national security. Although there is widespread awareness of the political tensions of the past year, the accusation has taken many observers by surprise. AllAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. spoke to Eritrea's Ambassador to the United States, Girma Asmerom. Excerpts:
Exactly what is going on? As we understand it, about a dozen senior members of the party and government, veterans of the war against Ethiopia are being detained by the government. Is that true?
Yes it is true but the way it is presented in the media is not true. To be simple and straight it is an issue of national security and sovereignty, not because they put out a letter against their government and their President, not at all. That is absolutely pure deception, untruthful to reality because, in any society, the law of the land prevails. And they are detained in accordance to the law of the land, and the law of the land is the law of the day in any society.
What exactly did they do that was a threat, either to national security or in violation of the law?
I think this is for the legal people and the court; this is a court proceeding. For example, somebody is detained for killing somebody - somebody tells you, "He is detained for killing." He would argue his points, the details, when, which place, how and so forth. These are legal proceedings, not only in an Eritrean case but in any court system, in any system be it from Kenya, Fiji, Britain, France or the United States. First you are accused of, not convicted of. This is standard legal procedure. What I can tell you is that they are accused of affecting national security and the sovereignty of the nation. Period. They are detained because of this accusation. The details belong to a court proceeding. It is not for anybody to say this, this, or that.
You understand the source of the questions don't you? These detainees are so identified with Eritrea's liberation struggle, veterans, that many people are startled. It is difficult to imagine a Petros Solomon [former foreign minister] as a threat to national security.
Why don't you leave it to the legal system then? We are all veterans. Because of the 30 years war, literally every Eritrean is a veteran - because of the prolonged war. That does not give any green light or green card for anybody [to say]: "because I was a veteran, because I was holding a high post I can violate the law of the land". You say, "I can't believe that Girma would do that!" The proceeding will clean me or implicate me. I can understand the feelings, the way you would feel for any person who you know. That is different from the legal proceedings. Do my feelings overtake the legal proceedings? Literally every article I read now says these are veterans, his comrades. For people who preach the law of the land must prevail know that fundamentally everybody is equal before the law. Everybody! From A to Zed. There is no way I would deny their history. So-and-so was a hero. He fought for this. That is different from a legal case. I think people should come to their senses and differentiate between sensational story, writing history and assessing legal culpability.
What kind of time frame are we looking at, in terms of seeing this group before a court, or the accusations actually taking legal form? And, are they in jail?
I think the legal proceedings, the court proceedings will determine that. Who am I to say this day, this time? If you remember there was this American guy [former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee] accused of espionage for China and the United States detained him for six months. These are issues that should be left for the legal proceedings rather than speculation. Nobody has a mandate to predict on this. You can speculate. You can assume. Everybody is entitled to assumptions and speculation - speculative analysis, I call it -- but I think if people are really sober and serious they should wait for the legal proceedings to take place before they make their conclusions.
Are they in jail?
They are detained.
Is something broader than Eritrea at play here? Eritrea is being buffeted from a couple of directions. You have pressure from Ethiopia on the one hand, and you also have powerful Red Sea nations that also have an interest in Eritrea. So is something more than a disagreement within Party and government going on here?
In the first place that is where the fallacy of the analysis is. When people say these are opposition, these are reformers, these are outspoken critics, that's not true. Nobody in Eritrea, for opposing the government or for expressing his opinion, will be detained. Nobody has been detained and nobody will be detained. So the accusation is very clear and straight. It has nothing to do with opposing, expressing your opinion, or dissenting on any issue. That has never been a crime in Eritrea and it will never be a crime in Eritrea. We all speak out. Everybody speaks out his mind. It's a far-fetched analysis to assume such a thing. The [government's] accusation is very explicit and clear: National security and sovereignty. The details as I said are up to the court proceedings. People have to realize that in every nation, every law doesn't have similarity. American law is different from the British law. French law is different from the Kenyan law. Kenyan law is different from the South African law. People can say: "Well your law is not good; it's not up to my standards." They can debate. But they cannot say you are not performing your duty in accordance to the law. Finally, the law is the law of the land. This is where sometimes people make mistakes. They try to pass judgement on somebody's law. A British guy, if he comes and analyses Eritrean law and tries to argue his point through the British law, wouldn't hold water in [Eritrean] court. In the same way, if I come and try to argue my case in America in accordance with Eritrean law, the judge wouldn't listen. Because, national security for each nation is determined also by its own strengths. There is no standard law for national security threats. Instead, laws for each country, each land, each threat.
A half a dozen or so newspapers were shut down. Is that part of this national security concern?
Not at all. It has nothing to do with that. Also, they were not shut down. Words mean a lot. And words give a lot of perception. Sometimes wrong perception and wrong analysis. What we did was we revoked the license of the newspapers and we are very clear and very explicit. We have a law which was adopted in 1997 - the press law. Based on that press law, the government was showing a lot of magnanimity where the press guys were violating the law of the land which was the press law. They have been given a license to print and have also been given a commercial license. According to Eritrean law, this is a mandate of the Ministry of Information. In the future we could debate to change the law. You debate; you could improve the law. Fantastic. But if people try to equate it with the detention of the guys accused of national security violations and relate it as silencing an independent voice, it is absurd. It has nothing to do with that because we are going to reissue the license. And if there is anybody to be sued legally, as it is done all over the world, he [a reporter] can be sued for what he writes. I tell you, the commitment of the government of Eritrea and the people of Eritrea to a free press and multi-party democracy is not an issue. I have seen articles that say we have regressed backwards. How could they come to this conclusion, I say? The facts speak a different way.
So, the licenses of the newspapers were "revoked"? I'm not clear on what the reason was.
The reasons are very simple. They had been violating [the press law] for the last two or three years. As a new nation, as they were new growing reporters, they were being told again and again, "this is a violation. Do you know this can get your license revoked according to the law?" We even read them the paragraphs of the law. And the guys would say, okay, okay, I didn't know that..."
What kind of violations?
I was in Asmara three weeks ago. In one of the papers - I don't remember which - there was one article that was based on interviews the Commissioner of Demobilization [of the army] gave on television and radio. Everybody heard it. He said we are setting up the demobilization commission. The commission mandate is for five years but demobilization will be finished within three years. It will proceed, phase by phase. The first phase will start within a month or two months. He detailed everything. Here is the headline in that paper: "The Demobilization Will Not Start for Five Years." Inside: "Youth will miss education." Lies which would incite somebody. If I am a guy on the front lines expecting to be demobilized and then read, "not for five years"... The next morning the Commissioner wrote: "These are lies, I'm going to sue". The law says whenever he deems it necessary, the minister of information can revoke the license of a paper. People can ask: "Have they done it within a legal framework?" Yes, is what I'm trying to say. Can people say that the law must be changed in the future, be revised again and again? Yes. In any society the laws will keep on changing.
The other area of confusion, here in the United States and watching Eritrea, has to do with the students at the University. Can you elaborate on the reports suggesting thousands of students being held, and in general, a crackdown on student protest, including the imprisonment of the leader of the Student Union?
Basically the information that has come here about the students is all pure deception and fabrication. Let me give you the facts. I read again and again the university was shut down. The University was never shut down. It was summer. For the summer, the university always gets closed in Eritrea. It has nothing to do with politics For anybody to equate the summer program with some of the people who have been trying some sort of political activity is just absurd. The summer program is even partly financed by the UNDP - a UN agency. It's tree-planting, road-building, dam -building and all those types of things. The summer program was a routine summer program. The other factual distortion was, we never had camps - detention camps - never! This is not only two or three thousand university students. This is a national program for high school-age young people - above sixteen, be it a he or a she. And we send them all over Eritrea, indiscriminately to different areas. And we have camps. We have to put them somewhere; the food and lodging are provided by the government. It is a summer development program. Our schools and university are free. We are a poor country where we have our people participate in national building, reconstruction. It was praised in so many conferences, in so many places, this kind of activity. Thirty-five thousand students were deployed this summer. And if you look at the weather of Eritrea today, you go 60 kilometers to the east, to the coastal area, hot, humid. Go to Massawa. Go to Assab. Last year in our summer program 11 kids died. Malaria. The heat. This summer because of the heat two kids died. Is this because the government wanted them to die and we took them for punishment? No. We took them all over Eritrea for service.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Part of the reason the question came up is because - and you can verify the accuracy of this - reports coming here were that Semere Kesete, the head of the Student Union, had been arrested.
It has nothing to do with the summer program and the students at work. He has his lawyer. He has his accusation and his court case. If he is clean, he will be free. It's a court decision, court proceedings again. That's what I think people should realize. Has the guy been accused? Yes. Has he been able to defend through his lawyer? Yes. Is he going through the law of the land? Is he detained in accordance with the law of the land? Yes. This is where I differentiate been sensational story and facts.
Just getting back to the journalists, for a minute. There were some reports that said journalists were arrested for avoiding national service. Is that true?
I have no idea. It's like the draft law in America, way back. If they are detained or picked by police it will be done in accordance with the law. They will be taken to their national service. That is not only for reporters, but anybody. Nobody is above the law. Once people accept the concept of basic elementary democracy, Nobody is above the law. If there is an exemption, the law must exempt you.
