In 1993, the whole world was impressed by the state-of-the-art independence of Eritrea. Everything seemed to have been done by the rules : a declaration of independence in 1991, a notification to the UN and a referendum two years later. Being the last war of independence of Africa, it is tempting to assume that Eritreans would learn the lessons from the past and present themselves from adopting an authoritarian, post-independence regime such as the FLN in Algeria. However, the current situation contradicts such an optimistic prediction : since 1993 the same president (Isaias Afewerki) and the same party (Popular Front for Democracy and Justice) are in power. There is indeed a national assembly, but since Eritrea's independence the elections have always been postponed. Eritrea is considered one of the worst countries concerning freedom of the press, and seems to contribute to destabilization in East Africa.
[...] Ibrahim Sultan fails in his attempt to federate the Muslim people of Eritrea because his movement is not able to cope with the socio economic contradictions within the Muslim and the whole Eritrean community. His strong ties with the Muslim part of the Eritrean population makes him sound dangerous to the Christians of Eritrea and even in its own religious Muslim group, he has to face the emergence of splinter groups which challenge its authority. The British ruler plays an important part in the split up of the Islamic league. [...]
[...] Whereas it had originally pledged for relations in the Horn of Africa to be smooth, Eritrea has soon become a vector of instability in Eastern Africa. For years, it has enabled south Sudan rebels to be supply with weaponry and has been a haven for Tigrean separatists in Ethiopia. Allegedly, Eritrean government may have given support to Darfur rebels and armed several Islamist groups in Central Somalia. But on the other hand, such activities can be seen as part of the nationalist impetus. [...]
[...] Moreover the United Nations did not react when Haile Selassie abrogated the 1950 agreement by dissolving the Eritrean parliament in 1962. Why ? The UN didn't interfere to ask Ethiopia to respect the resolution because of the american pressure which supported at that time the Ethiopian regime of Haïlé Sélassié. Because of the ambiguity between two concepts: a national liberation war and a secession one. The UN encourages the first one and condamn the second one. But in the case of the civil war that began in 1961 in Eritrea, nobody had the good answer. [...]
[...] Why did it take so long for them to get their independance? All these questions can be explained in terms of actors, historical context and international stakes. In short, in this essay we will focus on the differences that strongly divide the Eritrean society and on how it managed to overcome them to induce the rise of nationalism, putting an end to their dependancy on Ethiopia despite a strong relunctance of the exterior world to help them. Eritrea: a mosaic of cultures, a diverse society How a nationalist feeling and a “vivre ensemble” feeling can spring from a socially religiously, ethnically and economically divided country? [...]
[...] First, we must notice a semantic innovation, which epitomises the spirit of the new movement and explains why they will succeed in their fight, first against the other liberation movements and then against the Ethiopian rulers. In a country divided into a large ethnic spectrum, plagued by a millenary antagonism between two monotheisms and two way of life (pastoralism and farming), talking about the existence of an “Eritrean people” is revolutionary. As crazy is the idea of freeing it: on the ground, Ethiopian elite troops have control of the whole country and benefit of a military supremacy. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
