- The Issue of Aggression:
The Ethiopian Government had been, with some
initial success, trying to convince the world that it was the victim of
Eritrean aggression. Yet, in the end, truth prevailed and concrete evidence
was emphatically and repeatedly confirming that it was, in fact, Ethiopia
which had, in violation of the most basic provisions of UN General Assembly
Resolution 3314/XXIX (1974) which defines aggression, systematically
committed aggression against Eritrea during a period of ten (10) months
between July 1997 and May 1998. Sections (a) to (g) of Article 3 of the
resolution define aggression as: the invasion or attack by the armed forces
of a state, bombardment against the territory of another state, blockade of
the ports or coasts of a state, attack by the armed forces of a state, the
use of armed forces stationed in third states, and the sending or
irregulars and mercenaries to another state's territory.
It soon became manifestly clear to the chancelleries of the world that
Ethiopia had violated Eritrean sovereignty in July 1997 by invading and
occupying Bada (Adi Murug) in south-eastern Eritrean (in spite of strong
Eritrean protests which is evidenced by the correspondence between the
Eritrean President and the Ethiopian Prime Minister), attempting to occupy
Eritrean territory in the Burie Region in eastern Eritrea in January 1998,
triggering the 12 May 1998 incident in the Badme region by cold-bloodedly
murdering a number of Eritrean armed forces officers, non-commissioned
officers and soldiers, declaring war on Eritrea on 13 May 1998, imposing an
air blockade and closing access to Eritrean ports by threatening incessant
and indiscriminate bombing on 14 May 1998, ordering its armed forces "to
execute the decision of the [Ethiopian] Parliament" by invading Eritrea on
4 June 1998, launching the first air strike against Asmara, the Eritrean
capital, on 5 June 1998 and following it by a massive invasion of Eritrean
territory along three fronts. These flagrant violations are now confirmed
not only by third party evidence but also by Ethiopia's own official
communiquis. Among this is the official Ethiopian Government statement of 1
March 1999 which openly admits that its agenda extends to "overthrowing the
government of Asmara".
- Respect for the Rule of Law:
It is axiomatic that, in any conflict, it
would be third parties, including the United Nations and the Organization
of African Unity in this case, which would determine the commission of
aggression or which would identify an aggressor. Such determination would,
of course, be made on the basis of the UN and OAU Charters and resolutions
as well as relevant principles of international law. The most sacrosanct of
OAU resolutions, which has been accepted as a component of customary
international law by the UN, is Resolution AHG/RES. 16(II), adopted by the
OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government held in Cairo in 1964. It
provides for the sanctity of colonially-inherited borders. Yet, in blatant
violation of all the principles and resolutions cited above, the Government
of Ethiopia issued in October 1997, a new map of the Administrative Region
of Tigray (the home-base of the senior partner of the ruling EPRDF, i.e.
the Tigray People's Liberation Front) which incorporates large areas of
Eritrean territory. The new map is described as defining the "boundary of
Tigray relative to other administrative regions in Ethiopia as well as
neighboring states". The Government of Ethiopia then proceeded to put the
new border into effect by force in complete contempt of all the
above-mentioned principles. And, in typical Orwellian effrontery, the
Ethiopian Government then accused Eritrea of aggression when it rightfully
reacted to safeguard its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence and to uphold the principles of the UN, the OAU and the Non
Aligned Movement (NAM).
- The Issue of Sovereignty over Disputed Territory:
Ethiopia has, despite
its disclaimers, rejected the OAU Peace Plan on the flimsy pretext that the
Technical Arrangements do not "guarantee Ethiopia's sovereignty in its own
territories". In effect, it is seeking iron-clad guarantees of sovereignty
over the disputed territories before any delimitation, demarcation or
judicial determination. This would have been farcical if it had not been
deadly serious. The OAU Framework Agreement, the Modalities and the
Technical Arrangements with their clarifications are crystal clear on the
matter. All three documents affirm that they "are not meant in any way to
question the sovereignty and authority of either of the two parties over
the whole of its territory, it being mutually understood that the
redeployments shall not prejudge the final status of the territories
concerned, which will be determined at the end of the border delimitation
and demarcation process". Yet, it is in spite of this clear message by the
OAU and by the UN, and much of the international community, that Ethiopia
is demanding to be awarded the contested territories. By demanding that
"Ethiopian sovereignty must be fully ascertained in the disputed
territories", it is, in effect, seeking the amendment of the Framework
Agreement and the Modalities which it has purportedly hitherto accepted.
Any exercise of delimitation and demarcation would then be limited to the
legitimization of Ethiopian annexation. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of
such diplomacy. Surely, these are not the words of a country which seeks
peace. These are the words of a country which is in search of pretexts to
commit further aggression.
- Peace and Security in the Region:
The Ethiopian accusation that Eritrea
had become a source of instability in the region is yet again another
self-serving Orwellian deception. It is a matter of historical record that
the Horn of Africa has been unstable long before Eritrean independence,
largely as a result of Ethiopia's problems with its neighbors, including
its territorial claims against both Djibouti and Somalia as well as its
illegal annexation of Eritrea. It is also a matter of record that, at
present too, it is, in fact, Ethiopia which is the major destabilizing
force in the region. Its repeated invasion of Somalia, the latest of which
took place during the first week of January, its contemptuous violations of
Kenyan Sovereignty, its unwarranted provocations of Egypt over the Nile
waters and its hitherto bad relations with Sudan are stark manifestations
of the belligerency that permeates its policies. You want to know the truth
about a rogue state? Ask the Somalis!
On the other hand, latest reports from Khartoum and the press statements
of the former Foreign Minister of Djibouti in 1995 make it amply clear that
Eritrea was not in any way responsible for the beginning of hostilities
with both countries. Indeed, the resolution of the territorial dispute
between Yemen and Eritrea by peaceful means as well as the principled stand
by both parties to honor the arbitral decisions are worthy examples to be
emulated by others, especially Ethiopia.
- The historical and present role of the international community in
Eritrean-Ethiopian relations:
Throughout history, Ethiopia has been a major
beneficiary of the diplomatic and military support of the major powers of
the day. In fact, it has colluded and connived with colonial powers in
determining the course of history in our region. A cursory glance at the
colonial agreements on the Horn of Africa will reveal that Ethiopia was a
partner and signatory of almost all of the colonial agreements on Djibouti,
Eritrea, the Somalilands, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea's forced federation with
Ethiopia as a result of a US-sponsored UN resolution, its subsequent
annexation by Ethiopia in violation of that Resolution which had arranged
the federation while the international community looked aside, as well as
the military and financial support Ethiopia received from the super-powers
and their regional allies as well as the OAU during its thirty (30) years
colonial war in Eritrea, are but few examples. Can the Ethiopian Foreign
Minister pretend not to remember the Bevin-Sforza Plan, the Aklilu-Acheson
understanding or Foster Dulles' statements at the UN?
Even now, it is Eritrea which has been forced to make concession after
concession to appease Ethiopia. How else would one justify the definition
of the not too controversial English word "environs" as it appears in the
Framework Agreement ("Badme and its environs") as meaning to include the
whole length of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border involving about a thousand
kilometers rather than the few square kilometers which surround Badme
village. It is these repeated acts of appeasement that have made Ethiopia
arrogantly intransigent and contemptuous of the peace process. And Ethiopia
complains of the appeasement of Eritrea? How Orwellian can an argument be?
- Commitment to Peace:
From the beginning of the conflict, Eritrea has
been committed to the peaceful resolution of the conflict. It has never-
and does not- consider war an option and, at all times, it has acted only
in self-defense. It is a matter of record that it has offered a number of
plans to solve the conflict peacefully either bilaterally or with the
involvement of third parties. These documents are there to see. Also,
Eritrea has accepted the OAU Peace Plan in its entirety without any
reservations and has made several concessions and sacrifices in the
interest of peace. It awaits its implementation eagerly.
On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that the Ethiopian
Government is preparing to commit another aggression against Eritrea in the
very near future. Its highest officials, including the President and the
Prime Minister, have, on several occasions during the past four months not
only publicly declared that they will use force to settle the conflict but
also that it has rejected the OAU Peace Package because it does not
incorporate Ethiopia's territorial demands. It is an open secret that
Ethiopia has finalized its feverish preparation for aggression. Recent
troop concentrations and movements along the common border and third-party
reports confirm the impending aggression.
Eritrea has solemnly declared on several occasions that the responsibility
for any new military engagement shall lie with the Ethiopian Government
which, in contempt of the repeated calls by the UN Security Council, the
OAU and the EU, has made it clear that it intends to use force against
Eritrea. Needless to say, Eritrea must exercise its right to self-defense
fully. If the Ethiopian Government is sincere in its commitment to a
peaceful resolution of the conflict, it only needs to take one- and only
one- step to prove it. It must sign the OAU Peace Package including the
Technical Agreements and be sincerely prepared to implement them.
- A Rogue State?
One of Ethiopia's favorite diplomatic tactics has been
to accuse Eritrea of the moral and diplomatic transgressions it has already
committed- or is about to commit- against it and then, immediately
thereafter, declare it a rogue state. But, what are the hallmarks of a
rogue state? A rogue state is, inter alia, one whose leaders, routinely and
deliberately violate the laws, norms and principles of international law,
morality and, indeed, basic human decency. Thus, for example, it would be
perfectly respectable, proper and justifiable for them to:
- redraw internationally recognized borders;
- use mercenaries and terrorists to achieve political, military and
diplomatic objectives;
- intimidate, invade, provoke, or violate the territorial integrity of,
neighbors;
- declare the use or threat of force as an instrument of policy;
- divide a country into Bantustan style administrative units along ethnic
lines to favor one ethnic group;
- systematically violate the basic rights of human beings, particularly
their own citizens;
- routinely violate conventions that they have signed;
- accept famine as an accepted way of life to be ignored while spending
hundreds of millions on toys of war;
- use food- and starvation- as an instrument of internal coercion;
- turn a country into a permanent international charity case and then use
it as an instrument of foreign policy (including international blackmail!);
- stockpile and use banned weapons- and publicly lie about them;
- conduct propaganda campaigns of hate and incitement of violence;
- refine lying as a diplomatic art form;
- refine obscenity as a propaganda art form.
The record is clear as to which country- Ethiopia or Eritrea- has
committed these crimes. As evidence, I present the government- sanctioned
map of Tigray (1997); the Indian Ocean Newsletter (on mercenary Colonel
Yadanov and his East European confederates); USA Today (on terrorism,
Alamoudi and Osama Bin Laden); Djibouti (for blackmail); Somalia (for
invasion); Kenya (for violation of territorial integrity); and Egypt (for
provocation) over the Nile Waters; the new ethnic division and the
funneling of wealth to Tigray; the criminal case of the deportation of
Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin; the murderous famine and
Ethiopia's accusation of the international community that it is not feeding
its people even while Ethiopia goes on an arms purchasing spree with
extravagant (and insolent) abandon. The Canadian Ambassador to the UN (on
the stockpiling and use of land mines), repeated statements by Politburo
members Ghebru Asrat, Sebhat Negga and a host of minor bureaucrats of the
TPLF (for ethnic hatred and incitement to violence), Prime Minister Meles
who insulted Mary Robinson on TV, Foreign Minister Seyoum who routinely,
insults foreign leaders, Vice Minister Tekeda Alemu who accused all UN
agencies in Eritrea of being in the service of Eritrea, the Ethiopian
government which regularly spews obscenities against foreign leaders
(Congressman Gilman) and Governments (improbable as it may seem, the US)
and journalists Alex Last a Pederast? Cathy Jenkins a whore? Peter
Worthington a homosexual? and Ian Fisher a mercenary?) and Prime Minister
Meles and Foreign Minister Seyoum who, when severely questioned by EU
Ambassadors about the false statement on the bombing of Adigrat by Eritrean
planes in 1999 respectively claimed "I was misinformed" and "I was not
there" (for outright lying). Truly, the present leaders of Ethiopia,
accompanied by side-kicks like Solome Tadesse, Fisseha Yimer and Konjit
Sinegiorghis, would add grace to indeed dominate, the liars sections of any
Rogues Gallery! Surely, if the "Boys from Brazil" were Hitler's progeny,
then the uncouth "Boys from Tigray" belong to Goebbels
- Anti-African and Anti-Black?
Another characteristics of Ethiopian
diplomacy has been the presentation of different images of Eritrea to
different countries- or groups of countries- however ludicrously
contradictory they may be, and it is worthwhile to include it even though
it is not mentioned by the Foreign Minister. To Africans, Eritrea is
presented as being contemptuous of the OAU, pro-Arab and anti-African
(within the context of a primordial anti-Arab ethnic prejudice). To Arabs,
it is presented as being pro-Israel and to Israel as pro-Arab. In the Cold
War Years, Eritrea was presented as a puppet of both Western imperialism
and communism, depending on the audience.
The facts are however as follows: Since the earliest days of their
struggle for self-determination, Eritreans have closely identified and
collaborated with African liberation movements, in spite of their rejection
by the OAU. Many of the present leaders of Namibia, Mozambique, Guinea
Bissau and Cape Verde etc. will readily testify to that. It is also not
surprising to find some Eritrean freedom fighters who can still sing
Namibian or Mozambican songs of liberation. On the contrary, Ethiopia's
record (particularly before the creation of the OAU) on African liberation
was something to be ashamed of. After all, the most important contribution
of the Amharic language to English- the word Shifta- used by the Ethiopian
media to describe the Mau Mau rebellion, means bandit! Its policy position
during the 1956 Suez crisis (supporting Great Britain, France and Israel
against Egypt) and the leading role it played in torpedoing the 1965 OAU
resolution which had decided that African countries should sever diplomatic
relations with Great Britain over the issue of UDI in Zimbabwe are also
glaring examples of its collusion with the forces which were arrayed
against African liberation. The racial slurs (including the dreadful B-
word) used by "Ethiopians" (i.e. Amharas and Tigrays) are of course, too
widely known and documented to be repeated here. Anybody wants to check?
Speak to a non-Ethiopian OAU functionary anywhere in the world! In any
case, these slurs are used by the same group against their fellow citizens
too. Thus, the "Ethiopian" ethnic names "shankila", Ghimmira, for example
are interchangeably used with the B- word. No self-respecting "Ethiopian"-
including the most educated would consider himself black and only
grudgingly an African even after Addis Ababa became the seat of the OAU.