Mapping "The Eritrean Psyche"
by Zeray Derres, jr.
(September 24, 1998)
Introduction
The Eritrean aggression of Ethiopia caught many Ethiopians and other observers of the scene napping. It came as a total surprise. Reacting to the news, the US Foreign Secretary Madeleine Albright, expressed her dismay thus: "This is madness!". As the reality of the aggression begun to sink and once again the winds of war were blowing over the region, many pondered "Why?". Several explanations have been offered, ranging from the economic to the geopolitical or combinations thereof, to address the question of the "Why" of the invasion. Important though such explanations may be, yet they do not suffice. For instance, many a country has gone to war due to economic problems, still this fails to account for the many countries which, inspite of such problems, did not resort to such an option. Is the Eritrean aggression a case of "madness" and in that case what triggered it? And if so, is it possible to trace the causes to the "Eritrean Weltanschauung", i.e., comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world?
The "reasons" behind the Eritrean invasion, lie not just in the economic and geopolitical spheres, but, as much if not more, in the "Eritrean Psyche". The following piece is part of a larger work which tries to map "The Eritrean Psyche" and intends to proffer analyses of its belief systems, motives and intentions, what in popular parlance, makes the "Eritrean Psyche" tick. In what follows, I try to identify the major psychological traits and the principal co-ordinates of "The Eritrean Psyche." The specific standpoints for the conception or apprehension of the world by "Eritreans", derive from three psychological traits or characteristics. Namely,
(a)mythomania - trait or condition characterized by excessive or abnormal propensity for lying and exaggerating;
(b)paranoia - disposition or trait characterized by systematized delusions of grandeur or persecution (usually without hallucinations); and
(c)schizophrenia - condition or trait characterized by the presence of mutually contradictory or antagonistic qualities or parts.
Although not meant to be exhaustive, the above psychological traits can serve as primary co-ordinates in mapping and making sense of the, by now all too familiar elusive, incogitant and rancorous, acts of the EPLF in particular, and the baffling behaviour and reactions of "Eritreans" in general, which have come to the fore since the Eritrean invasion of Ethiopia in May 1998. The previous three major modalities of the "Eritrean Psyche" are deployed here in order to re-read, critically examine, and elucidate the following set of issues: nationalist historiography, "Eritrean" identity and constituent notions of Self, as well post-independence development and economic strategy. The main issue dealt with here relates to mythomaniac historiography, i.e., the narratives of excess, imbued by warped and/or magnified renderings of (Eritrean) history. In other words, how Eritrea has been imagined, constructed and narrated as a nation by the EPLF and mtyhomaniac historians.
The previous psychological traits are not mutually exclusive. As grids or principles of ordering and making sense of the world, mythomania, schizophrenia and paranoia overlap and intersect in a variety of ways. Each trait connotes the others or is implied by them. For instance, mythomniac historiography insists that "Eritrean" identity existed as a separate or distinct entity before the "annexation" of Eritrea by Ethiopia. At the same time the very denial of sharing close ties and a common historical past with Ethiopia, is one of the reasons for the schizoid nature of "Erirean" identity. The traits are treated separately here, not because they are mutually exclusive, rather for reasons of clarity and analytical scope.
Nationalist Mythomania
If one were to summarize the mainstream post-1950 narratives and nationalist historiography of Eritrea in a single word, it would be mythomania. With the exception of a few, dispassionate and critical commentators, such as Tekeste Negash; Tesfatsion Medhane; Shumet Shishagne; and John Spencer, the bulk of researchers, writers, journalists and laymen at large, have accepted the mythomaniac renderings of the recent history of Eritrea, as construed by the EPLF and its learned ideologues - Berket Habtessellasie, Donnell, Ruth Iyob, Araya Tseggai, Ogbazghi Yohannes, Pateman & co.- at face value. Bemoaning the mythographic rendering of the history of Eritrea Patrick Gilkes, a respected student of the politics and history of the region, has alerted us that (African Affairs vol. 90. # 361 1991)
"(m)uch, indeed, of the writing on Eritrea has been at the level of the polemic or a product of the 'guerilla groupie'. A surprising number of eminent scholars and journalists have taken the leading Eritrean movement, the EPLF, at its own evaluation, and its historical claims as fact. The results have impoverished the literature on Eritrea and have created a distorted national mythology."
In addition to having impoverished recent historiography of Eritrea, one of dismal effects of the mythomaniac historio-graphy has been that the embellished and/or mendacious accounts repeated ad nauseam have assumed the status of historical fact and truth.
The End of the Federation: Willed or Forced?
The dominant nationalist historiographies and narratives of the history of Eritrea since WWII are replete with examples of narrative excesses. Consider, for instance, a key moment in the post-WWII history of Eritrea, i.e., the end of the federation in 1962. The end of the federation has been selected, as much for its substantive value as for its role as an illustration of how mythomania has distored history beyond recognition.
How did the federation end? Was the end "imposed" or was it based on the wish of the Eritrean assembly? Critical students of the period on the other hand, i.e., relying on factual data and faithful to the historical record, show that on November 15,1962, the Eritrean Assembly dissolved itself and unanimously voted to unite Eritrea with Ethiopia (Tekeste Negash 1997:138). According to the mythomaniac interpretations, on the other hand, the federation came to an end when Ethiopia annexed Eritrea in 1962.
A trademark of mythomaniac historiography is its reluctance to stick to the facts. Making unfounded assertions with unabashed glee and then take these for historical truths is yet another. Mythomaniac historiography is not limited to writers from the region only. An early expatriate pionner of this genre of historiography was Trevaskis (1960). More recently, this genre of writing has been carried on by Pateman (1991).
The following quotations may suffice as examples of mythomaniac historiography. Thus Tekie Fessehatsion "(t)he thirty year insurrection is a testament to the rejection of the forcible annexation of Eritrea and the imposition of Ethiopian nationality over an unwilling and most resentful population" (1993:18). Jordan Gebremedhin, has the reputation of having access to documentary material the existence of which other students of the recent history of Eritrea have not been able to vouch for, should not be expected to have any qualms when he wrote that "(t)he colonizing (sic) of Eritrea was supposed to boost the economic viability of the empire" (1993:33). The United Nations took the wishes of the Eritrean people into consideration among other things through (1) the inquiry commision and (2) the U.N. sponsored referendum. Accordingly, the "majority of the members of the United Nations Commission for Inquiry sent to Eritrea in 1950 submitted a report affirming that the Eritrean peoples were decisively in favour of union with Ethiopia." (Shumet Sishagne 1993:42). Yet, here we have another congenital liar parading as an historian, asserting that "(t)he findings of the first and second U.N. commissions were never taken seriously in the final decision to have Eritrea annexed (!!!) under the guise of federation." (Asgede Hagos 1993:63).
In his review of Eritrea. A Pawn in World Politics, by Ogbazghi Yohannes, Patrick Gilkes laid bare the flagrant fabrications of the history of Eritrea. In the characteristic mythomaniac fashion, "Yohannes claims that the 1952 Federation was imposed conspirationally, against the wishes of the people" (Ibid.). Yet what does the evidence suggest? Sober perusals of the documents and events of the period by dispassionate histroians and writers of the period show that the "...UN General Assembly decided upon the Federation because the divisions in the Eritrean political establishment left it no alternative at that time" (Ibid.). The book is yet another glaring instance of the routine disparity between "imagination and observation", a major trade mark of the, by now, all too familiar pattern of mythomaniac narratives of the history of Eritrea. In the pens of mythomaniac historiographers, whims are paraded as facts, conjectures become the sign-posts of real events, and history no more than a palimpsest for fancy. The federation "provides an excellent example of "innocence violated", goes the whimsical narative of Dr. Yohannes. In light of the available historical evidence, one cannot help but wonder whose innocence was violated? Whence Gilkes biting remark as to who violated whom. Was it the UN Assembly? As we saw, it certainly was not. That leaves but one violator - none other than Dr.Yohannes himself. Whence does the habit - in the manner of the Dr. Yohanneses & co.- of denial originate? What is the driving force behind the habit of inflicting self-violence and then blaming someone else for it, if not the schizoid nature of "Eritrean" identity and notions of self? (These issues will be examined in a follow-up piece on Eritrean" identity and notions of Self).
Mythomaniac historiography has not been limited to the federation period only. As noted earlier, instances of this genre of historiography - past and present - are numerous. The narratives of the origins and history of Eritrea, as rendered by mythomaniac historiography is one such instance. A recurrent theme of these narratives, relies on weaving accounts of denial. Accounts of denial claim that, historically Eritrea existed as a separate and distinct political entity fom Ethiopia. A corollary of which conceives the subsequent relations with Ethiopia as a colonial and the assertion that Eritrea was a colony of Ethiopia imposition (Shumet Shishagne (1993:43). Thus, in the chronology of the history of Eritrea given by the Eritrean Information Center website, for instance, the year 1952 is given as "Ethiopian colonization." Indeed the very first sentence in this warped account of the Early History of Eritrea reads: "Eritrea has long been a region of colonisation(!!!)." The same chronologists, unscrupulously write that in "the fourteenth century the rulers of Tigrai and Abyssinian (sic) recognised Medri-Bahri as a state (!!!)." Followed by a statement which I believe has few parallels in the warping of history. Thus: "Bahri-Negash was independently elected (!!!) by the people of the Medri-Bahri." Incidentally, the chronology does not mention if the election results were 98 or 99%.
The claim that Eritrea existed as a separate and distinct political entity from Ethiopia, lacks historical validity, since "(h)istorically, in the sense that there was no concept of the area called Eritrea prior to the 1890s " (Gilkes, 1991). Moreover, "(p)rior to the Italian takeover there was no link between the disparate areas (in Eritrea) except in their relationship with the local imperial power, i.e., the Abyssinian empire. The use of Eritrea as a concept before the Italians created the region is anachronistic." (Ibid.) (emphasis added). Contrary to the mythomaniac renderings, the historical, socio-cultural, economic, and political relations of the inhabitants of present day Eritrea and Ethiopia were, thus, neither colonial nor imposed.
Gerrymander Issayas and Gerrymandering EPLF Style
Mythomaniac historiography has not been limited to the remote or recent past only. The claim by the EPLF that "Badime has always been a part to Eritrea and that what the EPLF did was simply "take back territory that Ethiopia grabbed six months before", is yet another vivid instance of the workings of the "Eritrean Psyche", and how the abnormal propensity for lying has tainted current events as well. To lend credence to the claim that Badime is located in Eritrea, and consistent with its myhtomaniac dispositions, the EPLF resorted to the artifice of, this time around, lying with maps. How? By deploying the stategem of gerymmandering. Gerrymandering stands for the manipulations and forgery of maps, by among other things, shifting and/or redrawing boundaries as well as locations. In other words, gerrymandering is a cartographic sleight of hand for the falsification of maps in order to suit ones purposes and oft with the intention of supporting territorial claims.
It may be recalled that, in a televized interview Issayas Afwerki displayed a map which locates Badime within Eritrea. The map was also used to buttress the claim that the EPLF did not invade Ethiopia. On the other hand, both older maps, as well as maps from as recently as 1996, locate Badime unambiguously within Ethiopia. How come then that Isayas Afwerki set forth that Badime (and environs) are located in Eritrea and even produced a map that supposedly backs up his claim?
The answer lies in the ruse of gerrymandering. If you superimpose the map of Eritrea dispalyed by Isayas Afwerki on another map of Eritrea, of the same scale, the ruse and mischief just ooze out - crystal clear. What gerrymander Issayas did in order to locate Badime (and environs) inside Eritrea, was to produce a map which shifts or moves the straight line boundary of the Yirga triangle further south into the territory of Ethiopia. Neither is this the first time that the EPLF engaged in the shift and move act. It may be recalled that in 1996, the EPLF had published another map, which shifted and thus extended its territory into Djibouti. It is through the sly of moving and shifting boundaries, that Isayas attempted to lure the world and has successfully duped nave Eritreans to blindly swallow the deceit.
The presumptuosness of Isayas and the EPLF is that having almost sparked a war with Djibouti by gerrymandering, they dare to repeat the very same stratagem on Ethiopia and get away with it as well. Gerrymander Isayas and the EPLF have staked a whole country and people with their shift and move ruse, with dire consequences. Well, they better shift as best as they can, now that they are left to their last shifts and moves.
Barring gerrymandering, are there legal, historical or other grounds or arguments that could lend support to the claims by the EPLF? Although the EPLF cannot substantiate its claims even on legal, historical or other grounds, still let us consider these if only to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The EPLF claims Badime based on an Italian map from 1935. However, this map contravenes the Treaty of 1902, which is the relevant border treaty for this region. Why? Simply because the 1935 map, produced during the fascist Mussolini period, violates the 1902 treaty as it pushes the Eritrea border to the junction of the Tekezze and Tomsa rivers (thus the precedent for gerrymandering by the EPLf was set by Mussolini as far back as 1935). As per the treaty of 1902, the boundary was located at the junction of the Setit and Maieteb rivers.
In its attempt to justify its claims, the EPLF has even resorted to the charter of the OAU. The OAU resolution of 1964, on which the EPLF rests its claim, states that "countries should keep the borders they had on independence." Yet, in consistence with their mythomania, the EPLf and its ideologues allege that the treaty states or reads "European", or "colonial" boundaries. Moreover, if the EPLF base their claims on the OAU charter, then they should have honoured the charter which requires that a country keep the boundaries it had on the assumption of independence, in the first place. The EPLF thrice violated the very resolution it would like to perch its claims on (!!!).
The fact finding mission report of the OAU ministerial committee, examined the census records, tax receipts and electoral records, administration archives and papers, etc., for Badime and environs. The OAU report has established that Badime and environs were indeed administered by Ethiopia at the time of the invasion. The report pulled the carpet from under the feet of the EPLF and exposed the mendacity of their claim. In brief, (i) at no time before the invasion was Badime and environs administered by the EPLF, and (ii) no legal treaties nor documents exist that substantiate the claims by the EPLF over Badime and its environs. Consequently, no single state or international body has endorsed the territorial claims of the EPLF. Yet, inspite of, or due to, the unrefutable legal, historical and other evidence which show that Badime and environs belong to Ethiopia, gerrymander Isayas had no qualms when he stated that the troops of the EPLF would not withdraw, "not even if the sun would stop rising."
Prognosis: "Chicken Come Home to Roost"
Well, what goes around comes around and the chicken have come home to roost. As the famous Biblical saying goes "you reap what you sow", and myths in whatever form, whether benevolent or malignant, come back to haunt their perpetrators. The malignant ones exact terrible retributions and strike with vengeance. In the tragicomic drama enacted in the stage of present day Eritrea, it is time to collect. Poetic justice and farce, la acta comedia, mandate that the wrathful scythe of mythomania mow down the fabulists. Yet, in its wake retributive justice spares neither the innocent nor the sincere. Herein lies the tragedy of it all. Alas, at the end of the day, once the dust has settled down, one hopes that the exorcism of the ghosts that have been haunting Eritrea will be thorough.