Paul Henze and the Eritrean-Ethiopian Conflict
By
Amare Tekle

March 21, 1999


I read the contents of a press briefing by Paul Henze on the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict which appeared in a Walta Information Center dissemination. I know that Walta Information Center is an agency of the ruling Tigrai People's Liberation Front (TPLF) and could have possibly distorted his comments to suit the purposes of the government. I hardly think so, however, since the contents of this briefing are only a vulgar edition of his interview with the BBC a few weeks ago. I had decided not to comment on his views at that time only because I had thought it would serve no useful purpose to respond to a person like Paul Henze with a record of a long-time hostility and ill-will to, and demonization of, Eritrea and its people. Instead, I had decided to follow P.G. Woodhouse's counsel on such persons: "Slice him where you like, a hellhound is always a hellhound." I am now writing because of the excesses of his ideas and language.

One reassuring note and a warning. First, the good news: Henze is held in very low esteem and, particularly in academia, his opinions are viewed with suspicion and his integrity is tarnished. For example, the eminent political scientists Edward S. Herman and Noan Chomsky find in his writings "complete absence of credible evidence, a reliance on ideological premises, and internal inconsistencies". (Herman and Chomsky: Manufacturing Mistake P147.) Others accuse him of deliberate distortions and biased interpretations.

Now the warning. When you read any of Henze's work, or listen to him in any discussion, you need to control yourself because he can be infuriatingly liberal with his language and his illogic. He surely has the capacity to bring the base instincts of the average decent person. It is therefore armed with the wisdom of such experience and with great restraint that I offer a few remarks on the major issues he raises in the briefing and the BBC interview.

  1. Aggression and the Ethiopian-Eritrean Conflict:
    You seemed to be convinced that "Eritrea committed aggression against Ethiopia" because during your touristic trek in Tigray in February-March 1998 - i.e. at least three months before the eruption of conflict - you had not come across any Ethiopian Military personnel in Gunda-Gundi, Adigrat, Axum and Adwa, hundred of kilometers from the initial area of conflict in the Badme region. The logic of your analysis leaves much to be desired because it is full of absurd non-sequiturs. If you had actually seen Ethiopian troop movements in Ethiopian territory, would you have concluded that Ethiopia was about to commit aggression against Eritrea? Does your touristic adventure in Tigray empower you to make valid conclusions on weighty issues such as the border between the two countries? A props, may I ask whether you were there as a tourist or on a covert operations assignment?

    You declare that Eritrea must be declared an aggressor. May I also ask for your definition of aggression? The official UN definition of aggression, as is inscribed in GA Resolution 3314 of 1974, is, inter alia, (1) the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another state, (2) bombardment by the armed forces of a state against the territory of another state and (3) the blockade of the ports of a state. Honest third party verification informs us that it was Ethiopia that crossed into Eritrean territory in July 1997 and again on 15 June 1998 after the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared war on 4 June 1998. It was Ethiopia which announced to the World that it has blockaded the Eritrean sea coast and Eritrean airspace; it was Ethiopia which bombarded Asmara International Airport. (See for example, Paul Harris' article in Combat and Survival, Vol. 10, Issue 7, October 1998).

    Again, it is Ethiopia which, in February 1999, broke the air moratorium brokered by the US. It was Ethiopia which committed aggression along three fronts of the border in February 1999. It is Ethiopia which refuses the cease fire and the cessation of hostilities demanded by the UN and - hear this - it is Ethiopia which has finally showed its true colors and objectives by rejecting the validity of Colonial borders. It is also to be noted that even the OAU request for withdrawal from Badme and its environs which Eritrea has now accepted, hinges on "goodwill". Mr. Henze, are you not rushing in where real experts have so far feared to tread? - to paraphrase Alexander Pope.

  2. The Conflict and the "International Community":
    I agree with you that the bureaucrats that are in charge of African affairs in both the state department and the National Security Agency are either new to the field or hopelessly incompetent or even not academically qualified. I may also agree with you - although I also sense that you are grinding the axe of the rejected volunteer of unsolicited advice - that the US and Europe are not as interested in the Horn of Africa as they are in Kosovo, North Korea and Iraq. However, I do not agree with you that the US has been passive. If anything, Susan Rice has been very active in formulating the US-Rwanda Plan, having it accepted by the OAU, then steering it swiftly through the UN Security Council and then the European Union, via Great Britain. Susan Rice had also been very active in ensuring that the Grand Consensus that the US had thus created would not crumble by active lobbying in Europe, Africa and the UN. Eritreans are convinced that the principal thrust of the American diplomatic offensive in the Horn of Africa has been to isolate, and to thereby impose a decision on, Eritrea at all cost. It is in fact a sad commentary on US foreign policy that, once Eritrea accepted the only condition that was the obstacle to the implementation of the OAU Framework which was being vigorously pushed as the only viable mechanism for peace-making, the US and the UK resorted to some "friendly persuasion" to convince Eritrea to compromise its sovereignty "in the interest of peace" by accepting Ethopia's new and unwarranted pre-conditions. It would be interesting to know what the position of the US and the UK would be on Ethiopia's new position on the conflict i.e. the rejection of the sacred OAU principle concerning the sanctity of colonial borders. Therefore, while the charge that "some people in the US were stupid and were duped" may be true (who am I to doubt that words of "an insider"!), the record shows that it cannot possibly have been undertaken with the purpose of making US policy makers "indulgent to Eritrea". On the contrary, all available evidence, including the ones cited above, prove that with or without "the pressure you were putting on (your) government" the US and the UK and, because of their lobbying, the rest of the world have been coddling to Ethiopia.

  3. "Democracy" in Ethiopia and Eritrea:
    I was amazed by the contents of your contribution on Ethiopian Democracy in the Journal of Democracy (Vol. 9, No. 4, 1998). I was amused by the polite skepticism of the editor who was "concerned by some of its empirical assertions and philosophical assumptions" and had, in his outrage, to request your permission to solicit rejoinders which would appear in the same issue. This was unusual editorial pressure but, under the circumstances, he had to safeguard his reputation and the integrity of his journal. I read with great satisfaction the articles by John Harbeson and particularly the inimitable Richard Joseph who writes about your article as follows:

    "I had not anticipated being confronted with such a stark demonstration of how the idea of democracy can be distorted and turned into a shield for what are at best semi-authoritarian practices. My task has thus become the unpleasant one of identifying the threat that such a treatment represents, not just to struggling democratic movements world-wideIII"

    Yet, outsiders, however concerned they may be and however balanced their judgements may be, cannot be the critical sources of approval or disapproval. I agree with Edmund Burke who declares "If any ask me what a free government is, I answer, that for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so." So, what is the verdict of the Ethiopian people? Let me quote from one Amharic and one English Journal. In an article entitled "what I do not understand, what I cannot understand, what it is not possible for me to understand" appearing in the February 1993 issue of the Amharic Journal Tobia, Tsegaye Gebre-Medhin Araya writes:

    "We are scared to discuss national issues openly, in a country which is supposed to have allowed the exercise of unfettered democratic rights. We are scared of the President. We are scared of the Prime Minister. We are scared of the authorities of the day empowered as they are by political power and the barrel of the gun. We are scared of our immediate bosses and our colleague who is from the ruling ethnic group; we are scared of our wives and our in-laws; we are scared, scared, scaredI.We are scared of going to jail, being sacked from the job. We are scared of deathI..We are scared of everything."

    In a commentary entitled "The Slide Towards Democracy", in Vol. 3, No. 2 issue of The Ethiopian Review, Girma Bekele writes:

    "Amaras in Ethiopia continue to live under physical and psychological attacks by the TPLF/EPRDFI..For the last 20 months the TPLF/EPRDF led government exposed defenseless Amaras to untold atrocitiesI.This constant provocation, intimidation and attempt to silence dissent cannot be tolerated any longerI."

    Before I rest my case, I wish to add, at the risk of overkill, that I have not even submitted the views of the real leaders of Ethiopian labor, teachers and students unions as well as the leaders of political parties, human rights groups and ethnic groups who are either in jail or in exile. We must also never forget, the more than fifty (50) journalists who are either in jail or in exile and the over thirty (30) that are awaiting trail. The multi-party system that you claim exists in Ethiopia is nothing more than an assemblage of TPLF clones created by the TPLF for the TPLF. I can assure you there was more democracy in East Germany (which technically was also a multi-party state) than present day Ethiopia.

    And in Eritrea? You claim that Eritrea is now under an authoritarian regime which allows no press freedom or differences of opinion. Obviously, you have not been to Eritrea for a long time. There are about half a dozen independent newspapers and at least three journals - one of them in English. As in most African states at its level of development (and remember Eritrea is only in its sixth (6) year of independence) there is one radio and one TV station, both government owned. The editorial body is free.

    Eritrea is in the stage of democratic transition i.e. it is in a systematic process of developing its own political, economic and social institutions based on the values of democracy. It is a stage where both government and people are participating in the articulation of a vision on an ideology and culture of development, economic, political, social. The vision serves as a meaningful guide for tackling the problems of nation-building and state-formation as well as the establishment of meaningful democratic institutions. There is, as is almost universally agreed by African social scientists, the need for a strong leadership to guide this process. Eritrea is blessed with such a strong leadership whose source of legitimacy is a Rousseauean General will of the population has shaped and shares the vision of the government. It is this leadership that you demonize as authoritarian either out of ignorance or political malice. In the meantime, the government has been accountable to the people, respects the rule of law and equality before the law, promotes and safeguards human rights (including of resident aliens), sustains a meaningful political communication and dialogue with the people, has decentralized political power and authority and is preparing for elections by secret ballot. It is because of these endearing governmental activities that you have hardly any political prisoners, that human rights are scrupulously observed, (including of Ethiopian in Eritrea even at these trying times), a constitution has been promulgated and local and regional elections held on its basis and an electoral law has been drafted; and general national elections would have been held on schedule if it had not been for this unexpected aggression. This is the basis for the close link between government and people. This is why people and Government speak the same language - well, at least most of the time. A muzzled Eritrean? This is an oxymoron. Trust me, an Eritrean is so capable of expressing himself in so many ways that it would not be possible for government officials to frolic in Asmara with the casualness and abandon that is seen nowhere in Africa if they were to abuse power or to tamper with human rights.

  4. The Eritrean Referendum:
    Your claim that you were an observer in the Eritrean referendum is not substantiated by the records. That notwithstanding, I do not believe that you understand that the purpose of a referendum is to present to a population a simple, clear and unequivocal proposal on any public issue. In fact, if you had been an observer, you would have remembered my answer to this question at that time. I answered: "It is not possible to present multiple choices for the simple reason that it would not be possible to arrive at a conclusive decision. It would be however entirely possible to administer another referendum with another proposal in the absence of a clear choice." The Eritrean Referendum Commission did just that. And the results were unambiguous. The UN and other agencies which were consulted approved the framing of the question that was asked. All government, including the Ethiopian and US governments, NGOs and IGOs were satisfied with the framing of the question and described the referendum process as one of the fairest and freest of referendums ever. In fact, there was near-universal acclaim of the administration, conduct and supervision of the process. Just the same, why are you raising this issue now? Do I sense a freudian slip of information acquired by a regretful Ethiopian Government?

  5. Commitment to Peace:
    You argue that, while "Ethiopia had expressed complete willingness to accept the "OAU Peace Formula" (i.e. the Framework Agreement) Eritrea has done "nothing more" than "in making a declaration to the UN". What else was it supposed to do? Is it in the Framework Agreement that Eritrea should "apologize" (as you wish it to) for what it has done (whatever it is that it has done?), "to explain to their own people" (which, in spite of you, they have done not only to the Eritrean but also to the Ethiopian people in both Amharic and Oromigna). Who is now refusing to accept the Framework Agreement? Who, in fact, seems to be now rejecting OAU Resolution AHG/RES16(1) which sanctifies colonial borders? Who is rejecting all UN resolutions for cease-fire and cessation of hostilities?

  6. Language Analysis:
    A cursory content analysis of your briefing and your BBC interview reveals that you have adopted wholesale the discourse of Ethiopian propaganda, thus betraying your true colors and indicating your readiness (perhaps unsolicited) to be a propaganda errand-boy of the Ethiopian government. Value loaded phrases like "Eritrea committed aggression against Ethiopia", "Ethiopia being a victim of aggression", "Ethiopia has been patient" or "Ethiopia waited for a long time", "Eritrea must be forced by the international community", "Eritrea must be made to apologize", "they (meaning the Eritrean leadership) have not explained it to their people" (as if it is any of your or Ethiopia's business) etc. are the daily staple of those who are exposed to the Ethiopian propaganda machine. Yet, you have the pretensions of an impartial expert and analyst of Horn of Africa affairs. The most astonishing part of the whole matter is that you, of all people, accuse others of dishonesty and lying. Quite Orwellian, eh?

  7. The Motive:
    Having been an Ethiopian propagandist and having been engaged in the business of delegitimizing Eritrea for almost thirty (30) years, it has been very hard for you to accept Eritrean independence. Indeed, your conversation with Meles Zenawi in 1990 on the future of Eritrea seems like a reflection of your wishes and his desire to accommodate them. You have now found a golden opportunity to engage in your previous practice of demonizing Eritrea and Eritreans. Thus, you wish Ethiopia more and more victories until the destruction of Eritrea. To this, I say "Merde a Paul Henze".


Amare Tekle Asmara