Dear Professor Bahru,
I read the English version of your interview with Addis Reporter entitled "A Perspective of the Ethio-Eritrean Border Conflict", in the 19 January 1999 issue of Addis Tribune. I am writing out of dismay and concern, rather than anger, because I had not expected the remarks and conclusions in the article from an academic of your caliber. I am offering some thoughts only on the most basic issues and flagrantly obtuse observations with the view to putting matters in their proper perspectives and setting historical records and political facts straight and in the interest of truth which, along with human rights, has become a victim of Ethiopian violations.
A critical issue that must be immediately examined is the assumed historical relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia if only because it will shed light on the "history of unity and political, and economic cohesion of Ethiopia" (cum Eritrea, of course) during the Axumite period. The first question is conceptual: Just what constituted "Ethiopia" and "Eritrea" in history?
Granted the Axumite empire had included parts, but not all, of highland Eritrea. It is also granted that, at the height of its power, Axum had controlled the ancient port of Adulis near present day Massawa. However, it would not be logical to conclude, as you do, that "it is absolutely impossible to separate the history of Eritrea from the history of Ethiopia for at least three (3) reasons. First, it is obvious that "Eritrea", the polity that was created by Italian Colonialism at the end of the last century in much the same way that other African Colonies were by other countries, is more than the highland (Kebessa) region of Akele-Guzai, Hamasien and Seraye inhabited by Tigrigna speaking, essentially Christian people. It includes the Afar, Barka, Gash-Setit, Sahel, Semhar and Senhit region in the lowland (Metahet), inhabited by eight (8) other ethnic groups or nationalities, speaking eight (8) languages and are essentially Moslem. Even in the highlands, however, AxumUs authority was more nominal than real. Secondly, and equally erroneously, it assumes that "Ethiopia" is a direct successor state of Axum and this is not corroborated by any independent historical evidence.
After the end of Axumite supremacy, there was no kind of Abyssinian presence in Eritrea. On the contrary, there were five (5) independent Beja kingdoms which controlled almost all of mainland Eritrea (as it is known today) during the six hundred (600) years that followed the end of Axumite ascendancy. Additionally, the Sultanate of Dahlak which had an independent existence from the ninth(9th) to the fourteenth (14th) century is reputed to have controlled Massawa and its environs. It was not until the fifteenth (15th) century that Abyssinian monarchs began to have a very minimal presence in parts of highland Eritrea which, in any case, were in constant rebellion against what they consider to be alien domination. The new state which was established almost four hundred (400) years after the collapse of the Axumite state in fact appeared as Abyssinia in an area much to the south of what you yourself had described as the Axumite realm. The Amhara who dominated the state were in no way related to the Axumites. The only relationship between Axum and Abyssinia in actual fact consisted of the claim of the Amhara power elite of both church and state that they were descendants of the Axumite ruling classes.
The history of the lowlands is different. The coastal areas fell to the Ottoman Turks in mid-sixteenth (16th) century. They were to have nominal control until the end of the nineteenth (19th) century when they were replaced by the Egyptians who were themselves evicted by the Italians. In the sixteenth (16th) century, the Funj Dynasty of the Sudan occupied the Barka region. Soon thereafter, the Beni Amir and the Kunama were to submit to Funj indirect rule. The Saho, Bilen and Afar were to remain free. This is the historical picture of the region until the dawn of the Era of the Princes in mid-eighteenth (18th) century when the Abyssinian state imploded much like present day Somalia and remained without a recognized authority. A new state emerged only in late nineteenth (19th) century under the Tigrean Yohannes IV and particularly under the Shoan Menelik II. The latter, a conniving colonialist par excellence, colluded with European powers in the subjugation of Africans to expand his domain by conquering hitherto independent principalities and kingdoms to the south and west of Shoa with the assistance of European mercenaries. He thus created the empire-state of present day Ethiopia.
It is evident from the above that "Ethiopia" is much more than, and inherently different from, "Abyssinia", let alone Axum. In fact, it becomes obvious that "Eritrea" and "Ethiopia" were both created during the period of African colonization - one as a colony, the other as a colonial, empire-state.
Thus, the conclusion that "Ethiopia" and "Eritrea" had a long (almost1400 years!) history of unity and that "it is absolutely impossible to separate the history of Eritrea from the history of Ethiopia" is a deliberate falsification of history while the assumption that "Ethiopia" is a direct descendant of Axum is only a horrendous absurdity. There is no denying that Axum is the spiritual (Coptic Orthodox) and cultural (Geez) fountainhead of both the Amhara sections (much of Abyssinia) of Ethiopia and much of highland Eritrea. It is a historical heritage that we proudly share just as much as the French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese etc. share Catholicism and Latin, but Axum is not the only source of either Ethiopian or Eritrean culture and it would be a colossal academic disaster to conclude for example, that the Ben-Amir in Eritrea and the Beni-Shangul in Ethiopia share the same cultural heritage, or have been the beneficiaries of the "history of unity" that originates in Axum. The only history that "unites" them is Ethiopian colonialism and subjugation in which case you could talk about the unity of all the other colonized peoples of Ethiopia.
There is, in fact, a good reason for the incessant propagation of such historiography by most Ethiopian and "Ethiopianist" ("Ethiophiles" really) scholars including yourself. It is a deliberate effort to legitimize, by such myths of a state with a long and glorious history, its conquest and incorporation of foreign territories and enslavement of peoples in the nineteenth (19th) and twentieth (20th) centuries and conversely to delegitimize the nationalist aspirations and armed struggle for self-determination of the colonized, including Eritrea and the people of the southern marches of Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian state, having at all times been privatized to benefit one ethnic group with the same culture and religion, has at no time given moral and political sense to all its ethnic groups. Consequently, it had always been ego-centric in that the ruling ethnic elites viewed the world from their own selfish interests-identifying moral and political good and evil, or right and wrong, from the perspective of those that are beneficial to their ethnic group even though it may be harmful and detrimental to the others living in the empire. It asserted the values of the ruling group, whether it is political, economic or cultural, as the only values appropriate for all the other ethnic groups and any ethnic group that rejects or questions these values, let alone attempt to implement its own values, was considered as a dangerous enemy of the state.
Above all, there is an utter confusion in the use of terminology. Thus, in the discourse of the Ethiopian empire-state, conquest has become "reunification", self-determination becomes "secession", self-defense is considered "aggression", democracy and the search for equality is equated with "anarchy" and "heresy against state and national values", advocacy of the respect for "diversity" is tantamount to a cabal against the "unity" of Ethiopia. Yet, the concept of a "unitary" Ethiopia with "one people" having "one culture", "one language" or "religion" was a notorious fiction in the past and is a farcical oxymoron in the present.
The present Ethiopian state has been fashioned as an ethnic based federal state. Yet, it has not been able to rid itself of the problems that had festered the empire state because it differs from the imperial or Marxist state in form and not in substance. It is formally divided into nine (9) federal zones which are united by a federal constitution which nevertheless respects the right of each zone to secede from the federation. Yet, in reality, the country is under the hegemonic control of the EPRDF i.e. the Tigrean/Amhara clique which itself is almost totally controlled by the TPLF. Nothing has changed. If the right to secede has been incorporated in the constitution, it was meant to benefit Tigray, the Cinderella zone of the federation, in any political eventuality. Thus, it was inevitable that the other ethnic groups would rise in open rebellion against the state. It may be contradictory but true that, in a state whose constitution provides for secession, armed struggle and other forms of resistance are taking place in almost the whole of the country against alien domination and oppression.
Such a discourse glorifies an Ethiopian state steadfastly led by Semitic, Christian Amharas and Tigreans (i.e. Abyssinians) who are presumably the children of Zion - and are, of necessity, superior to the other peoples of Ethiopia and indeed Africa. Based on that gargantuan hoax called the Kebre Negest (Glory of Kings), it is racist and thrives on cultural and racial exclusivity and differentiation. This is why it does not recognize non-highland Eritrea, as indeed non-Abyssinian Ethiopia, as is amply demonstrated by your interview. They can be the objects, but never the subjects, of history. This is why "Ethiopian history" is so replete with distortions, inconsistencies and deficiencies.
This Abyssinian (Amhara, Tigrean) fundamentalism is intolerant and will immediately launch an irrational denunciation campaign against any historian, particularly Eritreans, Oromos, Somalis etc. who challenge and refute such Ethiopianist historiography (historicism really). It is in this context that one must understand and forgive your calumny against, and condescending attitude towards, Eritrean historians. Eritrean historians are not "trying to fabricate a new history to promote the objective of Eritrean independence". They are simply trying to decolonize history by refuting the misrepresentation of colonial authors like you determined to justify Ethiopian colonization. Eritrean historiography is an intrinsic part of a liberation struggle. Being a good historian, you must by now have recognized, at least in the context of the struggle of other peoples under alien domination, that a genuine liberation struggle is itself a first rate educational process which promotes not only the physical, emotional, legal and political, but also the cultural and intellectual, emancipation of human beings. In its dialectical process, it first liberates the colonized then it inevitably liberates the colonizer. Professor, Eritrean scholars and the scholars of other peoples under Amhara/Tigrean oppression eagerly await to welcome you to their world. It is a lot more comfortable if only because it helps one to achieve detachment and objectivity. But, you must decolonize your mind.
I must admit that I was alarmed and saddened by your falsification of concrete historical records, suppression of vital information and distortion of facts because I know that you are aware of the facts of history since, as a reputed historian, you have had access to the truth on the matter as found in declassified historical archives. Allow me to point out some of your glaring moral transgressions and academic derelictions:
Let us check records. According to Harold Marcus, who is quoted by Jordan Gebremedhin in his book "Peasants and Nationalism in Eritrea", "The Love of Country of Society" was established by Christian and Moslem opponents of the Ethiopian Government who were committed to the promotion of the cause of their country with distinction. According to Woldeab Wolde Mariam, as quoted by Jordan again, "the group was distinguished in its opposition both to the Ethiopian feudal state and to the re-emergence of the traditional social order". The Society for Unification of Eritrea with Ethiopia (SUEE) was organized under the auspices of the all-powerful Ethiopian Minister of Pen, Wolde-Giorghis Wolde-Yohannes, to openly advocate the cause of Ethiopian-Eritrean Unity. Having soon thereafter opened branches in Eritrea, it began to fan anti-Moslem sentiments, and to agitate against continued Italian presence in the British Military Administration. It campaigned to win converts to its cause by fair means or foul, including intimidation, threats, murder and bribery. By 1946, the SUEE had managed to cause a rift within the membership of the PLS whose chairman and many members of the Executive Committee had defected from their organization to join the SUEE and to become its Asmara branch. They were to create the Mahber Fikri Hager, Ethiopia-Eritrea Hanti Ethiopia", (Love of Country, Ethiopia and Eritrea one Ethiopia) popularly known as the Unionist Party. Trevaskis dismisses them as EthiopiaUs servile agents. Ibrahim Sultan, Wolde-Ab Wolde-Mariam and a few of the members continued with the PLS before they formed their respective political parties. Each advocated independence. They were to be joined in that struggle for independence by the Progressive Party which was led by Ras Tessema Asberom and his son Dejazmatch Abraha Tessema. It is this party, and not the whole independence movement, which, as you claim, moderated their position on independence. However, the combined strength of the parties that struggled for independence was, as seen above, overwhelming.
Contrary to your assertions, BMA records clearly show that Ethiopia used violence, thuggery and bribes to influence Eritrean politics. After the appointment of Colonel Nega Haile-Selassie as Liason Officer in Eritrea, Ethiopian agents assassinated numerous anti-Ethiopian and pro-independence political leaders, including Abdel Kadir Kebire and Azmatch Berhe, the leader of the independence bloc and a prominent member of the Progressive Party respectively. Their attempts on the lives of Dejatch Hassan Ali and Wolde-Ab Wolde-Mariam of the pro-independence Moslem League and the Liberal Party respectively failed. His office was also used to recruit thugs and agents provocateurs to incite anti-Moslem, anti-Arab, anti-Italian and anti-independence riots as well as the importation of about two thousand (2000) Tigrean mercenaries to engage in banditry. In 1947, several Unionist Party members were arrested when the Four Power Commission implicated Colonel NeggaUs office in terrorist activities and in 1949 the British Administrator had to consider Colonel Negga Persona Non Grata after it found enough evidence of his terrorist activities. This, my dear Professor, are the incontrovertible facts of history corroborated by archival material.
At this point, it would be wise and opportune to mention that Eritreans were denied their right to self-determination (i.e. what is rightfully theirs) not so much by their disunity or EthiopianUs strength, as claimed by most Ethiopian scholars, as by the unwelcome and self-serving intervention of the powers of the day. Consider the 30 March 1949 Department of State Memorandum of Conversation between Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Vice-Minister Aklilu Habte-Wold of Ethiopia:
"The Secretary (Acheson) expressed the pleasure of the American Government at the military facilities which the Emperor indicated he would grant to the US in Eritrea after that area has been ceded to Ethiopia. Mr. Aklilu responded that the Emperor was pleased to be of help in that matter."
I say, Professor, can you, as a historian, advise me whether or not history is repeating itself? I sure smell a rat!
More importantly, however, I wish to refer to your book "A History of Modern Ethiopia (1855-1974)" written in 1991, at the time of the liberation of Eritrea. It was reprinted in 1995 and 1996 but I am taking the liberty of assuming that you had seen no need to revise certain of its parts. Let me therefore refer to the texts which are relevant to the dissolution of the federation. You wrote:
"Designed to satisfy everybody, it ended up by pleasing no one Partisans both of Union and independence worked in their own different ways to wreck the federation P 183
and again:
"As indicated above, the formula for federation had few friends. Both Unionists and the partisans of independence were unhappy with it." (P)
Yet, you do not express any opinion on the dissolution of the federation, for which, in spite of several widely circulated contrary views by eyewitnesses and politicians of the era, you blame the Eritrean Assembly. Indeed, you seem to relish the idea that Eritrea "was federated with Ethiopia in 1952 and united in 1962" (P 114). Did you acquire fresh evidence after 1996 which made you view it as a grave error? I would be quite satisfied with such an explanation. However, many of us would have benefited from such a revelation, if it had appeared in the interview.
To begin with, it is the most normal human experience for neighboring peoples to transverse each otherUs countries, particularly in search of education and work. This takes place in Europe, the Americas, Asia and particularly Africa. Finns go to Sweden, Belgians and the Dutch go to each others schools and workplaces - Sudanese go to Egypt, Malians go to Senegal and vice-versa etc. Eritreans too have gone to neighboring countries including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and yes Ethiopia. Would that then make them Egyptians, Sudanese or Saudis? Likewise, Ethiopians have come to Eritrea, particularly from Tigrai, Wollo, Gojjam and Gondar to work and to go to school. Some have chosen to become Eritreans but the majority still consider themselves Ethiopian. Right now, there are more than one hundred thousand (100,000) Ethiopians peacefully living and working in Eritrea and their children are going to school with Eritrean children. Nobody has ever noticed their "foreigness". Nobody ever will. There were also about three-hundred thousand (300,000) Eritreans in Ethiopia, the majority of whom had stayed in Ethiopia after Eritrean independence, preferring to remain Ethiopian. I am sure you are not unaware of what your government is doing. Do you think that they deserved the treatment that is being meted out? Have you or your other learned countrymen uttered so much as a word in protest? Or do you agree with your Government? I do not need or expect an answer; but please answer your conscience and/or your God, if you have one!
Then there is the question about those Eritreans who had presumably achieved high positions in EthiopiaUs civilian and military services. I would like to answer this question in conjunction with your remarks about the inadequacy of Italian colonial education since the majority of those that you refer to were graduates of Italian academic institutions in Eritrea. To begin with, there is no denying that it was these Eritreans which, lured by good job opportunities in a country lacking educated or skilled manpower even at the level of the Eritreans whose education you seem to belittle, have contributed immensely to the building of the infrastructure of your country. This included not only the white-collar bureaucrat, teachers and the semi-professional but also the red-collar worker, particularly mechanics, electricians, machinists, drivers etc. and those in the private sector, including merchants. This is a proud record which is attested to by every other foreigner who had worked with them in Ethiopia. This is the proud legacy to their children who had equally dedicated their youth to the development of the country. It is also a source of bitter memory, resentment and anger.
Why? The irresponsible statements that are made by you and some of your learned compatriots are pregnant with the idea that these hard working Eritreans were either foreigners who had exploited the economy and educational system of the country or ungrateful colonial subjects who have betrayed a bond. This is nothing but the expression of the racist and exclusivist idiom that I had referred to earlier for none of you scholars would make similar remarks about the chosen people of the Kebre Negest, the custodians of the true Ark of the Covenant. It is a misfortune of history that most of these Eritreans had believed themselves to be citizens who were honestly earning their wages and paying the necessary taxes for the education of their children, even as they somehow felt they were being systematically discriminated - i.e. denied equal opportunity - at the work place (promotions) and educational institutions (scholarships).
It is for this reason that they regret their inability to retrieve their youth to enable to serve their real country with the same devotion and zeal that they have served your country. Do I wax emotional? Would it not be understandable in view of the insensitivity of the average Abyssinian scholar? Then too, it is fitting that some matters are expressed in such a human - all to human - way. It clears the mind of the colonizer and the heart of the decolonized.
In any case, how had the very few - in proportion to their numbers P who are mentioned ad nauseum as having made it in Ethiopia fared? Once they have served the purposes of the ruling class, they have been sent to gilded exiles abroad (Lorenzo Taazaz, Aman Andom, Ephrem Tewolde-Medhin, Eyassu Mengesha) demoted, transferred to innocuous provincial positions (Essayas Gebre-Selassie) or retired en masse (those army colonels who were due for promotion but were hastily and rudely cast into retirement before they could become generals and the talented senior civil servants who were also retired so that they could never make any of the ministerial ranks). It was the lot of almost all Eritreans serving in any capacity to be cast aside after they have been squeezed dry like a lemon. The few that "made it", including those that served with distinction in addition to possessing a superior university education, owed their honor more to reasons extraneous to their performance or education. They too were never trusted, especially on matters Eritrean and lived in extreme insecurity. Some (Abraham Debotch and Moges Asgedom) were rewarded with murder for their patriotism; but this is an unpleasant historical fact ignored by your scholars. Professor, this is our history. It is the history of the colonized as witnessed, recollected and narrated by the colonized.
This has of course been the perennial bogey used against Eritrean independence by the Ethiopian elite, both officials and scholars. It does not matter that the right to independence and self-determination has never been qualified, or abridged, by any factor including economic viability. It does not matter that similar and related factors (including the civilizing mission) were used by colonialists throughout history against "barbaric" indigenous people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It does not matter that European historians, including in particular British and Italian, had argued in the nineteen thirties (1930s) that Ethiopia was not a viable state and would benefit from Western civilization, economic exploitation and even "Christianity" (Does the mention of Arnold ToynbeeUs name evoke any academic recollections in a historian?) It does not matter that Eritrea, which has only five (5) years of independent existence, is ranked higher than Ethiopia, which claims either a three thousand (3000) or a hundred (100) years of independent existence depending on who you are listening to, by both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Human Development Index of 1998 which incidentally records the real and adjusted GDP for Eritrea and Ethiopia at US$983 and 455, respectively. It does not matter that Eritrea ranks higher than many other African countries too. No Professor, these are not minor inconveniences which can be ignored. You will have to address them fairly and squarely.
However, there is more to the question of viability. What is viability? Viability is not an economic issue only although, even at that level, ample evidence had existed since colonial days that Eritrea was in fact economically more viable than Ethiopia. I refer you to the report and documents submitted by the Eritrean Chamber of Commerce to the Four Powers Commission on Eritrea in 1947. Viability is, in addition to material growth, anchored in the political, economic and cultural cohesion and integration of a nation. A viable nation has been defined in various ways by different academics including Carl Freidrich, Eric Hobsbawm and Ernst Gellner. Hobsbawm defined a Viable Nation as "a group of people that sees or imagines itself as distinct from other communities and claims to some form of self-government by virtue of its separate identity and history. Regardless of differences in class, locality and other categories, the group identifies itself as a distinct collectivity under which members share some national rights and obligations including the defense of fellow members against enemies". Freidrich defines it as "a cohesive group possessing independence within the confines of the international order as provided by the United Nations which provides a constituency for a government effectively ruling such a group and receiving from that group the acclamation which legitimizes the government as part of the world order."
A viable national system would therefore exist only when the various groups, ethnic, religious, class and gender, in the state live in harmony, that there is unity and mutual understanding between the leadership and the population thus enabling the former to receive its legitimacy and its moral, political and material support. Such viability, when coupled with the wisdom and capability of leadership, enables it to defend itself from external aggression and to ensure peace and security at home with minimal resources. May I then ask whether Ethiopia has, even in the last fifty (50) years been a viable nation? Who, except the Amhara/Tigrean group has ever identified with Ethiopia during this modern period let alone in earlier times? Oromos, Somalis, Afars? The other peoples of the southern marches? Eritreans? Or, I may ask, TPLF Tigray?
Has there been any rapport between the rulers and the ruled? What are the causes of the Somali, Bale, Tigray and Afar rebellions? No Professor, it is not the ambition of a handful of narrow-minded, selfish and misguided individuals who are in the service of foreign patrons. It is the nature of the Ethiopian state. The Ethiopian state was created by the charismatic (academically defined) leader of a small kingdom who enforced the collective will of his own ethnic group over other neighboring peoples. The state was thus defined around a myth which became the source of the authority of a chosen people who regarded themselves inherently superior to the other inhabitants of the territory. The state belonged to the ruling ethnic group whose relationship with the others was one between ruler and ruled, sovereign and subjects. Inevitably, it was in perpetual crisis revolving around questions of citizenship and political rights. Nationalism arose in opposition to the state. It was regressive. Consequently, there was dependence on external assistance and influence ultimately giving way to neo-colonial exploitative relations. Can this state, threatened by impending implosion, ever be considered viable?
In Eritrea, on the other hand, there is already a great degree of national integrity forged by a long struggle against a common enemy and commonly identified problems on the principles of self-reliance. The discovery and positive appreciation of cultural diversity during the struggle has not only created a strong bond of unity but also an Eritrean personality molded by common ideals, values, idioms and commitments as well as a sense of sacrifice for the common good. The creation of the Eritrean person and ethos is perhaps the greatest achievement of the Eritrean liberation struggle for, without it, there could have been no final victory and independence. An Eritrean becomes an Eritrean not because of his ethnic, religious and linguistic background but because of his values and his identification with, and commitments to, the nation. Eritrean nationalism is at once the means and the end of state creation and building. It is robust; it is mature. If this is not a strong viable state, then which is? Thus, the view that the "nascent Eritrean nationalism" is being threatened by "Ethiopianess" must surely be farcical in the extreme. If anything, it is now widely believed by independent observers that the Weyane invasion of Eritrea in 1997-98, the recent emphasis of a 3000 year old united Ethiopia, the creation of imaginary liberation movements in Eritrea (Haika, Barka) longing to be reunited with the great Ethiopian motherland, the prophecies of imminent Eritrean doom can only be attributed to a wishful thinking prompted by the bankruptcy of the WeyaneUs emphasis on ethnicity and the fear of collapse of its policy of ethnic federalism.
You accuse Eritreans of chauvinism associated with Italian colonization. Colonialism is bad. It undermines existing social order, economic structures, cultural values and demeanor. On the other hand, it has, in some cases, developed infrastructure and created political institutions. Eritrea was no different than most other African colonies. A common experience of Italian rule and British occupation had contributed to a sense of unique identity, intense political activity revolving around political parties, trade unions and a vibrant press. This, in turn, creates a new psychological make-up as well as new symbols, signs and idioms. Exposure to foreign things and places even in the absence of colonialism also affects behavior and modes of expression. Take for example, the beneficial effect of the exposure of the Imperial Body Guard units to Korea on modern Ethiopian music. An even better case is the mode of expression or mannerism of the urbanized people along the route of the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railroad, particularly in Dire-Dawa and even Adama (baptized Nazareth). And so, the urban Eritrean views and appreciates matters as differently from the person from Adigrat as the average person from Dire-Dawa would view it from a person from Gelemso, and the person from the La Gare area in Addis Ababa, or the typical Arada, would view matters differently from persons in Wef Argif (Wolkait) or Qimbibit (Shoa) or Werebabo (Wollo). He does not become a chauvinist, not by a long shot, and if you were to lecture him he would answer in a mixture of Arabic, Italian, Amharic and Oromigna and would possibly gesticulate extravagantly. "Welahi, Welebel Abo" (Translation: Buzz off).
The sum and substance of your argument is that Badme, Irob and Alitena belonged to Ethiopia because they were under Ethiopian "control" or "administration". In fact, you seem to broadly concede that these territories were inside Eritrea since you also claim "that the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea was not really in conformity with the treaty signed between Ethiopia and Italy (and) that the Italians had actually pushed the border further into Ethiopian territory (although) there is not an iota of evidence showing that Badme under Italian or British administration=85(and that) Irob and Alitena (too) were under Ethiopian administration". The inaccuracy of the statement notwithstanding, it becomes crystal clear that you are basing EthiopiaUa claim on occupation and not on title or legal ownership. This is in fact corroborated by your insistence that "maps maybe highly controversial", "maps are not absolute" and that there are "other more acceptable criteria" than maps, although, confusingly, you seem to give value to "maps drawn under international agreements" which your government is prepared to present as evidence at the appropriate time. I submit that, under the principle of Uti Possidetis, there can be no legal validity attached to any act of administration or control by one state in a territory of another state when there exists an internationally recognized boundary drawn by an international agreement. Also, preference is given to title and legal ownership in the event of a clash between title and occupation (i.e. "administration" or "control").
You also seem to argue that these area should belong to Ethiopia because they "were formerly ruled by Agame princes and landlords". This argument, known as the "decolonization principle", has also been totally discredited in international practice. In this connection, I find it extraordinary that you have not at all referred to the sanctity of borders inherited from colonialism as prescribed by OAU Resolution AHG/RES 16 of 1964 while you refer to the interpretation to the three treaties that delimited these borders. These borders are regulated by the OAU resolution. These borders must now be demarcated on the basis of existing, historically valid maps and not maps just produced or to be produced by one or the other parties i.e. my classmate HadguUs new maps!
You have attributed the causes of the present conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia to (a) the non-viability of the Eritrean state, (b) the political errors of the Ethiopian left which advocated and supported "Eritrean" secession and the intellectuals of Eritrea who considered their struggle as anti-colonial.
I have already responded to the first allegation. I also agree with the arguments you presented in defense of Menelik, whose "failure to reconquer" Eritrea after the Battle of Adowa is being regarded as one of the causes of war, although in your book you had considered it "the most serious shortcoming of the Victory of Adowa, and of MenelikUs policy" (P ). However, I must add that you could also have mentioned that Menelik had seen no reason to conquer a colony for the creation of which he had himself been responsible with the signing of the Treaty of Wuchale in 1889. He had done so because he had found the people extremely ungovernable and because he wanted to divert the attention of the Lords of Tigray from him to the Italians . It could also have been mentioned that Menelik decided to recognize Italian sovereignty over Eritrea - thus recognizing EritreaUs borders for the second time - because he had begun his war of conquest against the Oromo and the Sidamo to the South-West of his kingdom in search food, fuel and minerals.
Your claim that the entire Ethiopian left had consistently supported Eritrean independence (via "secession", if not decolonization) is historically incorrect. All available records of meetings between the EPRP, MEISON and the EPLF indicate that, inspite of their theoretical support for secession, these two groups and others had in fact shied from recognizing the right of Eritrea to a political existence outside Ethiopia. True, agreements were signed; but agreements were broken not much after their signing. It was only towards the end, for example, that the TPLF and later the EPDM recognized the Eritrean struggle as an anti-colonial struggle and supported Eritrean independence. It is not without a certain amusement, therefore, that I noted your exhortation of the remnants of the Ethiopian left to reconsider - indeed to change - their position and to contribute to the emergence of "a more productive political culture". This call to arms - for it is a call to denounce Eritrean independence and to recolonize Eritrea - is made to the present EPRDF government since it is composed of the "remnants of the Ethiopian left" which had accepted and promoted Eritrean independence.
Your castigation of Eritrean scholars for considering their struggle anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist is also understandable in view of the dialectical relationship between the perceptions of the colonizer and the colonized. After all, one persons secessionist is another personUs anti-colonialist warrior. However, I must object to the vulgar and abusive language used against Eritrean scholars. Eritrean scholars must surely resent and take exception to being called members of "a Mafia-racket" with "monocular vision", manipulated by a "foreign power to toe the official line". Yet, I am sure they have no intention of joining you in name-calling. May I, however, avail myself of an Amhara proverb: Leba Enat Lijuan Atamnim (A cheating mother does not trust her daughter). Amen.
I also agree with your statement that the border dispute should not have led to military confrontation and to a full-scale, even if short, war. Your statement in fact seems to have taken a leaf from the official position of the Eritrean Government which is still adamant about the peaceful resolution of the problem. On the other hand, I wish to assure you that, as far as Eritreans and their Government are concerned, the conflict is about borders, nothing more, nothing less. The root cause of the crisis lies in the systematic violation by Ethiopia of EritreaUs colonial boundary. Eritreans are fully convinced that, as far as they are concerned, there will be no other obstacles to peace if the border dispute ends peacefully and the Weyane abandon their claim to large chunks of Eritrean territory.
I must also remind you that aggression, if we are to accept the definition of the UN General Assembly, was first committed by Ethiopia against Eritrea. It was Ethiopia which crossed EritreaUs recognized boundaries at several points and occupied Eritrean territory. It was Ethiopian troops which cold-bloodedly murdered officers and soldiers of the Eritrean Defense Forces in Badme. It was Ethiopia which bombarded Asmara International Airport in a futile attempt to destroy the Eritrean Air Force. It was Ethiopia which declared war on Eritrea and blockaded Eritrean seaports and Eritrean air space. It is still Ethiopia which is threatening war and using the territories of neighboring states as a preparation for war. All these are considered acts of aggression by the Resolution. All these have been attested to by independent, foreign observers.
I should like to point out that:
This is the age of plurality of knowledge. It rejects egocentric universalism and exclusivism in the study of history. It clearly demonstrates that the methodology and tools that were employed in the last thirty (30) to forty (40) years to understand, explain and predict the human condition and experience in Africa - particularly the Horn of Africa - had become irrelevant and even a menace to peace and security in our societies. It appreciates the need for the decolonization of knowledge and the emancipation of human cognitive functions such as perception. In short, it tells us to wake up to reality.
Have a nice weekend and best wishes.
Amare Tekle