For Real Progress in Algiers, Ethiopia must stop lying
Ghidewon Abay-Asmerom
Thursday, 04 May 2000 

 The minority government of Ethiopia is back to its usual self: lying and  making misleading statements to scuttle the peace process. Instead of  signing the peace documents and making a positive move towards peace, it  is, once again, demonstrating its disdain for peace. It's contempt for our  intelligence is such that it would say things even if it knows it's  contradicting itself. Exquisite examples of its pathological lies  are the statement of May 2, and May 3, 2000, put out by its spokesperson.  Let's have a look at their May 2 statement.

 Since we don't know yet what is being discussed in Algiers, we will base  our analysis on the May 2 Ethiopian statement. We will look at the  statement and we will expose the TPLF's misinformation campaign one by  one.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 1

 "The Algiers proximity talks were planned to pick up from where  the facilitators had left off in early March 2000. Significant  progress was made by Mr. Ouyahia and Mr. Lake at that time." 
 Look at how the world is being lied to. "Significant progress was made by  Mr. Ouyahia and Mr. Lake at that time." This is in typical TPLF style pure  fabrication of facts. If there was a "significant progress" how come it  was not reported as progress by the media at the time? Firstly, let's  understand that if a significant progress was going to come at the time it  would have come only if Mr. Ouyahia and Mr. Lake had convinced the  Ethiopian leaders to accept the Technical Arrangements. Secondly, no one who  followed the shuttle diplomacy of late February and early March can claim  that Lake and Ouyahia made any progress. They had failed to convince  Ethiopia to accept the Technical Arrangements. This cannot be termed  progress, if anything, it was a miserable failure.

Let's look at what the independent press and the two countries reported at  the time. We begin with the statement of the Eritrean government:

 "The OAU envoy informed Eritrea that, after six months of efforts  by the organization and its partners in the peace process,  Ethiopia has not yet accepted the Technical Arrangements. This  despite the fact that Ethiopia, as Eritrea, had given its prior  consent to the OAU that the Technical Arrangements were "not open  to amendment." -- Eritrean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 3, 2000.
As far as Eritrea was concerned there was no progress in the peace talks.  It is to be remembered that this statement was issued after Ouyahiya-Lake  team had spent a week in Eritrea.

Read below how the BBC put it on its March 3, 2000 news report

 " Mediators trying to find a solution to the conflict between  Ethiopia and Eritrea have left the Eritrean capital HAVING MADE NO  APPARENT BREAKTHROUGH IN THE QUEST FOR PEACE. THE OAU SAID IT  WOULD CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR PEACE - TRADITIONALLY A STATEMENT  WHICH MEANS THAT THE MEDIATORS HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE A  BREAKTHROUGH. " (Emphasis added)
BBC's assessment was consistent with Eritrea's: there was no progress  made. Lake and Ouyahiya held talks with the Ethiopian leaders, they failed  to persuade the Ethiopians to chose the path of peace, and yet Ethiopian  leaders, true to their character, tried to sugar-coat their rejection.  Here is how they tried to spin it.
 "SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS has been made in the dialogue... during the  recent visit of the special envoy of the current chairman of the  OAU and the special envoy of the United States President," --Office  of the Ethiopian Government's Spokesperson March 5, 2000.  (Emphasis added)
 Even the OAU did not think significant progress was made.
 "Both parties reaffirmed their acceptance of the framework  agreement and the modalities for its implementation. With regard  to the technical arrangements submitted by the OAU and accepted by  Eritrea, a consensus was reached on some of their provisions while  others require additional efforts in order to secure the common  acceptance of the full document by both parties." -- OAU Press Release, March 6, 2000.
 You don't have to take my interpretation of what the OAU's statement was  trying to say. Take Pan African News Agency's interpretation of what the  OAU meant:
  "Despite the FAILURE OF THE LATEST MEDIATION EFFORTS to get  Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders to end their 22-month border war,  the OAU Monday said both sides have "renewed their readiness to  co-operate fully" to find a lasting solution to the conflict." -- March 6, 2000. (Emphasis added)
 What Ethiopia called "significant progress" the PANA reporter, based in  Addis Ababa, had called it a "FAILURE"? This is why we sated at the very  beginning Ethiopia is lying.

 Far from making a significant progress as Ethiopia's propaganda had  claimed, the Boston Globe blamed Ethiopia for being an obstacle to peace.

  "A nation where 8 million people are threatened by famine would be  wise to end a senseless war immediately. Ethiopia ought to accept  an African peace plan that calls for the peaceful settlement of  its border dispute with Eritrea. but whatever really happened, IT  IS CLEAR THAT ETHIOPIA IS PRESENTING THE BIGGEST ROADBLOCK TO  PEACE."--March 7, 2000 (Emphasis added)
 Again was "significant progress" made in March, as alleged by the minority  government in Ethiopia? Not according to the BBC, not according to the  OAU, not according to PANA, and not according to the Boston Globe. These  provide enough proof that Ethiopia's statement of May 2 was a lie. In  TPLF's strange doubletalk, it calls a significant progress what is a  failure to the rest of the world.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 2 

  "More could have been achieved then [in March], had it not been  for Eritrea's objection to the effort by the facilitators to put  the Technical Arrangements in line with the two basic documents."
 First look at Ethiopia's contradictory statement. On one hand it is saying  "significant progress" was made, on the other it is referring to  "Eritrea's objection". Which is it? It is clear the two cannot go  together.

 The statement reflects the classic Ethiopian syndrome that something is  true because Ethiopia said so; or something is wrong because Ethiopia said  so, regardless what the rest of the world thinks. The document is  acceptable if and only if it is in line with Ethiopia's position. This is  where the facilitators need to review their process. If they keep on  appeasing Ethiopia, we will never see an end to Ethiopia's demand.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 3

  "The Eritrean leadership said at the time that it needed more  time to study what was presented to it. It also affirmed its  willingness to present its own views on the improved document at  proximity talks to be convened before the end of March." 
 This statement is a pure lie crafted to misrepresent the facts. The  Eritrean government didn't say that. What it said, in a statement issued  after the Ouyahia-Lake's mission (Feb. 23- March 3) was that the Eritrean  government had accepted the Technical arrangements on the understanding  that they were 'non-amendable', but if the OAU had changed its mind on its  clearly stated statement, let it say so openly and in writing. The answer  to Eritrea's question came by way of President Bouteflika meeting with  President Isaias in Cairo early April.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 4  

 "The Eritrean delegation went to Algiers after dithering until  the last minute and after its request for a postponement of the  proximity talks failed to get a hearing from the facilitators."
 This statement is again untrue. The Eritrean government had made it clear  from the very beginning that it had no objection to attending any talks  (direct or indirect) as long as it knows what the purpose of the talks  are. It made this clear through the statement of the Cabinet of Ministers  and President Isaias, when he was in the US in a visit, had made that  clear. You can check all his statements. The Eritrean government has no  objection to talks with Ethiopia, including face to face. There was no  "dithering" about it. In fact the Eritrean government went resolute to  make peace and that is why it is calling for signing of the documents that  are already agreed upon. Thus, who is not resolute? Who went to Algiers  determined not to make peace? Who is prevaricating? Who is stalling the  peace process? Without a doubt, the leaders that had held peace hostage  for two years and those who see making peace as a humiliation are the TPLF  leaders not Eritrean leaders.

Ethiopia's Misinformation # 5  

  "Eritrea knows that progress that could be made based on what has  already been achieved in early March 2000, would inevitably lead  to the signing of all the peace documents, and to a cease-fire.  But Eritrea would have none of this."
 As we saw above, nothing was achieved on March 2000! What transpired in  March was that Ethiopia rejected the Technical arrangements and the OAU  said, "Let's start all over again."

 It doesn't also take a rocket-scientist to figure out that if Ethiopia  gets all what it wants, including but not limited to: Ethiopia's  sovereignty over all Eritrea's sovereign territory, the monitoring of the  disputed areas by Ethiopia's militia instead of a neutral and capable  force, and the unrestricted restoration of Ethiopian administration in  Eritrea's territory that to begin with was set up illegally and through  the power of the gun, then for sure it will say ok to a cease-fire, but  this means then Eritrea has to say good bye to demarcation. If Ethiopia  gets what it wants then demarcation will come only as a good will of  Ethiopia and goodwill is an alien character to the Woyanes. This should  never be allowed to happen. What Ethiopia is saying, has been saying from  day one is this: cede the disputed areas to Ethiopia, then we would be  willing to demarcate. Give us what we want, and there will be peace; if  not there will be war. This has been TPLF's mantra from day one.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 6

"1.Both Ethiopia and Eritrea have already several months ago  formally confirmed to the Current Chairman of the OAU in writing  their acceptance of the Framework Agreement and the Modalities." 
 True, the two had formally confirmed in writing their acceptance, but that  is not as signing the documents. A separate letter won't do it. The  documents have to be signed. If it is Ethiopia's position that it has  accepted the two documents then why not sign them? Why is it making a lot  of noise about it? Nowhere in the two documents do we find that says  "finish the technical arrangements and sign", instead what the two  documents say is "sign the documents and then talk about the Technical  arrangements." Here is the exact wording of the Framework for Agreement:
  "9. a. In order to determine the modalities for the implementation  of the Framework Agreement, a Follow-up Committee of the two  Parties be established under the auspices of the OAU High-Level  Delegation with the active participation and assistance of the  United Nations;

  " b. The committee begins its work as soon as the Framework  Agreement is signed;"

 In other words the Modalities of implementation and the Technical  arrangements were to be worked after the Framework Agreement was signed.

 It is to be remembered that Eritrea, as it announced its acceptance of the  Framework Agreement, had also announced the formation of a High Level  delegation to serve in the follow-up committee of the implementation. This  was in accordance with the stipulation of Article 9(a) of the Framework  for Agreement.

 But that couldn't bear fruit because Ethiopia had refused to accept the  Framework Agreement as is. As it did with the Technical Arrangements, it  insisted that its interpretation of the Framework Agreement be accepted  and the OAU and the US as they are trying to do now with the Technical  Arrangements, chose to succumb to Ethiopia's demand and wrote the  Modalities to be in-line with Ethiopia's demand. The modalities were  presented to the 35th OAU summit and the two parties were told, "here it  is accept it." That was a mistake and in clear contradiction with the  provision of the Framework for Agreement.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 7 

  "2. It was agreed-including by Eritrea---that the formal signing  of all three peace documents will take place upon the completion  of the implementation plan which, as it turned out, took almost  eight month to complete."
 Again this is an out and out lie. Eritrea never said the signing of the  three documents could be done at the same time. the first two documents had  to be signed first. As for the implementation plan taking eight months to  complete, well, that is another TPLF doubletalk.

 The first deception here is that the implementation plan (Technical  Arrangements) did not take "almost eight months to complete". It was  completed in one to two weeks (July 21-August 5). It is to be remembered  that Ouyahiya was in the Horn by the end of July. What took almost eight  months was not the completion of the implementation plan but TPLF's  prevarication to reject it and in the process to undo it.

 The TPLF has been saying that it wants everything to be in line with the  Framework and Modalities. Well, If that is what it wants, then the  Modalities specify the following:

  "5. The modalities for the re-establishment of the civilian  Administration and population in the concerned territories shall  be worked out after the cessation of hostilities."
 This means the Technical Arrangements cannot come before the cessation of  hostilities. They have to come after the cessation of hostilities. What is  the basis for Article 5 of the Modalities? Here is what the first article  of the Framework for Agreement says:
  "1. The two Parties commit themselves to an immediate cessation of  hostilities; "
 There cannot be any serious progress in the peace process without first  meeting the first requirement of the Framework for Agreement. This  requirement is the signing of the documents immediately followed by  cessation of hostilities and then a formal ceasefire. Every other detail  has to come after the signing of the Framework and cessation of  hostilities. This again is clearly spelled out in the 7th article of the  Modalities.
  "7. The two Parties commit themselves to sign a formal Ceasefire  Agreement, which provides for the detailed modalities for the  implementation of the Framework Agreement. "
 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 8  

  "3.Throughout the period of the preparation of the Technical  Arrangements, not even once, did Eritrea suggest that talks on  substantive matters should be made conditional on the signing of  the Framework Agreement and the Modalities."

 There is a clear deception with the wording of the above quoted statement:  "Throughout the period of the preparation of the Technical Arrangements"  How long was this period? As we saw above it was only one week, maximum  two weeks. It is to be remembered that the Modalities were passed by the  OAU July 15, 1999. Eritrea accepted them on the spot but Ethiopia's  acceptance didn't come until July 21, 1999. Then Ouyahiya visited the two  countries to get their input, that was end of July and then, the first  week of August, the so called experts from the UN, US, OAU and Algeria  produced the Technical Arrangements and by August 5, 1999 they were  presented to the two parties.

 There was no time span that could be termed as "throughout the period of  the preparation". If the time that elapsed between August 5, 1999 and  March 5, 2000 is what the Ethiopians are referring to, then it was a  period of not preparation but a period of Ethiopia's prevarication. The  period was also a period of Eritrea's unlimited patience in hopes that the  TPLF leaders would be persuaded to accept the Technical Arrangements. Now  that they have rejected it and are taking the process back to square one  it is only prudent to say "let's sign the previous two agreements,  documents we have agreed upon, first and then we can move on." Making a  deal with the TPLF is worse than making a deal with the Devil. There will  not be any guarantee, given by any body, that they will honor their word.

 If the TPLF means business and it wants to earn the world community's  trust, and Eritrea's, then let the Ethiopian government sign the two  documents first. They said they have accepted them and thus there  shouldn't be any problem. Of course unless they have a hidden agenda.  Signing of the documents could serve as the first positive move in more  than 3 years (beginning with their invasion of the plains of Badme and Adi  Murug) and the peace process can move from there. Signing of the Framework  Agreement before discussing details of implementation is what the document  calls for and thus if the TPLF wants to be taken seriously let it sign the  Framework. There shouldn't be ifs and buts here. It is a document that  they have claimed to accept.

 Ethiopia's Misinformation # 9  

  "4.It was only in early March---after almost eight months of  difficult negotiations---that substantial progress was made to  remove, upon Ethiopian's request, the flaws contained in the  Technical Arrangements, and to put this implementation document in  line with the Framework Agreement and the Modalities." 
 If there was eight months of "difficult negotiations" it was made with  Ethiopia alone. It was a negotiation between the facilitators and the  TPLF. Had Ethiopia endorsed the document that Eritrea accepted that would  have been progress. But since the Technical arrangements are now open to  amendments then it is only fair for the facilitators to start negotiations  with Eritrea. Had they been transparent with their negotiations from the  very beginning this would have been avoided but by keeping Eritrea out of  the loop they have taken the peace process back to where they were in  August 1999. The Technical Arrangements have to be declared, "it is in-line  with the Framework Agreement and the Modalities" not by a single party but  by both parties. Only then can we say "significant progress" has been  made.

 Eritrea's Preconditions

  "6. Now, after eight months of negotiation, Eritrea, for the first  time, sets preconditions for participation in substantive talks,  and this after having assured the facilitators in early March that  is would be prepared to express its views on the substantial  progress made in March."
 We don't know what Eritrea's set of preconditions is but by inferring from  the Ethiopian spokesperson's complaints, two statements stand out.
 1. " Substantive matters should be made conditional on the  signing of the Framework Agreement and the Modalities."

 2. "Demanding that ground rules for the talks be agreed to before  substantive talks resume, including ground rules for the role of  the facilitators."

 If what we are conjecturing from Ethiopia's statements is true, that is  the above listed are among the preconditions that the Eritrean government  presented, then we have to say kudus to it. It is about time. Starting  from its May 15 peace proposal the Eritrean government made was taken to  be too generous in accommodating to the facilitators' request to "give  Ethiopian leaders a break." The more Eritrea gave in to expedite the  process, the more the facilitators have been coming again, and again, for  more compromises. Eritrea should say now what it should have said way back, "enough is enough." The facilitators ought to know that we are not dealing  with honest people.

 With this in mind the following need to be given serious considerations:

  1.  As it was shown above, the Framework Agreement and its Modalities make  it clear that the Technical Arrangements should come only after the  signing of the first two documents. Too much time has already been wasted.  If the facilitators mean business and they want to speed the process they  should make the Ethiopians sign the documents. No foot dragging should be  allowed.

  2.  Since the first item in the Framework agreement is "cessation of  hostilities" let that item be implemented immediately and without delay.  Nowhere have we witnessed substantive talks on peace making progress  without cessation of hostilities. This was in line with the call of the  OAU heads of states Assembly in 1998, the UN Security Council and virtual  everyone else. If the facilitators cannot get this basic prerequisite  implemented then they should be honest enough to say, "We give up, let  others take over."

  3.  It is time the ground rules for the talks are also agreed upon in  writing and signed. There shouldn't be a space for any more child's plays.  No more for sayings this today and changing it tomorrow. Badme and  environs was defined as the immediate surrounding of Badme in January and  when Ethiopia said no, the facilitators changed it to mean the whole  1000km border in July (six months were wasted) and they stated the  document was "not open to amendments" in August and then come they came  back in April and said it is "open for amendment" (another six months was  wasted). All this has to stop by means of a well-agreed ground rules. By  the way it is mediation and there shouldn't be proposals that are  "non-amendable". Our opposition is not in the fact that the Technical  Arrangements were made "non-amendable", no, it was over the issue that  they were made "non-amendable" only if Eritrea was to object. Yes that was  how the US mediators were behaving last year.

  4.   The roles of the facilitators need to be known as well. Who is the  owner of the peace process? If it is the OAU, then the US should stay out  of the picture. If Bouteflika and Ouyahia are in charge then Susan Rice,  Anthony Lake, and Gayle "Woyane" Smith should let the Algerians do their  work. Gayle Smith is, as a friend once said, a TPLF groupie. And I might  add, of more than twenty years. Her involvement in the process was the  clearest case of conflict of interest. She should not have been allowed to  be involved in the process in any shape or form. As a member of the  troika, Gayle Smith is in charge of the peace process, but conveniently  using the OAU as a cover. This is, as a friend said once, Africa's shame,  and perhaps even God's wrath, that someone with over twenty years of  personal leadership with the top TPLF leadership be allowed to make a mess  of the lives of millions of Africans, and then to do so with total  impunity.  If the owner of the peace process is the US, then the OAU should throw in  the towel and let "the czars of the new world order" handle the process.  Not that they will perform any better, but it doesn't help to masquerade  in the name of the OAU when in fact the decisions are made by Washington.  On the other hand if the U.S and the O.A.U are equal partners then let it  be spelled as well. As it looks the OAU is in charge only in name and the  US is the real owner. It is some in the US mediating team with their clear  biases in favor of Ethiopia that are responsible for bungling up the peace  process. Why should the Algerians and the OAU take the blame?

  5.  What about the UN? What is the role of the UN and its Security Council?  We know the UN will be used as a stick when the US mediating team wants to  use it. We also know the UN, according to the Framework Agreement, is a  partner in this peace process, indeed its role needs to be spelled out. If  the role of the UN is clearly spelled out the TPLF would never get an  excuse to keep talking about the ownership of the peace process. IMO the  OAU have neither the means nor the political will to be a custodian of the  peace process and its implementation. It is time that the UN's role as an  equal custodian spelled out in detail. After all the issue of demarcating  the Eritrea-Ethiopia border should be seen as the final stage of  decolonization and hence the role of the UN is vital.