Eritrea: Scenarios for Future Transition – Africa Report N°200 | 28 March 2013

Introduction
II.  The Beginning of the End for President Isaias Afwerki?

  A.  The Incident at Forto .

  B.  2012: The President’s Annus Horribilis?
III.  The State of Eritrea 

  A.  The Foundation of a One-Man State 

1.  The Dream Disintegrates

2.  The Stifling of Dissent

  3.  The Removal of Checks and Balances 

B.  The Role of the Military  

C.  The Radical Approach to Foreign Relations .
IV.  Scenarios for Post-Isaias Eritrea 

C.  State Collapse (Leading to Civil War) 

  D.  External Mediation or Domination 

E.  Peaceful Transition to Multiparty Democracy

F.  Regime Change with Ethiopian Intervention 
V.  Conclusion .
APPENDICES A. Map of Eritrea and its neighbours

B. About the International Crisis Group

C. Crisis Group Reports and Briefings on Africa since 2010

D. Crisis Group Board of Trustees
International Crisis Group Africa Report N°200 28 March 2013

———–

Eritrea: Scenarios for Future Transition
I. Introduction
Eritrea is a small, young and increasingly, fragile state. Crisis Group has previously argued that it was “under severe stress, if not yet in full-blown crisis”.1 This report reflects recent events that signal internal malaise has become chronic, including a short-lived military protest at the information ministry, known as “Forto”, and longer- term trends, most obviously the accelerating exodus of working-age Eritreans via expensive and dangerous channels. Social, religious and ethno-regional divisions are resurfacing that the years and culture of the liberation struggle underplayed and 21 years of forced nation-building have suppressed.2 Following the Forto incident, the government arrested formerly ultra-loyal ministers, party officials and military officers, almost all from a Muslim background. The determination to forge a strong, “mobilised” nation under a single, presidential party has resulted in an ever narrowing leadership base. The last public demands for reform, including by regime insiders (the so-called G15) were silenced by arrests in 2001.3 Since then, change and reforms have been hinted at, but have never materialised, blocked it seems by the office of the president. The report examines how the desire of the president to maintain pervasive power has neutered political debate, leaving a dangerous void where ideas and broad-based leadership might have flourished. It looks also at the question of whether the mili- tary – the only institution of any strength – is likely to be a force for genuine change and at what might be expected of a fractious and aging opposition largely hosted by self-interested neighbouring states.4 It likewise considers the impact of international players – notably Ethiopia, Sudan and Djibouti – and of the sanctions regime imposed on Eritrea by the UN Security Council in 2009 and 2011. If Eritrea’s future proves to hold more confrontation and risk for itself and the region, the president may take ironic consolation from Mikhail Bakunin’s warning to a friend: “Beware of small states”: advice that while such nations are vulnerable, they are also a source of trouble, not least, but also not only for their more powerful neighbours.5 Crisis Group’s purpose below is to examine possible scenarios in which this dynamic might play out and to offer suggestions for alleviating the dangers.  In preparation for this report, Crisis Group made multiple requests to the gov- ernment for permission to meet with the leadership and the widest possible cross- section of citizens. However, visas were never granted. Consequently, the extensive research conducted was obliged to concentrate from the outside on interviews with Eritreans and other long-time observers of Eritrea and the Horn of Africa, in addition to secondary sources.6

II. The Beginning of the End for President Isaias Afwerki?

II. The Beginning of the End for President Isaias Afwerki?
The events of the last twelve months show that the regime is facing its most serious internal crisis since the dissent that followed the end of the war with Ethiopia in 2000-2001. Fractures and fissures are widening, especially between the president’s inner circle, the military and the regime’s other political wings. The defection of the once ultra-loyal information minister, Ali Abdu Ahmed, is an acute sign, and the “freezing”7 of devoted generals is further evidence of a distinct downward trajectory. Worries are increased by the economy’s disastrous state.8 Many believe the situation, in its current acute form, is not long sustainable, even for a traditionally stoic and resilient population. Hidden behind disputable growth data,9 promises of implausible development and the expansion of mining investments (in partnership with state- controlled companies and international firms)10 is the grim reality that “there is no fuel and even finding daily meals for ordinary people is becoming a nightmare”.11 What exactly is happening within the regime remains unclear. However, Isaias is aging and his health is deteriorating rapidly, reportedly “not helped” by heavy drinking.12 Allegedly, his authority is declining at a slow but steady pace, and the chain of com-

mand he built around himself – with Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) commanders’ support – is weakening as well. Some officers who helped build and consolidate the repressive system are losing – or have already lost – confidence in the president. He, in turn, appears to distrust almost everybody, abruptly turning against former comrades, removing them from power, “freezing” others or promoting rivals into overlapping positions of authority.

A. The Incident at Forto

On 21 January 2013, in Asmara, the capital, approximately 100 disgruntled soldiers, possibly accompanied by two tanks, entered “Forto”, the building of the information ministry, which broadcasts the state television (Eri-TV) and rounded up the staff.13 They forced the station’s director, Asmelash Abraha, to read an announcement stating that the ministry was under their control and demanding the release of all prisoners of conscience and political detainees, as well as implementation of the 1997 constitution.14  Not much was heard by the public. After two sentences, the TV signal went off air. Troops loyal to Isaias quickly surrounded the building and secured the presidential palace and the airport.15 “In the centre of Asmara … life continued much as normal”.16  Information on what happened afterwards is “still scanty and murky”. 17 What is certain is that after several hours, Eri-TV went back on air (around 10pm), informing viewers of the severe snowstorm in Paris.18 The day’s turbulent local event was not mentioned.  The government reportedly negotiated with the soldiers, and in the end the minis- try’s employees were released. The mutinous soldiers left the building and returned to their barracks outside the capital. Not a single shot appears to have been fired. The  following day Asmara was “calm, shops were open and life was business as usual”.19 If no immediate punitive measures were taken against the soldiers, it was probably to downplay the incident and wait until international attention subsided.20  Anti-government activists in the diaspora described the 21 January event as an “attempted coup d’état”, and managed to raise international media attention on a country that is normally overlooked.21 On 24 January, a protest took place at the Eri- trean embassy in London, and in the following days similar demonstrations occurred at legations in Rome, Milan, Berlin, Washington and Tel Aviv, all capitals with signifi- cant diaspora presence. Demonstrators supported the dissident soldiers and went far beyond the troop’s demands by calling for an end to President Isaias’s rule.22  Officials tried to whitewash the affair. The day after, the president’s adviser, Yemane Gebremeskel, stated “all is calm today, as it was indeed yesterday”.23 Girma Asmeron, the ambassador to the African Union (AU), said coup rumours in Asmara were “wishful thinking”, “the president is healthy, and Eritrea is a peaceful country” where there would “never be a coup”, as it is a “society built on trust”.24 According to numerous, substantiated reports, a round of arrests took place in the days following, involving some military but mainly political figures;25 significantly most were reportedly Muslims.26 Various sources suggested the president is presenting the internal conflict as a terrorist “jihad” to buy time.27

B. 2012: The President’s Annus Horribilis?

It is hard to tell what exactly happened, who was behind the incident at Forto and their exact intentions or final goals, since the soldiers neither demanded the dismis- sal of the government nor attempted a coup. What is certain is that this incident, while not unprecedented, was the most recent in a number of underreported events that began in 2012 and indicate growing internal dissent within the previously highly regimented regime, including the once vaunted EDF.28 In January 2012, Ethiopia and Eritrea traded accusations after foreign tourists were attacked and five killed by insurgents in the Afar region, which straddles their joint border.29 “Addis claimed they were under Asmara’s direction, justifying Ethio- pian reprisals in March against rebel camps inside Eritrea.30 Further incursions were and Ethiopia remain linked – due to their ethnic, historical, socio-economic and psychological ties – and the political destinies of the two governments, which came to power together as allied rebel fronts in 1991, are still closely connected.  The Eritrean government studiously underplayed Meles’s death, since it could have triggered debate on leadership and succession at home. Meles refused to move on Asmara near the end of the war in May 2000 and was generally perceived as sup- porting the country’s independence.39 In the aftermath of his death, many appeared worried about a new Ethiopian leadership’s policy toward Eritrea; information emerged from Asmara that the Eritrean government was arming militias.40  During the latter half of 2012, more rumours circulated about disagreements inside the regime on the direction of the country, as well as Isaias’s leadership. Various high- profile ministers and military commanders were perceived as favouring a leadership transfer, disloyal to the president or trying to organise a coup d’état. 41  Symptomatic of fading morale, in early October, two air force pilots fled with the presidential plane to Saudi Arabia, claimed asylum and issued a statement criticising Isaias.42 In November, rumours spread about the defection of the information minister, Ali Abdu, one of the most loyal servants of the president and the mastermind of al- most absolute press censorship.43 His brother confirmed the desertion months later.44 In December, the entire national football team in Uganda, to play an international match, sought political asylum.45 These were the only cases that reached interna- tional media outlets’ attention, but they epitomise the experience of tens of thousands of Eritreans – mostly between twenty and 40, as well as an increasing number of unaccompanied minors – who fled during the year from unending military service and forced labour (see Section III.B below).46

III. The State of Eritrea
Isaias is the nucleus of the Eritrean state. His entrenched personal rule raises serious concerns about what will happen to the country, and by extension the region, should he be deposed or incapacitated. He developed his pivotal role during the 30-year struggle for liberation from Ethiopian rule, as the de facto leader of the Eritrean People Liberation Front (EPLF), the main front fighting for Eritrean independence. As president of the new country in 1993, he further centralised power and reduced it to an authoritarian siege state.47 The president maintains control by keeping the country on a perpetual war foot- ing; nullifying institutions and personalising all branches of the state; continuously fomenting rivalry; and constructing a system of patronage reliant solely on him. No institutional mechanism has been installed to resolve conflicts between the branches of government or between government and population. Governmental institutions have withered, replaced by informal governance by presidential dictate. The exception is the military, which appears to have maintained a certain degree of autonomy, such that it has reportedly questioned Isaias’s capacity to retain control and asked him to consider a transition at various points in the recent past. The president appears to have refused. Therefore, quite possibly with quiet approval of some senior officers, dissent within the ranks has started to grow. But it is a question whether this newly found desire for change is motivated by patriotic duty or by personal and financial interests. The foreign ministry suffers from the overall weakness of the formal offices of state and the president’s unilateral decision-making. The equivocal role that the in- ternational community, especially the UN, the old Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and “Western” nations played vis-à-vis Eritrea before its independence, has allowed the president to dismiss conventional diplomatic channels.48 His position was vindicated when the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) released its final and binding demarcation of the border in 2002, deciding Badme – dispute over which was a trigger for the war – was in Eritrea. Though they were guarantors of the peace agreement, major Western governments failed to ensure implementa- tion, largely (as Eritrea saw it) because of U.S. and others’ interests in maintaining good relations with their chosen regional ally, Ethiopia.49 In 2009 and 2011 the UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Asmara, for actions in support of Al-Shabaab in Somalia, as well as other destabilising activities, including an attempt to attack the annual AU summit in Addis Ababa.50 Once more,

the international community appeared to agree with Ethiopia’s assessment of Asmara as “the prime source of instability for the whole region”.51 However, the sanctions were aimed at punishing and isolating the leadership; rather than incentivising internal reforms, they likely inspired the opposite.52
A. The Foundation of a One-Man State The liberation struggle was often painted by international observers and Eritreans themselves as a victory of national unity, discipline and dedication over Ethiopian imperialism. There was an assumed unity between fighters and civilians (within the country and the diaspora) that for many years overshadowed the more complex real- ity that included centralised decision-making and the quashing of all internal dis- sent. In fact Isaias had become the EPLF’s leader by “employing cunning subterfuges and brutal repression against political rivals” within it and against rival liberation movements.53 At the same time, the EPLF leadership demanded unquestioning loyalty. In order to establish even greater cohesion in ideology, politics, organisation and national identity, it created a secret “party within the party”, the Eritrean People’s Revolu- tionary Party (EPRP).54 In time, however, the EPRP became more “an instrument of control than one of leadership”, and Isaias was at its epicentre.55 The political culture that emerged in the years spent in the bush, fusing authoritarianism with devotion, sowed the seed of dictatorship and the political culture behind it.56 When the EPLF liberated Eritrea in 1991 and achieved de jure independence in May 1993, Isaias made himself head of state and commander-in-chief. When the EPLF was transformed from a liberation front into the sole legal political party, the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), he was appointed chairman.57 Despite this, hopes for an open society and democratic institutions remained high among Eritreans and the international community.

1. The Dream Disintegrates From 1994 to 1997, it appeared progressive reforms would emerge. The government promised to produce a constitution, introduce multiparty politics and hold national elections. A constitutional commission drafted a charter that was ratified by a con- stituent assembly in May 1997. However, it was not implemented, and multiparty elections were never held. Instead, Isaias governed according to the political culture he had fostered during the liberation struggle. In the absence of a unifying common enemy (the role previously filled by occupying Ethiopian forces) and faced with an ethnically and religiously diverse population – especially the Christian-Muslim divide – the PFDJ sought to further entrench the notion of a single national identity as defined during “the struggle”.58 This led to codification of the EPLF’s values in a national charter approved by the PFDJ’s Third Congress in February 1994.59 The national charter expressed six goals for the new state: national harmony; po- litical democracy; economic and social development; social justice; cultural revival; and regional and international cooperation.60 “National unity”, “self-reliance in all fields” and a “strong relationship between the people and the leadership” were the paramount guidelines.61 Through the PFDJ, Isaias promoted a personalised relation- ship between the state and society, whereby the president secured power by extending his control over all state institutions and simultaneously cultivated the myth of the devoted leader.62 The president retained the power of appointing, promoting and demoting at all levels and single-handedly made nearly all decisions regarding the country’s political trajectory. Former fighters (tegadelay) were appointed in all main ministerial capaci- ties, but when some of these liberation heroes in the party and government criticised the way Isaias ruled, their membership was terminated and careers ended.63 Only PFDJ members (and just those uncritical of the president) were entitled to the fruits of the liberation struggle.

Few early leaders of the “struggle” have remained in Isaias’s circle. “Second-or even third-tier revolutionaries or close associates of the president” guide the state.64 The president also deliberately duplicates responsibilities: behind official department heads and ministers, he appoints shadow officers, who report directly to him and hold real power. Isaias tends to prefer figures he can easily manipulate – those who have little familiarity with the topic they have been asked to work on – and who retain a strong sense of loyalty and gratitude toward the president who has appointed them.65 The outbreak of the war with Ethiopia in May 1998 not only allowed Isaias a strong reason to put off democratisation, but also provided him with justification to further concentrate power in his hands.66 During the critical weeks of the third phase of fighting, May to June 2000, the president sidelined the defence minister and as- sumed direct control of military operations. The “imperiousness with which Isaias directed policy and strategy became a matter of grave concern” in the PFDJ leader- ship and created a deep sense of distress among senior liberation figures.67 Yet, open criticism was delayed until the war ended.
2. The Stifling of Dissent In October 2000, a group of academics and professionals in the diaspora wrote a letter to Isaias, the “Berlin Manifesto”, criticising the tendency toward one-man rule.68 More distressing for the president were growing complaints by reformers in the leadership (known as the G15). The group later signed an open letter accusing him of keeping the country on a constant war footing and called for the long overdue national assembly meeting on the border conflict with Ethiopia and the constitution’s implementation. Isaias dismissed these demands and took advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. to quietly arrest eleven. They have been held incommunicado ever since.69 He then closed all independent media outlets,

arrested large numbers of journalists, repressed religious faiths he perceived as anti- state and restricted citizens’ movements inside and outside the country.70
3. The Removal of Checks and Balances The judicial system has been simultaneously dismantled. If formal legal codes do exist, they are completely ignored.71 Presidential decrees have replaced the rule of law. Judges are not independent and are closely monitored by the office of the president. In 2001, several, including the chief justice, criticised increasing executive interference.72 They were promptly dismissed. Along with a number of informal committees run locally by the secret service, army and police commanders,73 the heart of the current legal system is the Special Court, a parallel jurisdiction unfettered by legal codes. Created in 1996, its original mandate was to halt the perceived decline in moral standards in the civil administra- tion.74 It now hears criminal, political and administrative cases. The court comprises PFDJ officials and army commanders handpicked by Isaias and accountable exclusively to him. Sessions are held in secret. According to Bereket Habte Selassie, the former head of the Constitution Commission, “the rule of law has gone to the dogs in Eritrea”.75 The president has granted enormous power to the police, intelligence services and the army to crush dissent. The country has been described as “a giant prison” where thousands of prisoners have vanished in a network of undisclosed jails.76
B. The Role of the Military Eritrea has evolved into a highly militarised society, shaped by war and run by war- riors, in which citizenship is associated not with rights but obligations equated to in- definite national service.77 After independence, as a continuation of previous EPLF policies,78 Isaias created a system of military national service centred on the Sawa training camp.79 The official aim was to inculcate the younger generations with the spirit of the liberation struggle, but the impact was to cow society.80 After war broke out in 1998, national service became in effect indefinite and youths (and more gen- erally adults under the age of 50) were absorbed into the military machinery with little prospect of demobilisation. In 2002, the system was institutionalised in the Wefri Warsai Yika’alo development campaign.81  According to Isaias, national service is mandatory for nation-building, to imbue the youth with loyalty and discipline, as well as to stifle regionalism and create nation- al consensus to build a national identity.82 It serves the dual purpose of eliminating dissent and reinforcing the army, which has become increasingly necessary for maintaining power. The result is an overwhelming militarisation of an already author- itarian regime, supported by the disastrous rhetoric that all problems have a military solution. Therefore, the military plays a leading role in coercing and intimidating the population. To secure their loyalty and protect himself from internal dissent, the president bestowed increasing favours from the state, both financial and material, on high- ranking officers, thereby creating enormous corruption within the EDF.83 National service is used as a source of free, forced labour for “parastatal” farms or companies directly in the hands of individual generals.84 “The political ties between the military and the president are maintained through clientelistic networks of … incentives”.85 By buying the support of the military, Isaias and his political elite maintain control but have also in effect made the EDF’s highest echelons the arbiter of any future transition of power. The practical implications are that the country has been divided into five military zones, headed by generals who have become the most important figures – after Isaias – in Eritrea. They hold absolute power over their regions, with little oversight from the centre. All are under the direct control of the president but have steadily built their own networks of loyalty and interests and appear to have gained significant independence. Prominent generals and senior PFDJ leaders are reportedly raising the issue of presidential succession. Some sources claim that the generals have split into two groups: loyalists, totally aligned with the president,86 and sceptics, who are losing

confidence in Isaias’s methods, see the army’s decline and understand that if Ethiopia attacks it would be impossible to defend the country.87 The latter think the only way out is to have a transition and maybe deal with Ethiopia, and they are showing their discontent. But at the same time, the generals are compromised by their own stakes in the system; “they could make peace with Ethiopia …. Their problem is they do not know how to manage it. The dilemma comes because they do not want to demobilise, since all their power comes from the mobilised army”.88 There are rumours the sceptics have asked the president to step aside and support a smooth, internal transition, so as to avoid the country’s collapse (and the loss of their clientelistic interests). Isaias appears to have resisted this pressure and re- sponded with a new round of freezing and reshuffling of both the higher and lower ranks.89 The challenge also may be behind reports alleging he has decided to arm various civilian militias in order to protect himself from parts of the army.
C. The Radical Approach to Foreign Relations90 The president developed a militarised approach toward all neighbouring countries despite differing opinions in his government, including the foreign ministry.91 Isaias played on the general animosity between states in the region to promote the idea that Eritrea was surrounded by enemies in order to justify its militarisation and to promote the values and habits of the struggle as the foundation of national unity. Hostilities with Ethiopia have dominated, and though the war formally ended with the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000, there was no settlement over the border and wider bilateral relations. Tension remained, and both leaderships acted as if overcoming the enemy was crucial to their regime’s very survival,92 as well as to regional predominance. In fact, in the war’s aftermath, both faced mounting internal dissent that they moved to suppress.93 In doing so, they strengthened de facto one- party systems, strayed from promised democratisation and closed political space, while respect for human rights deteriorated. Eritrea, however, experienced the sharpest and most enduring turn toward repression.94 A war of words continued, and both governments gave support (political and fi- nancial, weaponry and training) to rebel groups to destabilise the other.95 Direct in- volvement in the Somali conflict was part of this animosity. The strategy was not only to further regional strategic interests, but also, and perhaps more so, to overcome each other on the Somali battlefield by escalating that conflict to a “proxy war”, though in Somalia, Ethiopia was undoubtedly pursuing wider interests than just containing Eritrea.96  In 2007, after Ethiopia’s contested intervention into Somalia to remove the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC),97 Asmara suspended its membership in IGAD, accusing it of favouring Addis Ababa and U.S. policies in the region, and by doing so undermining regional security.98 In 2008, Eritrea had a brief border skirmish with another IGAD member, Djibouti, and refused UN mediation, finally opting for Qatari-led arbitra- tion.99 Asmara openly realigned toward countries hostile to Addis (and in some cases hostile also to Ethiopia’s Western allies), in particular to Libya (during Qadhafi’s tenure), Iran, Egypt (under Mubarak) and Qatar.100 Addis meanwhile gained the confidence and support of the West, especially the U.S. and UK, as they deemed Prime Minister Meles a staunch ally in their “war against terrorism”.101  In 2009, the UN imposed sanctions on Eritrea for supporting Al-Shabaab in So- malia and refusing to withdraw troops from the contested border with Djibouti.102 Certainly, it gave some help to the UIC and maintained ties with Somali Islamist insurgents, some of whom became Al-Shabaab after the split within the Alliance for Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) and the creation of Sheikh Sharif’s Transitional Fed- eral Government (TFG).103 However, this was a tactical, anti-Ethiopian move, typical of the EPLF, not a strategic or political alliance with jihadist groups.104 Other states, including Ethiopia, gave arms to factions inside Somalia despite the Security Council embargo but were not sanctioned.105 Ethiopia deployed effective diplomacy. Eritrea did not, and as a result its government appeared to consider itself abandoned by the international community over both the post-war dispute and broader regional issues.106 In 2011, after Ethiopia gave the UN Sanctions Group evidence Eritrean agents planned to bomb the AU summit in Addis Ababa, more sanctions were added.107 Asmara’s relations have also been fraught with Sudan, the border with which re- mains undemarcated.108 A year after independence, it broke diplomatic ties due to armed cross-border incidents linked to the activities of the Eritrean Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamic organisation that the government alleged was financed and support- ed by Khartoum.109 Isaias subsequently hosted and trained the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which fought alongside other Sudanese opposition movements.110  Direct relations with Khartoum resumed in 2005, though both continue to ex- change allegations of the others’ support for rebel movements.111 However, Asmara also brokered agreements reached by the Sudanese Eastern Front and the Sudanese government on 14 October 2006, and in exchange Khartoum cut off support to Mus- lim movements inside Eritrea.112 The fragile internal situation of both regimes, as well as their antagonism toward the U.S. and Western policies generally in the Horn of Africa, created the basis for cooperation out of mutual self-interest.113  Eritrea’s lukewarm membership in the AU has been guaranteed so far (previously by Qadhafi’s Libya and Mubarak’s Egypt, now by South Africa due to its interest in the mining sector). It had no formal representation at the AU, the headquarters of  which is in Ethiopia’s capital, from 2003 until 2011. Attempts have been made by some members for Eritrea to rejoin IGAD – so far without success, due to resistance from Ethiopia, Djibouti and Kenya.114 Despite its mandate to encourage inter- governmental cooperation and regional peace, IGAD has been unable to defuse the tension between Eritrea and its immediate neighbours, especially Ethiopia and Dji- bouti.115 However high-level – including presidential – contacts continue between Eritrea and Sudan, South Sudan and, more recently, Uganda.116

IV. Scenarios for Post-Isaias Eritrea
Isaias’s exit – whether by death, involuntarily or by choice – is almost surely a pre- condition for anything much to change. However, it is by no means the only obstacle, and to focus simply on it as the solution to Eritrean problems would be misguided.117 The problems are so systemic that the mere absence of their architect would not be enough to initiate reform. And whether the same figures who have grown powerful in Isaias’s shadow, implemented his rule and profited from his clientelistic system could be the ones to make a difference is questionable.118 Government repression and the president’s central role in it have meant that a conversation about life after Isaias is impossible inside the country. Outside, the di- aspora is too fragmented and focused on demonising the president to present a per- suasive vision.119 While it is impossible to predict confidently what will happen should Isaias die or be incapacitated, the absence of an institutional mechanism for power transfer and divisions and corruption within the army – the likely arbiter of who rules next – make for a high risk of instability. No viable internal candidate to champion reform – and replace the president – has appeared, but the defections and high-ranking dissent have created unprece- dented tension within the previously extremely loyal PFDJ ranks: “Whatever has happened in Asmara on 21 January, it could not have happened without some generals supporting it”.120 Beyond personal interests, there is awareness of the disastrous state of the military. They know that if Ethiopia launches new incursions, their careers and networks likely will end. Many observers abroad welcome these tensions and want to believe that the generals are fuelled by patriotic preoccupations.121 With no public debate possible inside Eritrea, the only alternative voices are in the diaspora, but they are divided, scattered and not relevant at home.122 Their only common goal is to get rid of Isaias. To achieve this, most have accepted Ethiopia’s support, exposing them to accusations of treating with the historic enemy.123

Over the long years of exile the opposition has failed to build a coherent front and form a plan for a viable political, social and economic transition. Its members would have great difficulty to take over if not brought to power by external forces.124 They also do not appear to be considering – or to fully comprehend – the extent to which the economy has deteriorated and the social fabric been dismantled. Isaias is their enemy, and “contemporary Eritrea is a dreamland, not a real country”.125 “They do not seem to know their people”.126 They are especially distant from the younger people who have spent their best years between military service in trenches and forced labour in national service.127 How to reintegrate entire generations condemned to lives in the military or exile needs urgent assessment and answers. In light of the above discussion, a number of possible scenarios are offered that highlight some of the challenges and the main risks for conflict that an Eritrea without President Isaias Afwerki may face. A. A Refashioned PFDJ Maintaining the Status Quo The first envisages an agreement among senior military and civilian PFDJ figures to unseat Isaias, with the aim to preserve the regime. They would continue to use the threat of war to divert the people’s attention and maintain an extremely high level of military mobilisation. The new government would be an oligarchy, united by materi- al interests, though each member with an eye on gaining ultimate power by securing the presidency. The generals would have the upper hand, and the political leadership would be weaker than ever. Such a succession could not bring real reform, since the main aim would be to keep power and access to resources for the same, even if re- fashioned, elite. It is unlikely such a marriage of interests among competing power centres (PFDJ, army, secret services, police, etc.) would be able to preserve political and national unity in the long run. It has also been suggested that Isaias may be grooming his 26-year-old son, Abraham. However, this dynastic solution would have the same weaknesses.128 Because of the military’s increased power in this scenario, it would be very difficult to change policies vis-à-vis Ethiopia and the region. The generals would have a strong incentive to perpetuate the national service, also because they benefit from the steady supply of draftees who work in military-controlled parastatal companies,129 some of which are eventually expected to do much of the work in rapidly developing gold and other mining projects.130 Senior officers, notably the western zone com- mander, General Teklai Kifle “Manjus”, have been accused by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea of running a lucrative business smuggling people

out.131 Long-serving lower ranks also profit from clientelism; they might fight to preserve the status quo and support officers undermining any reconciliation process with Ethiopia, since a real peace would trigger massive demobilisation.132 Continued PFDJ rule would sustain the myth of self-reliance, and reject an opening toward regional economic cooperation and integration. There would, therefore, be an economic imperative for continuing the Wefri Warsai Yika’alo policy rather than demobilising. While a huge number of educated youths have sought political asylum abroad, at least 400,000 are estimated to remain in almost permanent military service inside Eritrea.133 If conscripts were demobilised, the economy’s disastrous state would immediately be revealed, as it could not absorb so many into civilian jobs. This, combined with the social impact of so many disillusioned young men and women returning to civilian life, would further undermine stability. Better educated, and skilled, émigrés who have left within the last ten years would not feel encouraged to return, since their oppressors would still be in power. The likely result of a refashioned regime would be a weaker government, needing to further repress its population lest it collapse.
B. PFDJ, without Isaias, but Eritrea Sues for Peace with Ethiopia This scenario would be politically identical to the previous one, but with the new PFDJ leadership shifting from a policy of the “enemy at the gate” toward one of seeking peace with Ethiopia. The new leadership might do this to avoid risky direct military confrontation with a now much stronger enemy. Should relations be normalised, it would mean the collapse of virtually the entire rationale for the argument that “this is not the time” for demobilisation, reintegra- tion of recruits and opening of political space. That would in turn undermine the very basis of the PFDJ reign. Once a peace deal is signed, the Wefri Warsai Yikaalo policy would appear meaningless, so there would be consequent need to reform the national service, reduce the half-million-strong army that is around 10 per cent of the population and put in place a serious Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) program.134 The current regime cannot do this, because it would necessitate rethinking the entire socio-political and economic system created after independence. The new re

gime would likely either have to find a soft way of ceding significant power to others – something for which the diaspora-based opposition is not prepared – or risk, with an unreliable army, a revolt likely led by trained former soldiers.135 Ethiopia’s response to peace overtures is uncertain following Meles’s death.136 In December 2012, the new prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, told Al Jazeera he was ready to go to Asmara to negotiate in order to enhance regional integration and development.137 This was perceived as an unprecedented opening, but not everyone in Addis Ababa’s political and military inner circle approved, especially in the ranks of the leading party, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).138 A few days later, Hailemariam had to return to his predecessor’s track, making clear that policy toward Eritrea had not changed.139 Considering the Ethiopian internal situation and the potential threat a broken Eritrea poses to its stability, Addis Ababa’s instinct might well lean toward cautious containment. 140
C. State Collapse (Leading to Civil War) If a political agreement between what remains of loyal senior PFDJ political figures and the generals does not follow, Isaias’s death or departure from power might easily lead to an all-out militarised struggle for control of the country and its resources. Loyalty – if any remains – is likely granted not to institutions but to generals and other officers in order to gain advantages in a deteriorated economy. A confrontation between military factions could lead to a disastrous civil war. This is particularly worrying since existing ethnic and religious divisions have been exacerbated by

Isaias’s policies and might be exploited by competing forces.141 Some ethnic-based rebel groups already operate in border areas and are supported by Ethiopia and Sudan.142 There are also growing tensions between Christians and Muslims,143 highlanders and lowlanders; the radical Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement operated inside the country in the early 1990s.144 If rival generals decide to exploit these competing social, religious and ethnic forces to seize absolute power, the potential for something similar to the early years of the Somali civil war would be very high, with the prospect for extensive casualties enhanced by the expertise that universal military training has given young Eritreans.145
D. External Mediation or Domination A fourth possibility is a power struggle, but with direct intervention by neighbouring countries. A civil war in Eritrea could spill over into Ethiopia, Sudan and (to a lesser extent) Djibouti. They all have ethnic cross-border issues with Eritrea and an interest in its stability for their own strategic reasons, both internally and regionally. Addis Ababa and Khartoum could be dragged into a civil war for various reasons, including to prevent conflict spilling over their borders, the contagion risk of existing internal dissent and economic and geopolitical interests. The two could either sup- port specific militias or intervene directly, justifying any intervention on the threat posed by the civil war.146 Intervention could play out in two ways: either a political agreement on how to establish peace (perhaps through IGAD and setting up a closely- mentored government, or by splitting the country in effect into zones of influence, as has happened in south-central Somalia);147 alternatively, should a regional agreement over Eritrea not be reached, they could offer direct or material support to competing Eritrean factions in order to satisfy their own national and regional security interests.

In either case, stability would be elusive, the potential for enduring conflict that could even trigger a wider conflagration extremely high.
E. Peaceful Transition to Multiparty Democracy This scenario is feasible, but appears difficult to bring about. It would involve a PFDJ-run transitional authority that, with the army’s consent, would initiate an un- precedented process of democratisation.148 Such an inclusive transitional government could be expected to implement the 1997 constitution, restore the national assembly, revive the defunct legal system, open negotiations with Ethiopia and perhaps eventually end the Wefri Warsai Yika’alo policy. It would initiate DDR, reshape the army, open the country to returnees from the diaspora and schedule multiparty elections. These developments would produce a transition from authoritarianism to a more open so- ciety. The transitional rulers might seek an amnesty for some of those involved in the previous regime. It is hard to imagine such a benign scenario, however, since the social divisions are so acute. At the very least, the political cultures of PFDJ members and diaspora leaders would be difficult to reconcile, and any power-sharing deal would be de- pendent on the army, which is clearly partisan. Typical generational divisions would almost surely emerge quickly, as most of the traditional diaspora leaders are old figures from the liberation struggle; the newer and younger refugees and asylum seekers might not be represented.149 The new government would face the tremendous challenge of a fractured society. For example, the consequences of the return of large numbers of young people from the front lines and military training camps, who have had terri- ble psychological and physical experiences, would need to be carefully considered and dealt with sensitively.150
F. Regime Change with Ethiopian Intervention This scenario takes into account bilateral tensions that have not diminished since the June 2000 ceasefire. The subsequent Algiers Peace Agreements did not revive diplomatic relations. Ethiopia refused to implement the boundary commission’s 2002 decision.151 Since then, troops have remained massed along the border, and both governments have engaged in proxy warfare to gain leverage. Covert activities  have included supporting rebel actions inside the other’s territory152 and indirectly targeting each other by meddling in other countries’ affairs, for example in Sudan and, especially, in Somalia.  On 15 March 2012, following a decade-long war of words, Ethiopia conducted several incursions into Eritrea aimed at dismantling camps used by an Ethiopian rebel group (ARDUF) to launch cross-border attacks. In May, it again carried out military operations inside its neighbour’s territory, occupying some villages. Though not confirmed, some claim the second round was aimed at exposing Asmara’s de- clining military capacity; others point to attacks against other rebel (TPDM) bases.153 Addis Ababa will also possibly have wanted to remind regional leaders of the balance of power in the region, at a time when Isaias was initiating a new round of regional talks. Presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Omar el-Bashir of Sudan were visiting Ethiopia during the May incursions.154  Should the situation in Eritrea worsen, Ethiopia’s political and military reaction will be critical. Since almost all the organised (and armed) opposition parties are based in Addis Ababa and rely financially and logistically on the government,155 the new post-Meles leadership could play a positive role by offering a transitional lead- ership in Asmara a fresh diplomatic start, reopening economic ties and providing support for a non-partisan, inclusive political initiative.  But given the close links between the two countries and especially the populations adjacent to the border, any democratisation in Eritrea would inevitably have impli- cations for Ethiopia as well. Any Ethiopian intervention would likely have a security rather than democracy agenda. Hawkish responses are conceivable: Ethiopia could seal its border or seize the opportunity to support one faction in Asmara. It might even take advantage of instability to achieve one of the longstanding goals of hard- liners, control of the port of Assab in order to end the country’s land-locked status. Otherwise, Ethiopia could decide to impose a government in Asmara, either directly or indirectly. It might be accepted at the beginning by a tired and confused Eritrean population but would not likely be viable in the long term given the history of struggle with Ethiopia.

V. Conclusion
Even though some degree of turbulence appears inevitable whenever and however Isaias departs the scene, a wider coalition of regional and international actors should work toward a controlled transition, as much preferable to unmanaged change. If another authoritarian – but inevitably weaker – regime takes power in Asmara, or indeed if an externally dominated government is imposed, further instability is like- ly, with profound consequences for the entire Horn of Africa. If a power-sharing agreement is negotiated, it should be kept in mind that Isaias is not Eritrea’s sole problem. Dissident factions within the regime will want to keep real power, and diaspora-based opposition figures and groups do not really know – or represent – the population inside the country or most refugees. While political mediation should start as soon as possible, a concomitant assessment of Eritrea’s various and interconnected problems should be part of a structured and proactive engagement by the regional stakeholders and wider international stakeholders. Specific attention should be paid to new, younger leaders emerging in the diaspora, including refugee camps, since demand for real change is more likely to come from these quarters. Attention should also be paid to the socio-economic and psychological side effects of the crisis. Plans for specific DDR programs should be put in place for those who have been serving in the army; the security sector will need to be reformed; and projects will have to be created simultaneously that focus on reintegrating those who fled their country, so as to avoid fissures developing both in the immediate aftermath of transition and during the subsequent attempts at state-rebuilding. In a historic moment for the Horn of Africa – with a leadership transition in Ethiopia; a decaying and embattled ruling National Congress Party in Sudan; recent electoral unrest in Djibouti; a new state in South Sudan displaying worrying ethnic divisions; a new government that still relies on foreign troops for survival in a Somalia vast swathes of which remain in the hands of armed groups; and physical proximity to a Yemen undergoing an unstable transition156 – there is an urgent need to pursue stability in Eritrea. That would benefit the entire region. But the contrary could quickly spark instability well beyond Eritrea’s borders, entangling not just the Horn of Africa, but even the Red Sea littoral, due to its strategic location.
Nairobi/Brussels, 28 March 2013

———-Notes

About The Author

Prof Muse Tegegne

Prof Muse is one of the six founders and responsible for EPPF on 15 June 1998 in Awegaro. A city not far between Ethiopia and the Eritrean border. Today, he still struggling for the liberation of free democratic Ethiopia. He is Founder of Mobile University.

See author's posts