Our struggle and its goals: a controversial Eritrean manifesto

Abstract

Written in 1971 in one of Eritrea's languages, Our struggle and its goals is a controversial manifesto in Eritrea's political history. For some Eritreans, it is a malevolent document that has produced an unexpected sectarian project with disastrous consequences. For others, it is one of the best political documents ever written in the history of the Eritrean struggle. In any case, it is significant to scholarship especially to those who care about nation-building in ethnically and politically diverse societies. To make it easily available to researchers, an English translation is provided, following a short explanatory note.

Keywords:

• Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF)
• Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF)
• Jebha
• manifesto
• NHnan Elamanan

Acknowledgments

Notes

Variations in spelling in the Tigrinya title are common, as words are written in the same way they are pronounced which slightly varies from one individual to the other. ‘Nhnan Elamanan’ could thus be ‘Nihnan Elamanan’, ‘Nehnan Elamanan’ ‘Nhnan Alamanan’ ‘Nhnan Ilamanan’, and the numerous possibilities one can generate by combining the different forms of the two words. This version is copied and distributed by ‘Eritreans for Independence in Europe’. The front cover and pictures inside the text are omitted. At the end of the document, a glossary of words that the author/s of the manifesto considered new to the reader was provided. This glossary is omitted here.

The Eritrean people do not constitute a national minority within a state. They have the characteristics of a people according to the law of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Peoples. In their quality as a people they have the right to live freely, and without prejudice to its national identity and culture, within the boundaries of their own territory as delimited during the colonial period up to 1950. The identity of the Eritrean people, determined, in particular, by its resistance to Italian colonialism was recognised by Resolution 390(V) of the General Assembly of the United Nations… The right of the Eritrean people to self-determination does not therefore constitute a form of secession, and can today only be exercised by achieving independence; the will of the Eritrean people having been clearly demonstrated in this regard by the armed struggle which has been carried on by the liberation fronts for nearly 20 years. (Permanent Peoples' Tribunal 1980, extract reprinted in Review of African Political Economy, issue 25, p. 51).

Questions of encroachment upon Eritrea's autonomy would appear, under the circumstances, to have been outside the domestic domain. Even assuming that Eritrea and Ethiopia had the option to reject the federation scheme – a debatable proposition – the federation plan did not purport to become legally operative solely though the consent of its participants. The approval of the United Nations General Assembly was a sine qua non to its genesis. Furthermore, since the Federal Act did not contain a revision clause, it would be argued that the federation plan could not be altered in any way short of action by the General Assembly.

When the translation was done, one version of the English translation was discovered in Liberation, monthly magazine by Eritreans for Liberation in North America (Volume II, no. 3, 3 March 1973). A copy of the magazine appears to be available at the Nordic African Library, Uppsala, Sweden. However, this discovery does not render this translation less significant.

  Compare, for example, the following part quoted by Pool (1980, p. 44) and followed by the text in italic which is part of this translation:

Conditions being such, should one opt to face butchery in the hands of the ‘Jebha’ simply because one was born a Christian or should one surrender to the enemy, the Haile Selassie government? Which option is better? Dying at the hands of religious fanatics or giving one's hand to the enemy? Both are abominable; both are poisonous pills to swallow; both mean death. Moreover, to make neither choice is tantamount to sitting on the edge of a sharp blade. But rather than choose either of the two alternatives, it is better to sit on the edge of a sharp blade. In this situation, which alternative is better: to submit yourself to the sword of the evildoers merely because you are a Christian or to surrender to the enemy? Dying in the hands of religious fanatics or surrendering to the enemy is equivalent to death. Both alternatives are abominable. Both options are bitter. Not picking either of the options is the same as sitting on the edge of a blade. Nonetheless, it is better to sit on the edge of a blade than to opt for either one of the two alternatives.

Some kind of explosive or gun.

The name given to the Semitic peoples in the highlands of Eritrea and Ethiopia mainly the Tigrinya/Tigrawot and the Amhara.