To my mind, the weakness of Tronvoll’s claim to expertise on Eritrea was already evident in his 1998 book, “Mai Weini: A Highland Village in Eritrea”. I remember discussing the flaws of its contents with one of the editors at the time . But his most revealing failure came in his 2009 report “THE LASTING STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM IN ERITREA” for the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, when he questioned Eritrea’s overwhelming referendum result on grounds that exposed the weakness of his own reasoning and his pseudo-expertise. “No doubt the Eritrean people wanted independence in 1993,” he conceded, before casting doubt on the 99.8 percent vote that expressed precisely that desire. His objection rested on the assumption that historical affiliations, commercial interests, and supposed communal loyalties should have produced a different result. When Eritreans failed to vote according to his expectations, he questioned their choice. That is an extraordinary inversion of scholarly reasoning: the electorate must be suspect because it failed to confirm the expert’s assumptions. His argument treats Afar, Kunama, merchants, Orthodox Tewahdo Christians, and highland communities as though their political choices could be deduced from selected accounts of an outsider who knew little to none about them, their suffering, their struggle and their sacrifice. Where, in that reasoning, is the Eritrean individual, the person capable of weighing experience, rejecting an earlier affiliation, and choosing independence? Shallow scholarship. More revealing still, Tronvoll acknowledged that the “absolute majority” had no interest in the alternatives he considered meaningful. Yet instead of taking that overwhelming preference seriously, he reduced the referendum to a symbolic exercise. The circularity is striking: he conceded that Eritreans wanted independence, conceded that the overwhelming majority wanted no alternative, and nevertheless treated their overwhelming vote for independence as grounds for suspicion. The problem was evidently not that Eritreans had failed to express their wishes. It was that their wishes left too little room for his preferred interpretation. Eritreans did not endure decades of sacrifice to have their political agency explained away by an outside commentator. Our independence is not an academic hypothesis awaiting Tronvoll’s approval. Our sovereignty rests on our struggle and our people’s decision. It requires no certificate of legitimacy from him. His reliance on Tekeste Negash as a source might have mislead him but that does not rescue the argument. Whatever Negash’s stated national identification, the relevant question is whether the evidence supports the conclusion. One scholar’s assumptions do not become proof merely because another scholar repeats them. Tronvoll’s real specialty appears to be Woyane fandom masquerading as expertise. He may have compared notes with the likes of Getachew Reda, but access is no substitute for understanding. His superficial grasp of the language and culture leaves him poorly equipped to recognize the duplicity of the very political actors he presumes to explain. That is why for an Eritrean to give Tronvoll an uncritical platform makes it a shameful exercise. Anyone presenting him as an authority should confront him with the contradiction at the heart of his own words: if he accepts that Eritreans overwhelmingly wanted independence, why does he find their overwhelming vote for independence so difficult to accept?

The #UAE is backing the #Prosperity Party’s confrontation with #Eritrea and fueling instability in #Sudan through its support for the #RSF. It must be held accountable for enabling aggression. The #Horn deserves peace, not proxy wars. #UAEBloodInYourHands #RespectEritreasSovereignty