(By Yared Huluf) –
If one were to live with another person, one would evaluate whether one’s welfare living with that person is fair, emphatic, jannock and selfless on both sides. However, that said, one would also make sure that what s/he perceives of the other person’s standing is not chimerical but real, s/he would make sure whatever transaction s/he has decided to take place is backed up by some legal framework that protects the rights of those involved.
That way, any psychological or material damage that may incur would be avoided. One ought not think just because one had perceived events correctly at the time does not mean that things would not change topsy-turvy later on.
However, if they did, one would not self-blame for the decisions made earlier because no other person at the time of the initial decision taken had a better idea/perception of what was to happen by the fellow now in flame.
To come to the point, nations can live together if they perceive there are mutual interests to gain. But their unity has to be based on a policy of equality, where one would not say I have more population, more resources or more land and therefore I need to gain more and/or lead the nation as a sole power. This is wrong and unacceptable.
ብጋንዑ ዝነቀወ ዝብዒ አይሕድረናን ከምዝበሃል:: Just like a partner who claims s/he has more hair so he needs to have the pillow for her/himself alone; just because s/he has bigger body weight the entire mattress be monopolized, s/he has wider mouth that s/he needs to eat more!
Democracy and the rule of law regardless of number, size etc is equally practiced by all for all, democracy is not about numbers, it is about human rights. What is right for one is right for all; verbum sap! Unless it is going to be an African style: an application of the framework of law only when it suits the swindlers to control all!
Additionally, just as an individual does not have to necessarily enter into a legal pack with another person; that one can equally and comfortably live on her or his own, if s/he wishes to do so, any nation can exist on its own without seeking matrimony with another nation, especially if and when the marriage is divisive. Similarly, a nation can also survive without a sea outlet.
It is not a necessary requirement to a nation. There are many thus-far and they are managing their affairs as good as those with a sea outlet. Tigray does not need to have a sea outlet; it would be nice to have but Tigray can live without it just as the one (Ethiopia) that has gobbled it did in the past.
Furthermore, the idea some people propagate that Tigray and Eritrea could agree to a marriage for both to mutually gain is a noble view but only if both agree to the need and work to achieve it; otherwise, it stinks of a decisive carrot on a stick, if one has an agenda for a ride!
If Tigrayans would have to do the majority of work, including fighting for Eritreans to get rid of an evil Pol Pot, whilst the Eritreans are running, and even dying in the Mediterranean to reach Europe to obtain gewgaw, trinkets and glittering items they are so obsessed with. Meanwhile, Eritreans vouch that the only thing they could offer is a sea port, as they think it is so valuable an item for desperate Tigrayans to have. No, Tigray can and would go it alone if that is what it takes.
The perception that one nation/ethnic is more in number so they should grab the mantle of power or one is in possession of an sea outlet other do not have but needs it, is a stinking concept and ought go to hell with her or his sea port! Tigray can and could go it alone if the need calls for it!!
Eritreans expecting their freedom from a dictator and economic plight, in exchange for a sea port is manipulation by other means. Eritreans should strive for independence with or without Tigrayans! And should equally fight tooth and nail for it. Period!
Last but not list, for those who think the TDF was marching to Finfinie/Addis Ababa to take power was in error. However, they have to topple the current government by marching to Finfinie with or without other forces to set a transitional ‘Ethiopian’ government so as to decide the destiny for Tigray and the rest. This was and still is a necessary procedure to be recognised as a country if Tigray wants to be one.
Likewise, at this juncture the siege of Western Tigray appears to long insufferable to bear, that the governemt of Tigray needs to take action to end. But is wish naive and dengerious to contemplate, not that there is desire to prolong the misery and suffering, but contemplating an I’ll prepared action on the part of the government of Tigray could turn into a nightmare where they could lose the war and a siege turn to eradication of the people of not only Western but all of Tigray. People sitting in their cosy homes ought not act as experts when they are not. It is only the military men and women based in Tigray who need to decide when and where to conduct war.