"There is, of course, the tendency among many informed Eritreans to point accusatory finger at influential parties that they feel have once again forsaken or tried to suppress this country's rights and truths. Unfortunately, there is good cause for such bitterness, including lessons from this country's difficult history. But, as long as the chances for a fair and just treatment, especially by the OAU, the UN, and the EU exist, blames and recriminations may best be postponed for the time being." - Alemseged Tesfai, writing in Eritrea Profile
Alemseged's thoughtful analysis begs the question: when it comes to the OAU, the UN, and the EU, is there a chance for Eritrea to receive a "fair and just treatment" ? (Alemseged's list of "influential parties" omits the 500-pound gorilla of influence peddling, human rights advocacy and championing of freedom--our beloved US. I don't know if his omission is due to a belief that, when it comes to the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, the US cannot be fair and just or that it is not all that influential:-)
To my surprise, my answer is YES....if only...
The thing to remember about the OAU is that, since its inception, it has had 68 "Council of Ministers" meetings, 34 "Heads of States" meetings and a sum total of 4 Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution summits. Which is to say, it is new to the field of mediation. Given that, in my opinion, the OAU has been exceedingly thorough and reasonably fair. Unfortunately for us, this is like saying a hamster runs fast or that a man with a chain around his ankle tied to a tree sure tries hard to run. One is impressed by the hard work-and distressed by the futility of it all. More frustrating is the realization that the man is strong and the chain is weak and if he wanted to he could break free. But, the man is not ready to break free.
The US-imposed chain came in the person of Ms. Susan Rice when she paid a visit to Ouagadogou at the Summit of the OAU just before the session was concluded on June 10 and pressured the OAU to adopt the US-Rwanda Proposal. The US-Rwanda Proposal had been submitted to Ethiopia and Eritrea on May 30 and May 31 respectively; Ethiopia had "accepted" the proposal on June 4th and Eritrea was studying the proposal (it had also signaled that it consider US- Rwanda a positive development.) That the US would rush the proposal to the OAU without making any serious effort to address the concerns of one of the parties involved shows that the agenda of the US was identical to that of Ethiopia: to pressure Eritrea to accept a lopsided proposal. This type of heavy-handed mediation tool, which is the only one taught at the Madeline Albright School Of Mediation (the most recent being the Kosovo-Serbia mediation effort), is effective only when one-side is perceived to be weak and susceptible to pressure. (Note how disastrous it was when the US tried to pressure Israel into signing a deal with the PLO. In classic Albrightese, the US was forced to, once again, extend a meaningless deadline.) Ms. Rice was absolutely convinced that unless the Ethiopian Government got its way, Ethiopia-a large nation with massive arms-was, for certain, going to unleash its fury on Eritrea. She panicked and rushed the proposal to the OAU.
US-Rwanda Is Inconsistent With the "African Spirit" for two reasons:
Clearly, the way Ms. Rice sold US-Rwanda Plan to the OAU doesn't have a shred of "African spirit" or wisdom to it. It was designed to humiliate Eritrea; it was very generous to Ethiopia and was muddy on principles. Sign here, here, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. The peace of price was only asked of Eritrea-there wasn't--and there hasn't been--a single concession asked of Ethiopia. Hell, it was considered too rude to ask Ethiopia to stop deporting people including children, grandmothers and nuns.
"While strongly wishing for a speedy solution to the crisis, our Delegation was constantly concerned about the need to take the necessary time to carry out, in the best manner, its peace mission. It seemed important for us to allow for an in-depth consideration of the situation, the positions and concerns of one another and to give time for reflection and allow for the cooling down of tempers in order to give ourselves the best chances to be most useful."
Wise African words. Why then would the OAU accept the US-Rwanda Proposal that was hatched up over a two-week period under the duress of the Ethiopian Government's daily threats of war?
Did the OAU accept the US-Rwanda Proposal as a basis for drafting its own proposal? Here, the OAU opted for ambiguity when clarity was sought. The Eritrean Government had made it known to the OAU Committee of Ambassadors during their fact-finding visits between June 30th and July 9th (by then Ethiopia's policy of Ethnic Cleansing was in full swing) that as far as Eritrea was concerned the US-Rwanda was over and that the OAU's initiatives were new. The OAU could have been frank and said, "we beg to differ with you; that is not our understanding, our mission is based on US-Rwanda". Eritrea would have been spared months of agonizing hope. Instead what we got was, "There is no need to recall the circumstances which prompted the OAU summit in Ouagadougou to send a High Level Delegation of Heads of State to Ethiopia and Eritrea." In other words, maybe yes, maybe not, whatever gets the two of you to talk. I suppose that is part of the "African spirit" of not humiliating us but we would have been better off had we been spared that kindness. For if the OAU proposal is based on US-Rwanda, and Eritrea considered US-Rwanda dead beyond repair, what is the point of this lengthy exercise?
After the US presented the Susan Rice Proposal to the OAU, here's what happened with, (to borrow Seyoum Mesfin's favorite metaphor) the ball known as Eritrea-Ethiopia Peace Negotiations. It visited the following courts:
There are some things that the OAU says that sound good^E.but reading the final recommendations of the OAU, it is hard to escape the conclusion that they have been placed on paper purely for decorative purpose. For example, the OAU says the following:
" We have also been led to the conclusion that the evens prior to those of 6 - 12 May 1998 contributed to the gradual deterioration of the relations between the two countries. In the pursuit of justice and equity, it also seems indispensable that appropriate inquiries be carried out on the events of 6 - 12 May 1998 and those that preceded them such as the incidents that took place in July and August 1997."
Therefore?
Eritrea should withdraw unilaterally from Badme and environs. How does one follow the other? Because, says the OAU, the only reason we are mediating is because Ethiopia complained of your aggression on May 12. So the fact that Eritrea didn't bitch and moan when Ethiopia was violating its sovereignty for seven years is...what? Too damn bad? That is African wisdom?
Or consider the following statement that would make any Eritrean jump up and holler in perfect agreement with the OAU:
" In all its efforts, the OAU High-Level Delegation has based its action on the relevant principles enshrined in the Charter of our continental organization, that is the settlement of disputes between OAU Member States by peaceful means; the non-use of force or the respect for the sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of the borders existing at independence."
This statement was uttered by the Current Chairman of the OAU in his introduction of the OAU Framework For Agreement Recommendation. It is unfortunate that his words are not part and parcel of the agreement itself--unless you consider the Whereas, Wherein, and Wherefore Art Thou introduction to the agreement itself. It is unfortunate that OAU did not stand up to its principles and tell Ethiopia to play by the rules of the game. If the OAU truly believed that "disputes between OAU Member States" must be resolved peacefully, it would have insisted on unconditional cessation of hostilites. But that would have "humiliated" Ethiopia and that is not in the "African spirit" and we cannot have that. I suppose the African spirit is to tolerate dictators and deporters so their feelings won't be hurt--even if this means the destruction, displacement and detention of millions of Africans. Is it any wonder that Africa is in the mess it is in?
What the OAU has succeeded in doing--and what Susan Rice failed miserably at- is framing the agreement in a manner where the "convergence of agreement" between the two parties is highlighted. To the credit of the OAU, it has come up with a framework that includes 11 points--nine of which are agreed to by both parties. The disagreement is on the Price of Peace. Eritrea says if the price of peace is to unilaterally withdraw from land that the "sacrosanct principle" of the OAU tells us is ours and the price is to agree to return an abusive and sadistic Ethiopian administration made up of Eritrea-haters bent on revenge that is neither wise nor particularly African.
If the OAU wants to be taken seriously and empower its Conflict Resolution body, it needs to worry less about hurting people's feelings, "African wisdom" and such like abracadabra and worry more about "African principles" as enshrined in the OAU. If it does that, and there is still no peace, then it is the problem of the parties involved--not the OAU.