--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yohannes Kifle <YKifle_at_asgpark.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM
Subject: FW: Article
To: "dehai_at_dehai.org" <dehai_at_dehai.org>
Is War a Necessary Evil?
Eritrea vs. the Regime in Ethiopia
Yohannes Kifle – ycry98_at_yahoo.com
Considering evils of wars, nations continued to engage in war that is
devastating to both sides. The destruction caused to human lives and
properties is immeasurable no matter how big or small the war is. Wars
fought in the past had two sides of the spectrum believing the war
they pursued against one another was “a necessary evil”. Flirting with
the idea of going to war with Eritrea again behind the principle of
“war is a necessary evil”, the regime in Ethiopia has been and
continued to pound the war drum. The sixty-four thousand dollars
question is: does the principle equally apply to Eritrea? Given the
fact that the regime in Ethiopia is still occupying Eritrea’s
sovereign land, one can reasonably argue that future potential war to
be waged between these two countries in respective of which country
fires the first bullet, Eritrea has a legitimate right to declare war
to regaining its sovereign land. On the other hand, the regime in
Ethiopia claims to have a potential national security threat coming
from its neighbor, Eritrea. Taking the war to Eritrea seems to be the
practical alternative the regime in Ethiopia is contemplating. One can
also reasonably argue that this irrational thinking is a fear-driven
vendetta as the threat is a self-induced one.
Wars fought previously have taught us one side of the partaker had
certainly fought a war of aggression. To mention a few, the 1812 war
(between Napoleon’s France and Russia), WWII (Germany and the Allied
countries) and the war between United States of America and Iraq are
wars that may fall in the category. Without divulging too much as to
how the wars started in these three instances, the aftermaths of these
three wars gave us a perception that one of the participants was
forced to engage the war involuntarily.
The 1812 war Napoleon imposed on Russia was purely a war of aggression
that was mainly initiated out of greed or perhaps fears as his
appetite continued to get bigger and his desire to keep Russia out of
Europeans’ affairs. On the other hand, Russia’s stand was to simply
defending its territory. As losing the war he was fighting against
Russia was becoming a reality, Napoleon made the following statement:
“I have come once and for all to finish off these barbarians of the
North. The sword is now drawn. They must be pushed back into their
ice, so that for the next 25 years they no longer come to busy
themselves with the affairs of civilized Europe”
It is a universally accepted fact that World War II was the most
devastating war in modern history. However, tolerating the aggression
that was instigated by Hitler was not something that the world was
willing to bear and live with. The question is: would the leaders of
the world have handled it differently had they known in advance what
the price was to be paid to defend Hitler’s belligerence? In his
attempt to reason with Hitler, United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain was willing to surrender a portion of Czechoslovakia. One
can say that Chamberlain had no problem being generous in his attempt
to appease Hitler at the expense of Czechoslovakia. His goal was to
bring peace. After all, an averted war could be a beginning of future
potential war. Unfortunately, Chamberlain’s gesture wasn’t good enough
for what Hitler had in mind. Knowing Hitler’s desire to control Europe
and perhaps the rest of the world, Prime Minister Winston Churchill
was not willing to appease Hitler for the sake of peace as his
predecessor opted to do so. The calculated risk Churchill took paid
off; nevertheless, the price paid was a hefty one. Long story short,
with United Kingdom leading the Allied force coupled with the United
States pulled into the war in the eleventh hour, the devastated war
had finally come to a conclusion. Many believe the world we are
living in today is the byproduct of World War II. At the same time,
many equally believe that had the Allied lost the war, the world we
live in would have been totally different.
In the last twenty-five years, the world had witnessed quite a few
devastating but short-lived wars, including the war fought between the
United States of America and the state of Iraq. (Sometimes the balance
of power between the two warring countries could be so far apart,
instant victory led us to believe the winner is on the side of a
legitimate war). Though the outcome of that war was evident, the jury
is still out on whether the war against Iraq was a justified one.
Ironically, with one of the key players in the decision making process
questioning the legitimacy of the attack against the enemy, after the
fact, it would be hard to not assume the war that was hastily declared
and waged against Iraq was a wrong one. In nutshell, it is truly not
aligned to the concept of “war was a necessary evil” as most of us led
to believe in the beginning. Some experts said the war was motivated
by either greed or vendetta. When war loses its purpose and a lack of
objectivity to be defined, the outcome leaves us with blurred vision.
What left for us to speculate is that what would be the ramification
of the reckless war for the next generation of both nations involved
and for that matter to the rest of the world? Apparently, history
also taught us wars had been fought for religion, economic and for the
obvious reason, VENDETTA!
The current and the previous prime ministers of the regime in Ethiopia
seem to have a little of Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and “we are
the super power” mentality in them. Those traits were clearly
demonstrated in the 1998-2000 war with Eritrea. What was not clearly
established was a motive that distinctly defined to warrant the war
that claimed so many precious lives on both sides. On the upcoming war
that is imminent, the regime in Ethiopia seems to be prepared to
navigate itself into another potentially devastating war. A war
motivated by fear driven vendetta.
An averted war is a beginning of another
The 1998-2000 war between the minority- led Ethiopia and Eritrea was a
war that had no clarity when it comes to justification for pursuing
such a destructive war. The minority regime and enemies of Eritrea
believed it was time to advance their war agenda against Eritrea.
Unfortunately, there was no clear validated motive to start the war
until they finally stumbled on Badme. Though Badme became the focal
point, the hidden agenda was access to the sea. The goal was to
forcing the government of Eritrea to re-negotiate and/or overthrow the
government and replace it with a puppet government. The war ended with
Eritrea successfully defending its territory and the enemy’s military
force dilapidated to the point of no recovery. The regime’s supporters
and advisors saw the potential danger facing Ethiopia and advised the
regime to accept the Alger’s Agreement and successfully managed to
avert the war in the name of peace agreement. One has to wonder why
the institutions and countries chosen to be the guarantors of the
Alger’s Peace Agreement failed to enforce the final and binding
agreement by forcing the regime in Ethiopia to accept the final
decision and surrender Badme to its rightful owner. Apparently, the
agreement was used to simply avert the danger the regime in Ethiopia
was facing at the time. The no war no peace attitude displayed by the
regime and encouraged by the key allies of the regime is to frustrate
Eritrea and its people into submission. What Eritrea and the people of
Eritrea are facing today is the byproduct of the averted war.
Is there a legitimate fear that is pushing the regime to ponder war
against Eritrea?
One needs to keep in mind that the current Eritrean government had
played a key role to assist the current regime in Ethiopia in grabbing
power. As a coordinator of the war against the military junta (DERG)
and owner of the war blueprint, the Eritrean government (EPLF at the
time) played a major role in creating the group known as EPRDF that
seized power in Ethiopia. The regime in Ethiopia had the Eritrean
Liberation Front behind it to topple the Mingistu’s regime. In the
meantime, the entire nation was against the military Junta which
helped the EPRDF to successfully seize power.
The current regime in Ethiopia had the people of Ethiopia and the West
supporting it in its war of aggression against Eritrea in 1998-2000
but failed. Today, there are formidable enemies that are willing to
wage war against the regime. The enemies of the regime in Ethiopia
believe force is the only way to remove it from power; therefore “war
is a necessary evil” as far has the enemies of the regime are
concerned. The regime in Ethiopia has no blueprint for war or peace.
Most importantly, the war blueprint that delivered power to the regime
in Ethiopia in 1991 had always been possessed by the other side…the
blueprint for peace is hijacked by its allies. The regime will find
itself fighting a war against the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea soon.
The regime is fighting to defend a land that belongs to others. The
regime will find itself fighting its key allies’ war. The regime is
certainly will not be fighting a war of peace as peace has been
hijacked. Unfortunately, the regime has no blue print for peace, no
blueprint for war and certainly no blueprint of land to genuinely die
for!
History will repeat itself.
Received on Tue Sep 08 2015 - 22:17:50 EDT