For its part, Ethiopia has accused Eritrea of deporting Ethiopians from Eritrea. However, Ethiopia's claims, unlike those of Eritrea, have not been corroborated by independent international agencies, such as the U.N. Commission of Human Rights and Amnesty International or the U.S. State Department and the European Union. No doubt, many Ethiopians have left Eritrea since the war started. But as clarified by Amnesty International, many of them left because they lost their jobs after Ethiopia boycotted Eritrea's sea ports. Nevertheless, whether Eritrea is also guilty as accused by Ethiopia is an empirical question that needs to be verified with reliable data. And if Eritrea is also guilty it is something that Eritreans should not be proud of or condone.
My main aim in writing this brief commentary is to share my views on the following three questions surrounding the deportations. These are;
Do the Deportations Constitute Ethnic Cleansing?
Professor Asmerom in his report "The Uprooted" and several
other observers have referred to Ethiopia's deportations as "ethnic cleansing."
Some Ethiopian scholars have objected vehemently to that classification. The
following are among the key arguments of the Ethiopian scholars:
In my view, all three arguments are extremely weak. The first argument, advanced by Dr. Samuel Assefa, contends that Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country with some of its ethnic groups, such as higland Eritreans, and Eritrean Afars having kin in Ethiopia. Hence deporting Eritreans does not "sanitize" Ethiopia of those deported ethnic groups since related ethnic groups, such as Tigrayans and Ethiopian Afars would still reside in Ethiopia. This technical argument emanates from basic misunderstanding of what constitutes ethnic identity. All one has to do to refute it is to point out that ethnic and national identities are, in most cases, social constructs and not necessarily formed through blood ties. Highland Eritreans and Eritrean Afars, along with their Eritrean compatriots of other ethnic groups, fought for thirty years, for Eritrean independence not because they believed they are unrelated to Tigrayans and Ethiopian Afars respectively but because they believed that they constitute a social and political identity that is separate from those of their ethnic- kin in Ethiopia. Eritreans, irrespective of their ethnic diversity and ethnic similarities with groups in neighboring countries, such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Yemen, constitute a separate national identity. Ethnic cleansing, by most accounts, involves state actions other than genocide aimed at driving out unwanted social or racial groups not for anything they have done but for what they are. Under such a definition, I would argue that the deportations, which were targeted at people with Eritrean national identity, clearly constitute ethnic cleansing. If the deportations continue to their logical conclusion, Ethiopia will be "sanitized" of its citizens of Eritrean heritage. The fact that Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country and that some of the deported people have ethnic ties with some groups in Ethiopia has no bearing on whether or not Ethiopia's deportations constitute ethnic cleansing.
The second argument that the number of the deportees relative to the total number of Ethiopians of Eritrean origin in Ethiopia is too small to constitute ethnic cleansing is also untenable. First of all, the number of deportees, which now has exceeded 60,000, is not small. This figure represents about one-third of the total number of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin in Ethiopia, which is estimated at about 150,000. More importantly, ethnic cleansing is generally a process that is carried out over a period of time and Ethiopia's deportations are still underway. We have no idea when they will stop or if they will stop before all people of Eritrean origin are extracted from Ethiopia. Under these conditions, and given that ethnic cleansing is a horrific violation of human rights, the honorable thing to do is to oppose it right from the beginning where ever it takes place.
Are the deportees foreigners?
Professor Andreas Eshete and Dr. Samuel Assefa, supporting the Ethiopian
government's position, tell us that the deportations are neither illegitimate
nor illegal since the deportees are aliens. Professor Andreas does not explain
his assertion other than making another highly questionable claim that holding
Ethiopian citizenship documents such as passports are not real evidence of
citizenship. So Eritreans in Ethiopia even if they hold these documents are
not necessarily citizens of Ethiopia. All I can say in this regard is that
there are well established standards of what constitutes citizenship and what
the evidences of citizenship are. Let us not attempt to reinvent the wheel.
Unlike Andreas, Dr. Samuel makes a lengthy discourse to justify his claim. His argument, however hinges on two key contentions. One is that Eritreans in Ethiopia, by participating in the 1993 referendum, adopted Eritrean citizenship. The second is that, according to a 1930 Ethiopian law (never mind that it was superceded by two constitutions) Ethiopians who take another citizenship lose their Ethiopian citizenship. Eritreans, who voted in the referendum, have thus relinquished their Ethiopian citizenship and there is nothing illegal about deporting aliens. But does voting in the 1993 referendum constitute adopting Eritrean citizenship? I would emphatically say no. Before Eritrea was reduced into an Ethiopian province and all Eritreans became Ethiopian citizens, Eritrea was a separate political entity. After winning its thirty-year old liberation struggle in 1991, Eritrea chose, with the consent of the Ethiopian government, to settle the Eritrean question through a referendum instead of simply declaring its independence. Naturally, there emerged the question as to who is entitled to vote in the referendum. Should it be limited to Eritreans in Eritrea or should it be extended to those in Ethiopia as well as those in diaspora? Given the conditions that created the Eritrean diaspora, the decision was that all people of Eritrean origin should be allowed to vote since all those who are in diaspora are entitled to come back to Eritrea and claim Eritrean citizenship if they wish to do so. An Eritrean identity card (I.D.) that allows Eritreans to participate in the referendum was thus issued to all people of Eritrean origin over the age of eighteen. However, neither the I.D. card nor the act of voting imply that an Eritrean citizenship has been bestowed on those who participated. Nor do they imply that Eritreans in diaspora or those in Ethiopia have decided to adopt Eritrean citizenship and relinquish their adopted citizenship. Although unlikely, it was theoretically entirely possible that Eritreans could decline independence with their vote. In that case the I.D. would simply mean little beyond identification of origin and Eritreans after the vote would have gone on with their business and with whatever citizenship they had before the referendum. There is no recognized citizenship of a non-sovereign entity. The I.D. cards issued to every adult of Eritrean origin before the outcome of the referendum was thus technically nothing more than an identification for voting purposes as well as for claiming Eritrean citizenship (if the holder wants to do so) should Eritrea become independent.
Eritreans have lived in exile in many different countries and many of them have been granted citizenship by many of their host countries. None of these host countries, except Ethiopia, have revoked their citizenship because they participated in the referendum or because they were issued Eritrean ID cards that allowed them to vote in the referendum. Except those who chose to return to Eritrea, Eritreans have remained citizens of their adopted countries.
Ethiopia now, by invoking a 1930 piece of legislation, is attempting to convince the world community that it is not deporting its own citizens but aliens. The deportees that are now regarded as aliens, however, continued to enjoy Ethiopian citizenship for at least five years after participating in the referendum. Like their Ethiopian compatriots, they participated in several subsequent Ethiopian elections and many of them continued to be members of the ruling party and performed other duties that require an oath of loyalty to the state of Ethiopia. Some were even veterans who lost their limbs in battle defending Ethiopia. Despite all these facts, we are told that the deportees had relinquished their citizenship in 1993. No doubt, sovereign states make their laws, interpret their laws, and change them at anytime. In countries, such as Ethiopia, where the rule of law is not consistently respected, it is hardly surprising that the Ethiopian government makes this claim to justify this reprehensible measure that would remain as a sad and shameful episode in the country's proud history. It is, however, an entirely different matter for scholars to attempt to defend the indefensible when many human rights groups and independent observers have spoken loudly that the deportations violate international law and the U.N. Human Rights Charter. Dr. Samuel tells us that there is nothing illegal or illegitimate about the deportations. I would say this is shameful!
Furthermore, Dr. Samuel's entire argument is grounded on the premise that Ethiopia is deporting aliens who relinquished their Ethiopian citizenship by voting in the referendum. The number of deportees has already exceeded the number of Ethiopians of Eritrean origin who participated in the referendum. The number of Eritreans in Ethiopia who voted in the referendum was 57,710, roughly about 36 percent of all Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin in Ethiopia. About 39 percent of all Eritreans have already been deported from Ethiopia. I am sure Dr. Samuel would at this point argue that the number of deportees includes minors and Eritrean citizens in Ethiopia. I agree, but the deportations are still underway. We will have to wait and see how this sad episode unfolds. If the deportations continue and the number of the deportees (less minors and Eritrean citizens) exceeds the number the voters in the referendum, Dr. Samuel's argument will have no basis at all.
Implications
At least manifestly, the war is about borders. And border disputes can only
be settled at the negotiating table and through demarcation. Ethiopia and
Eritrea have fought intermittently for over fourteen months now and thousands
of lives and a great deal of property have been lost. But all this has brought
little change on the ground. It is also conceivable that they may continue to
fight for quite some time without significant change on the ground or with
constantly changing outcomes. Eventually, the issue would be settled through
negotiations. In terms of the post-war era, however, one can be sure that the
deportations are not going to make mending relations between the two countries
easy. The deportations may also have established a very dangerous precedent.
In a volatile region, such as the Horn of Africa, it is extremely dangerous for
countries to engage in ethnic cleansing. What kind of human rights disaster
would we have if the countries of the region deport segments of their citizens
who have ethnic ties with the population of a country they happen to be engaged
in a conflict with? Given this sad precedent, should we expect a similar
tragedy if Oromia becomes independent. Such a prospect is very frightening to
even think about. May God help us all!
Where Do we Go From Here?
. To their
credit, many Ethiopian organizations and individuals have voiced opposition to
the deportations. It is clear to them that a government that represents a
multi-ethnic society and is truly ethnically-neutral cannot engage in this sort
of ethnic cleansing. It is also important that Eritreans distinguish between
the Ethiopian people and the government that is responsible for this deplorable
atrocity on innocent people. I beg to differ with Dr. Samuel, who tells us
that mainstream Ethiopian public opinion agrees with the Ethiopian government.
If he is correct on this issue, we might as well forget about mending relations
between the two sisterly countries for the near future. I seriously doubt that
he is correct though. One redeeming feature I found in Dr Samuel's analysis is
that he recognizes that Ethiopia has the obligation to compensate the deportees
for loss of property and that is the minimum we should expect for the victims.
Hopefully, their losses are well documented as they arrive in Eritrea. The
Eritrean community can help in this regard by organizing legal representation
for the victims. A team of expert lawyers needs to be formed quickly to
represent the victims in an appropriate international court.