In 1960 the Former Italian and British Somalilands attained their independence and immediately set their agenda to reunite with the Somalis of the Ogaden.
In 1961, a year before Haile Selassie unlawfully dissolved the UN created Ethio-Eritrean Federation and annexed Eritrea, the Eritrean people raised arms to fight for their liberation. It was during this period that many of the African nations were gaining independence as Haile Selassie made relentless diplomatic maneuvers to establish the OAU with it's Headquarters in Ethiopia. The OAU was established in 1963. Once the OAU was headquartered in Ethiopia, Haile Selassie and his ruling Shoan clique effectively controlled and domesticated the Organization. It has always been referred to as a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia. Haile Sellassie was a staunch ally of the US, not only because he provided the Kagnew military base in Eritrea but also because he was considered as a good spokesman in Africa and the Non-Aligned Nations Movement. Haile Sellassie and other weak African leaders contributed a lot to make the OAU a toothless organization. It in fact has gone so low that it has become a tool for ambitious junior US diplomats and so-called consultants of US think-tank. OAU officials and staff members that counted were rewarded by the Ethiopian Government, with subsidized rents or free housing, depending upon their importance and timidity. It is a public secret that many of the staff were provided with selected concubines. Occasionally, Heads of States indulged themselves in organized parties at the red light districts of Addis Ababa. Many senior staff of the OAU are heavily engaged in bootlegging and other contraband activities, with tacit approval from the Ethiopian Government. It is in this atmosphere that the OAU Secretariat functions.
One issue that was the raison de etre for the OAU was, self determination. Unfortunately the OAU took a narrow definition of the principle of self-determination and settled with the belief that it only applied to nations that were under European Colonial rule thus ignoring the destiny of various nations oppressed by African ruling nationalities. Despite the narrow OAU definition of the principle of self determination, Eritrea which clearly fulfilled that requirement, was denied any consideration by this African definition.
When Moroccan forces invaded Western Sahara after Spanish colonial rule ended, the OAU failed to raise the principle of self determination for fear that King Hassan of Morocco would lash back with the Eritrean Right to self determination. The Saharawi people were betrayed by the OAU. Thereafter the OAU became a useless & impotent organization as the Western Sahara issue was taken over by the UN. Every problem that arose in Africa was forgotten by the OAU. The genocide in Rwanda and the conflicts in the greater lake region seem to be of no concern to the OAU. The disintegration of Somalia seems to have pleased the OAU as it is a blessing for Ethiopia. Rampant slavery in the Sudan, civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, famine in Ethiopia etc., are or were all being handled either by the UN or other regional Organizations.
Vis-a-vis Ethiopia the record of the Organization has been shameful. The OAU Headquarters overlooks the largest Ethiopian prison. From the windows of the OAU building you can observe all the prisoners milling around. In 1975 Mengistu Hailemariam massacred over 60 Ethiopian Officials and dignitaries, on the prison grounds right under the nose of the OAU. Three years later the streets of Addis Ababa and the prison grounds were littered with the bodies of thousands of Mengistu's red terror victims. The OAU never raised any voice. During the Great Ethiopian famines of 1974, 1984 and 1985 the OAU was as silent as any government department, when passionate school children around the world contributed portions from their rations.
When the current Ethio-Eritrean dispute erupted the OAU suddenly wanted to show some tooth against Eritrea. A cursory observation of the events show that the OAU works as a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian Parliament, in its declaration of war must have known that the facilitators and the OAU's decision would call for the withdrawal of Eritrea from its own territory. Otherwise how can the Ethiopian parliament make Eritrean withdrawal as a condition for peace? How can the Ethiopian Government submit to an OAU brokered peace after having come with a decision of its own? What if the OAU had decided that the border would be demarcated while the two parties hold their current position? From the outset Ethiopia's position has been, in and of itself, a decision and any other decision, would have been contradictory to Ethiopia s position. The OAU instead of arbitrating a case without any pre conditions willfully submitted to the request of the Ethiopian Government whose hands were tied by all of the decisions of its own organs. When one of the parties to the dispute comes with its hands tied behind, by its own conditions, the OAU can not collect the facts as provided by both parties and frame the issues. Instead, the OAU and for that matter the facilitators started working on the details of the execution of a decision already passed by the Ethiopian Parliament and Council of Ministers.
To add to its non-glorious record the OAU endorsed the recommendations of the facilitators from Rwanda and the US. As if an arbitrating body would leave its tasks to a Consulting Firm, the OAU spent no time to endorse the opinion of the facilitators as if it were its own findings.
In hindsight, the facilitators, at least the US were from the outset Ethiopia's partner and not a neutral party. Otherwise how can the facilitators explain the fact that, despite their demand for restraint during and after the negotiations, the US Embassy in Asmara starts evacuation and Asmara is bombed on June 5th? The same day, the facilitators recommendation was adopted by the Council of Ministers of the OAU. The facilitators knew the bombing of Asmara in advance. If they did not call for the air raid they could, at least have stopped it. It appears that the facilitators saw the need for an air raid on Asmara just as the Ethiopian Government did. Can any one say the facilitators were neutral?
Again in Hindsight, one of the bodies that looked into the conflict was the delegation of Heads of States and Government of the Central Organ of the OAU. A member of that delegation was the President of Djibouti who had allowed Ethiopia to use his country as a transit point for its arms supplies and other war materials. Later on Djibouti and Ethiopia signed a defense pact. To add insult to injury, Djibouti still seizes its post as an arbitrator. I should add, shamelessly.
As we can see from the above points the structurally defective claim made by Ethiopia and an adjudication body poised to advance Ethiopia's interest can hardly dispense justice. Naturally enough, the procedure to be followed can result only in the mockery of justice.
The OAU, instead of looking for the facts so that they could assist in the decision making, reversed this elementary legal procedure and called for fact finding after it endorsed the facilitators decision which again was based on the Ethiopian decision. This simply shows us that the OAU is working as an executor of the Ethiopian Parliament's decision. Considering that the OAU is situated in Addis Ababa and fully exposed to the Ethiopian Government propaganda, it could have second thoughts on Ethiopia's motives and interests when a second front was opened on the Assab-Addis road. When Tekeda Alemu, Ethiopia's Vice Minister for foreign Affairs, declared that his government would capture Assab, the OAU was a silent lamb. Because they were torpedoed by empty Ethiopian war drums and other propaganda, the OAU and the facilitators lost track of the logical procedural steps and ended working on the execution of an Ethiopian decision before arriving at a decision of their own.
The UN Commissioner on Human Rights, the US State Department and Amnesty International have unequivocally proved and stated that Ethiopia is violating the rights of Eritreans residing in Ethiopia as well as those of Ethiopians of Eritrean origin. The OAU in a strange twist of logic, only declared that Eritrea was not violating the rights of Ethiopians residing in Eritrea. Even the Ethiopian Embassy in Eritrea had stated that there were no Ethiopians imprisoned by the Eritrean Government, because of their citizenship. The OAU has kept silent on the actions of Ethiopia as tens of thousands of Eritreans were being arbitrarily arrested on the streets of Addis Ababa and deported. The OAU has first hand information on Eritrean students that are being detained, tortured and murdered in concentration camps, by Ethiopian security forces. The OAU has first hand knowledge of Eritreans being expropriated, without due process of law, by Ethiopian security forces. History will ask the OAU, how it responded to the atrocities that were being committed by the Ethiopian Government against Eritreans. The OAU will be held liable for failing to raise it s voice in defense of these innocent Eritreans who are suffering under the very nose of the OAU.
Finally, to cap it all, the Ethiopian Government has forced the Eritrean Ambassador to the OAU to leave. The OAU has not condemned this flagrant violation of international law and norm regarding diplomats accredited to International Organizations. If both parties have no equal access to the OAU, which in this case is also functioning as a tribunal or arbitrator - if one of the parties can decide on the presence or absence of the other party at the tribunal - the whole process is sheer mockery on justice. The OAU cannot dispense justice in any form, as long as its tribunal is controlled by one of the adversaries. All these OAU actions and inaction are concrete proof that Ethiopia has domesticated the OAU and can only function as a department in the Ethiopian Foreign Office.
In the discharge of its duties the OAU has consistently failed. It is, as they say, worse than a broken clock, which is correct, at least twice a day. The OAU has to inject new life into itself and exorcise itself from Ethiopian spell and start on the right track anew. Africa is a region where the past bleeds into the present and, god help us, the OAU does not extend this bleeding into the next millennium. In any legal proceeding, a procedural error made at any stage will adversely affect the substance. The procedural error must be corrected at any cost if justice is to be dispensed at all.
Finally, I would like to comment on the essence of the Ethiopian Government's condition for peace, which has been acceded to by the OAU with a perfunctory understanding of the concepts. The essential condition for peace demanded by the Ethiopian Government is the establishment of the status quo ante . The concept regarding the establishment of the status quo ante is not an abstract concept that operates simply on an arbitrary point in time. The concept refers to a reversal of a process to the point where one reaches a clear and defined point in time where the next action will not hint to any sign of belligerency. Withdrawal of troops, per se, is not the establishment of the status quo ante because the causes for troop concentration, in the first place are not addressed, especially if they are part of a continuum. The establishment of the status quo ante will call upon the Ethiopian government to, rescind the map they printed in 1997 and the currency they issued in 1998. It will call upon the Ethiopian government to return all the cattle and grain that was confiscated from Eritrean farmers in and around the conflict area. All farmers that were unduly penalized around the border area will have to get sufficient compensatory and punitive damages from the Ethiopian Government. The party that invokes the establishment of the status quo ante must have absolutely clean hands before, during and after the time it claims the status quo ante. The Ethiopian Government, even if it could ask for the establishment of the status quo ante, it should have respected the rights of Eritreans anywhere and all the time. The establishment of the status quo ante is a right. Like all rights you get it only when you respect others' rights. Ethiopia, given the circumstances, can not, by any standard, ask for that right. The Ethiopian Government and along with it the OAU want to attach the establishment of the status quo ante to the return of the civilian administration . This attempt to join the return of the civilian administration in par with the establishment of the status ante has two major flaws. The establishment of the status quo ante is closely tied with all the conditions and circumstances that culminated into belligerency. If the so called civilian administration's tasks caused the confrontation the establishment of the status quo ante simply takes you back to square one, thereby defeating the purpose and principle behind establishing the status quo ante. Here we have to ask whether the so called civilian administration was providing and/or managing medical services, electricity and other energy supplies, water and sewerage services, public transportation, road building and maintenance services etc.,.. Was the so called civilian administration a simple military operation, arbitrarily demarcating borders, confiscating farmlands and its produce, imprisoning and evicting farmers of Eritrean origin? If it s tasks were the latter it is not a civilian administration but only a military operation and the OAU and its patron the Ethiopian government must for the establishment of the status quo ante look elsewhere and not in the return of THIS civilian administration.
No government with a right mind will let it' s civilian population fall under foreign jurisdiction, let alone under a CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATION whose only task is cleansing Eritreans from their own land. This so called administration is an extension of an administration that is torturing, murdering and expropriating Eritreans in front of the OAU, the UN and the whole diplomatic community in Addis Ababa. We can all imagine how this administration, which boasts that it can deport people because of the color of their eyes, would treat people in the remote regions of Eritrea. Any body be it the OAU or the facilitators who call for the return of such an administration are not only sanctioning ethnic cleansing but they are also condoning past actions of ethnic cleansing, the most exemplary of which was Hitler s administration. We stand to say never again. The OAU and the facilitators must start to reflect and revisit their soul lest they have blood in their hands. It is wiser to correct one s inadvertent mistake rather than be an informed accomplice to ethnic cleansing, just for political expediency. Only if our conscience doesn t bother us do we disregard the lives lost in Rwanda and Hitler s Germany.
In all the proceedings regarding this case the sole voice that has attempted to save the OAU as a credible voice, if one has noticed, is Eritrea. Since the start of the conflict Eritrea has consistently shown how Ethiopia s original claim, and the formation of the arbitration bodies was structurally defective. Eritrea has, without fail, called for proper procedural proceedings, to which the OAU replied with deaf ears. Naturally the final decision had to be as defective as the proceedings. And so it was. We are all proud of the judicious stands Eritrea continues to take.
Any legal problem is, just like a mathematical problem, a cumulative problem. If you fail to consider or err in any of the steps, you will fail to dispense justice and solve the problem. The OAU should wake up and take its tasks with a professionalism well deserved by the people of this long neglected continent.