Personal Response to an Anonymous Reader from Inside Eritrea

Dr. Shiden Solomon, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA

March 23, 2025

Before delving into my response, I must begin with a disclaimer. As someone who has meticulously read and analyzed all three books, my reflections are purely personal and represent my understanding of the content and the critiques raised. While my views are shaped by the intellectual discourse presented in the books, I acknowledge that they may not align with the author’s own interpretations. Consequently, I take full responsibility for my comments.

First, I must commend the anonymous reader for their articulate and perceptive critique. Their thorough engagement with the books demonstrates a commitment to intellectual inquiry that deserves recognition. It is evident that the reader invested considerable time and effort to scrutinize the complex themes, ideological narratives, and personal experiences presented in the texts. Such dedication reflects a genuine pursuit of understanding, and I deeply respect that.

However, I must respectfully challenge certain points raised in the critique. The reader contends that the book’s intricate methodology and intellectual rigor make it challenging for an average reader to grasp its core message. While I acknowledge that the book demands a high level of engagement, I fundamentally disagree that this should be seen as a shortcoming. The author’s decision to maintain a sophisticated analytical approach is not an arbitrary choice but a deliberate commitment to uphold established scholarly standards. To dilute this intellectual rigor in an attempt to accommodate perceived limitations in the audience’s understanding would be to compromise the integrity of the work itself. Moreover, one must ask: by what criteria is the intellectual capacity of the target audience assessed? Eritreans, whether residing in the country or the diaspora, cannot be generalized under a singular intellectual profile. The intended readership may well include those outside the Eritrean community—individuals seeking insights into how well-intentioned movements can devolve into oppressive regimes. The books’ universal relevance underscores the importance of preserving their analytical depth rather than simplifying their content.

The reader also criticizes the omission of specific historical events, such as the march of disabled fighters from May Habar and the violent measures that followed. While this incident indeed unfolded during the author’s presence in the country, its absence from the books is not, in my view, a deliberate oversight. The demand for an apology from the author is not only unwarranted but verges on being unjust. As the reader acknowledges, the books are not intended to serve as exhaustive chronicles of Eritrean history. Rather, they examine pivotal historical events that shaped the nation’s descent into authoritarianism. The omission of certain incidents does not diminish the book’s value; rather, it reflects the author’s intention to focus on those events deemed most critical in shaping the country’s trajectory. Historical narratives are inherently selective, and authors must exercise judgment in determining which episodes best support their central thesis.

Another event mentioned by the reader is the religious dissent led by Haji Musa regarding an Islamic school in Akria, which resulted in his detention. While this significant event is not included in the first edition of the book, the author has openly discussed its political implications in numerous interviews and public discourses. Its exclusion does not signify disregard or deliberate omission. Instead, I believe the author made a strategic decision to prioritize themes that align with the book’s broader exploration of systemic oppression and missed political opportunities. As previously mentioned, the books are not intended to catalogue every act of defiance or dissent; they are analytical works that focus on key moments that shaped the nation’s political landscape.

The most pertinent question we must ask is whether the book successfully conveys its intended message with clarity, intellectual depth, and impartiality. In my view, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Not only does the book present a compelling narrative that transcends partisan biases, but it also elevates the discourse surrounding Eritrea’s political history. The author’s meticulous analysis, while demanding, enriches the reader’s understanding and invites critical reflection. The book’s ability to inspire admiration from a diverse audience—including scholars, historians, and individuals invested in Eritrea’s political future—attests to its remarkable achievement.

In conclusion, while I respect the reader’s concerns and recognize the emotional weight they carry, I maintain that the author’s work is a powerful contribution to understanding Eritrea’s complex historical trajectory. Rather than expecting the author to offer an exhaustive recounting of every event, we should appreciate the analytical framework he employs to dissect the mechanisms through which movements, however noble in intent, can succumb to authoritarian impulses. The book’s strength lies in its ability to illuminate these patterns and provide insights that extend far beyond Eritrea’s borders, serving as a cautionary tale for nations around the world.

The reader’s comments in section 18.2 regarding the writer’s assertion that external intervention is unlikely to drive meaningful change offer valuable insights. While it is understandable that the reader found the author’s statement lacking in elaboration, there are key contextual factors that align with his perspective.

The author’s conclusion—that change driven by external forces is improbable—appears to stem from a broader observation that such interventions have historically resulted in instability, prolonged conflict, and even worsened conditions. While the author may not have explicitly referenced examples, cases like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan demonstrate the catastrophic outcomes of externally driven change. Libya’s collapse into factional violence following NATO intervention, Iraq’s enduring instability post-invasion, and Afghanistan’s swift return to Taliban rule after decades of foreign involvement all underline the risks posed by external interventions that fail to account for internal complexities.

Furthermore, the author’s silence on the justification for his viewpoint seems to reflect a calculated assumption that stable, lasting change must originate from within. History has shown that sustainable peace and development are far more achievable when internal actors, with a deep understanding of their country’s social, political, and economic fabric, lead the charge for reform. This perspective emphasizes that change, when imposed externally, often caters more to the interests of foreign stakeholders than to the stability and prosperity of the nation itself.

Current global dynamics further strengthen the author’s stance. Nations that could historically influence such interventions are themselves preoccupied with internal crises or regional conflicts. The United States and the European Union are grappling with urgent domestic challenges, reducing their focus on foreign interventions. Meanwhile, powers like Russia and China—potential counterforces to Western influence—are entangled in their own geopolitical struggles, such as Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine and China’s trade disputes. Even regional actors, such as Ethiopia and Sudan, face internal unrest and instability, limiting their capacity to exert influence on neighboring states.

In this light, the author’s conclusion emerges as pragmatic rather than dismissive. While he may not have explicitly stated the rationale for his position, current global affairs and the historical failures of foreign intervention lend credence to his view. The omission of explicit reasoning may have been a shortcoming, but the unfolding geopolitical landscape seems to vindicate his wisdom.

The author’s belief that stable and lucrative change can only emerge from within aligns with the reality that enduring peace must be rooted in the will and agency of the local population. External interventions, even when well-intentioned, risk empowering warlords and factions that are difficult to tame, ultimately perpetuating cycles of violence rather than resolving them.

In conclusion, I thank the reader for their thoughtful critique. While the author’s argument could have been more clearly articulated, the broader geopolitical context appears to support his assertion and reinforces the value of internal momentum for lasting stability.

These remarks are my considered reflections in response to the reader’s initial comments. If time permits, I will endeavor to provide my personal thoughts on the second part of their critique. Additionally, I must emphasize that these reflections address only select points raised by the reader. There are other remarks for which I hold no particular opinion or to which I remain indifferent, and as such, I have refrained from commenting on them. This selective response is not out of disregard but rather a reflection of my commitment to engage thoughtfully with points where I feel my perspective can contribute meaningfully to the discourse.