kòq ÃöIÊq ŠrDïŠgñq kòo‹X]oñ¥} „íXqV
ERITREAN CATHOLIC SECRETARIAT
(Er.C.S)
2/4 Digsa Street-178
P.O.Box
1990
ASMARA-ERITREA
Tel.
120514/125000
Fax
+291-1-120070
…]KV________________
ASMARA
cëÃöU_________________
Ref. No
Clarifications about the recent nationalization
of the Catholic Church’s Health Centers in Eritrea
Asmara, 25 June 2019
(Translation
from the Tigrinya original language)
In recent weeks, twenty-one Catholic Church-owned
clinics, spread throughout the country, have been confiscated on the orders of
the Eritrean government. If we recall the eight closures of last year, again at the order of the government, the health Centers
condemned to suffer such a fate amount to twenty-nine units. Though the
Catholic Bishops have expressed their opposition to this measure, they have not
yet received any response from the State authorities. On the other hand, some
information has been passed on to the mass media which, for being decidedly
erroneous or deliberately misleading, is confusing those who, far or near, are
unable to verify its reliability. It is precisely for the benefit of the latter
that we consider it our duty to offer the following clarifications and
specifications.
1. Mr. Tajadin Abedel Aziz, Director of the Public
Relations Office of the Ministry of Health, in an interview with Asmara’s
correspondent of Radio Voice of America on 12 June 2019 said, against
the evidence of the facts, that “it was a matter of administrative actions
of delivery and not of closure or of nationalization of the Centers, or of
intimidation of staff and employees.”
- Well, we all know what the terms “delivery/passing
on of something to someone” mean in the common modus operandi. How then to
define behaviors such as: taking unilateral decisions about our structures
and personnel without any previous agreement on the matter, without any
notice, without a minimum of dialogue with the legitimate superior
authorities who own those structures, without any attempt to understand
the spirit and purpose of such institutions?
- If it had been a matter of “delivery”, is it
acceptable that those who requested them [the government envoys], indeed
imposed them, did so without presenting a letter, a formal written piece
of document of accompaniment, signed by the higher sending and ordering
authority? In the absence of all this, can anyone politely tell us in
which category of actions should we classify what has happened in our Centers
in these days?
·
Such being the situation,
it is useless to declare that this was not a question of nationalization: the
action taken against our Clinics was not only such, but on account of the way it
was carried out, it went far beyond mere nationalization! While in some
locations actions of force were involved, in other Centers the staff were
ordered to “get out of the way”, the premises were sealed, and the staff was placed
in a position to be unable to accommodate patients…
·
Words of threat and bullying have been spoken in
various Centers. This could be observed by people who, unexpectedly, found
themselves involved during the course of these deplorable events. When the
staff on duty at our Clinics were required to sign the property transfer of the
premises, and legitimately and conscientiously replied that such an act was not
of their competence - as they were just mere executors of higher orders, and
specified that such an act was of competence of the Church authority - at this
stage the reaction of those making the request was more of intimidation and,
sometimes, of blandishment.
2. Often, when issues such as the ones we are now
talking about are raised, there is a kind of mantra repeated over and over
again: “We have not touched religion”, “religious freedom is protected and
guaranteed by law”, “Eritrea is a secular state” (in Tigrinya ‘alemawi:
secular’), “State and religions, Politics and religions are separate
realities”, and so on.
·
It is our firm belief that, with the recent
requisitions of our Clinics, a specific right of our religion has been
violated, which prescribes “to love others and to do good to them”. Any measure
that prevents us from fulfilling - within the law and without harming anyone -
the obligations that come to us from the supreme commandment of brotherly love,
is and remains a violation of the fundamental right of religious freedom. At
the same time, another right is violated: the right of people who choose, or
need to, make use of our social services.
·
To freely carry out a just obligation of one’s own
religion, without harming others and in full compliance with the law, in no way
can be configured as an encroachment on politics. In this case, neither we nor
our social institutions can be accused of “political interference”, just as we
cannot be accused of having exceeded the limits of our rights or of having
committed acts of partisanship, ethnic-religious
discrimination or favoritism, in our services among the population. The persons
who, in one way or another, attend the contexts in which we operate and serve,
will be able to witness to this without fear of denial.
·
Moreover, does the fact
that a State pursues a secular political line imply the right to impede, on its
part, the works of charity that are carried out on the basis of one’s religious
belief? If there is a new definition of secularity, we would be really happy to
know about it! Otherwise, what is the point of trumpeting the full respect of
religious freedom while, at the same time, the State binds hands and feet
(figuratively!) to those who, for a free personal choice, have dedicated their
lives to the service of others, especially the neediest?
· More
was said about the clinics in question: it was stated that their closure would
not have a significant (negative) impact on the NHS, and even if such an impact
existed, it wouldn’t make any difference... There’s no need to discuss the
matter! It would suffice that a third and autonomous party goes to the sites
and checks the situation personally, or that it inspects the records of the
Ministry of Health, which monthly collected reports on the activities carried
out by our Clinics: it would have seen firsthand that the patients making daily
use of such clinics are in the hundreds, while the annual figures amounted to more
than 200.000 patients. These numbers are enough to highlight the total untenability
of the aforementioned statements.
3. There are many States in the world, among which some
of the countries not far from Eritrea, that follow the so-called “lay” or “secular”
political line. Nonetheless, they have not banned the charitable and social works
of the Church or confiscated the means and structures that the Church owns and
uses to carry on such works. In those countries, the Church has always operated, and it still operates, without problems and without
hindrance. Unfortunately, here with us, this pseudo-argument is becoming a
pretext or a cover-up for an embezzlement of Church’s assets and for an unjust proscription
of its social activities.
4. Finally, it must be taken note of , fortunately
isolated, defamation campaign against the staff employed in the health Centers
of the Catholic Church: innocent staff, who in this way is struck with impunity
in its honorability. The creator of this muck-machine is a certain Edoardo
Calcagno, journalist of the “Good Morning News” website . Having compiled information
completely bereft of sources and evidence, the
journalist carried out an irresponsible act, devoid of the most basic sense of
professional ethics. Who’s behind it? What interests are at stake? Whatever the
possible answers to these questions, the fact is that
the reporter has presented the employees of our
clinics in the guise of a corrupt gang, responsible for diverting the money
destined for activities of the Centers. The recent government nationalization
of the Clinics, always in his opinion, is to be regarded as a response to such
misdeeds!
·
The very fact that someone like Calcagno, who has the
blessing of living in a free and democratic country, has chosen to make such
infamous judgments without having listened to the opinion of both sides involved,
is in itself an indication of the non-transparent purpose of his work and of
his questionable credibility.
·
Secondly, the charities that finance the activities of
our Centers and regularly review the accounts are geographically not far from
where he works; and it would not have been a superhuman undertaking for him to
scroll through the regular reports that our offices submit to them
semi-annually and annually.
·
Finally, the fact that the government officials
charged with nationalizing the Clinics or, as they say, with “taking them under
their care” have not made the slightest mention of corruption, financial
mismanagement, incompetence, discrimination of any kind, doesn’t this say
anything to the aforementioned journalist? If anything, the suspicion that
comes to us is another: will it not have been the very efficiency and
administrative cleanliness of our Centers that made them the victim of the
measures that we now have to regret?
It is therefore clear that
Mr. Calcagno’s charges do not find confirmation in the same bodies for which he
has chosen to spend his generous advocacy!
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento