The Organization of African Unity is the most inept, corrupt, and deservedly the most ridiculed continental organisation in the world. It has brought shame on Africa. The ill effects of OAU's legendary miscues have become part of what a Believer could call, "God's wrath,"-- the episodic draughts, wars, civil strif e, and famine, that periodically have wreaked havoc on the continent.
Some of the most recent harrowing catastrophes that have hit the poor continent have taken place under the current OAU Secretary General's watch: the Rwanda genocide, the civil war in Sierra Leone, the disintegration of the Congo, to name a few. And as if these catastrophes are not enough, the OAU is doing everything possible to turn the Horn of Africa into a Africa's most recent killing field.
Although entrusted originally with becoming a peace agent through its Charter, the OAU is currently too busy creating obstacles to peace. By taking sides on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border dispute, it has squandered whatever shred of self respect it had. Instead of trying its best to broker an honorable peace, the OAU, through its Secretariat, has become a willing accomplice to the war mongers in Addis Ababa whose tenure in power is contingent in continuing the war. For all practical purposes the OAU Secretariat has become an Annex to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia.
Consider, for example, the latest OAU clumsy shenanigan, that would have been amusing in days past, had it not been for the fact that OAU's miscues continue to feed into the senseless carnage at Badme.
In a recent letter (June 14) to the UN Security Council, Ethiopia's Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin announced that the OAU had rendered an interpretation of a key clause in the Framework Agreements consistent with Ethiopia's. The Foreign Minister said that the OAU had advised Eritrea to "vacate" Ethiopian "territories" that it had been "occupying " since May 6, 1998. The announcement was startling for, if true, it meant that the OAU had discarded the Frameworks and replaced it with a new one without Eritrea's knowledge.
A few days (June 19) after Minister Seyoum's "bombshell" an "unnamed diplomat" leaked the contents of two letters( May 8 and 20) the OAU had reportedly sent to Eritrea. Reporters who received the English version of the letters confirmed that indeed the OAU had adopted Ethiopia's interpretation of the Frameworks Agreements. Specifically, the press said that the OAU had asked Eritrea to vacate "Ethiopian" territories.
The press did not have access to the original letters, written in French. It based its story on the assumption that the translations were faithful to the original. But even then a careful reporter would have noticed that for the most part the two letters were contradictory , and that the second letter was, for the most part, a retraction of the first. In fact a more diligent research by any competent professional reporter would have concluded that there was sufficient evidence to cast doubt whether the letters reflected official OAU position, or, for that matter, whether the same person( President Campoare of Burkina Faso) is the author of the two letters.
For ten weeks after Eritrea had accepted the OAU Frameworks, the OAU or its Secretary General were nowhere to be seen. They would not publicly affirm the clarification they gave Eritrea about the meaning of "Badme and its environs," knowing full well Ethiopia was stretching the meaning of the phrase the full length of the 600 mile border.
While the Secretary General was out of sight, Ethiopia made several attempts at invading Eritrea. The unsuccessful invasion through Tserona, alone, has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Sometime in May Ethiopia understood its invasion would not succeed. Out of nowhere, an OAU delegation decides to visit Asmara, May 11, 1999. While there the team was told that Eritrea remained committed to the Framework.
June 10, President Isaias receives a letter from President Campoare written on May 20. The letter was inexplicably held up somewhere for twenty days. The Eritrean government asked for an official English translation of the letter. The translation never came. Was it ineptness or what to hold a letter for three weeks , a letter about peace and war. Or was it to give Ethiopia a clear field to wage a diplomatic campaign for its position. Either through omission or commission the OAU had taken sides.
June 14, Foreign Minister Seyoum writes a letter to the UN Security Council stating that the OAU had agreed with Ethiopia's interpretation of the Frameworks. He told the Council with a straight face that Badme and its environs meant the full length of the 600 mile border.
June 19, BBC broke the news that it had in its possession a letter from Campoare to Isaias, translated into English stating that the OAU's definition of Badme and its environs in accord with Ethiopia's. News agencies and wire services were sent copies of the letter.
The OAU Secretariat either leaked or caused to be leaked Campoare'e letter to lend support to Ethiopia's new diplomatic initiative for its interpretation of the Frameworks. It never occurred to Campoare, the OAU Secretariat, or Ethiopia that the UN Security Council had already accepted the Frameworks with the OAU's clarifications.
The most shocking aspect of the episode remains, however, that anyone at the OAU or Ethiopia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs would think that the Frameworks could be unilaterally altered. But then on second thought, this should not have been a surprise. Isn't this how the Eritrea-Ethiopia was altered in the first place ? Unilaterally, without the other side knowing anything about it ?
A mediator's most prized asset is the ability to engender confidence and trust among parties in a dispute. Fairness and even handedness are a good mediator's tools in trade without which effective mediation cannot take place.
Right from the start of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border dispute, the OAU's problem has been its inability to be seen as fair and evenhanded by Eritrea. When there are two claimants to piece of land the normal thing to do is to ask both to vacate the disputed place, allow a mediator force to move in, then work for a fair and honorable settlement. This, the OAU failed to do. Too anxious to do Washington's bidding to save Meles's government at the expense of a lasting peace, the OAU endorsed and blessed Washington's call for Ethiopia to move into the disputed area until the issue was resolved. Eritrea balked. The OAU rammed through the flawed decision over Eritrea's protest. The result is Badme and Tserona, monuments to the senselessness of war for which the OAU and Washington should accept ultimate responsibility.
For a year since the OAU's fateful decision to take sides thousands of children and wives, on both sides of the border, have been turned into orphans and widows. The world would not take the necessary steps to stop the mayhem because the continental organisation did not care enough to stop the war. The OAU's indifference to the senseless killings became more explicit during the period after Eritrea accepted the OAU's Framework Agreements. Eritrea accepted the Frameworks after the OAU had issued a series of written clarifications to Eritrea's satisfaction. Eritrea's acceptance of the Frameworks coincided with the Eritrea's strategic retreat from Badme. While the rest of the world applauded Eritrea for agreeing to the Frameworks , the OAU remained silent. Sensing total victory over Eritrea, Ethiopia made new demands that went beyond the Frameworks. Through its silence, the OAU gave Ethiopia enough time to try to accomplish its new military and political objectives.
For ten weeks after Eritrea had accepted the OAU Frameworks, the OAU or its Secretary General were nowhere to be seen. They would not publicly affirm the clarification they gave Eritrea about the meaning of "Badme and its environs," knowing full well Ethiopia was stretching the meaning of the phrase the full length of the 600 mile border.
While the Secretary General was out of sight, Ethiopia made several attempts at invading Eritrea. The unsuccessful invasion through Tserona, alone, has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Sometime in May Ethiopia understood its invasion of Eritrea would not succeed. Ethiopia was under intense pressure from the UN Security Council, the European Union, and the Vatican, to stop the war. Ethiopia said it would do so once Eritrea accepts Ethiopia's interpretation of the Frameworks that went beyond the OAU's own published clarifications of the language of a key clause.
Out of nowhere, an OAU delegation decides to visit Asmara early in May perhaps in preparation for the July OAU meeting at Algeries. The team had carried a letter reportedly from President Campoare, the current OAU Chairman to President Isaias. The contents of the letter were not disclosed to the public at the time. However in the following weeks the world would watch with the utmost disgust a pathetic OAU descending to a new low as a continental organization devoid of principles, integrity, and professionalism.
In a June 29, 1999, letter to the UN Security Council, Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia lashed out at the Council's lack of interest in the OAU's latest adulteration of the Framework Agreements. Instead, the Council reiterated its demand for an unconditional cease fire, and tartly suggested that rather than spend money on arms, the two combatants were better off spending the money to feed their hungry population.
The Ethiopian Foreign Minister's rage was understandable. He assumed a dubious reinterpretation of a key clause of the Framework Agreements that would have had the ultimate effect of annulling the Agreements would have a better chance of acceptance by the Security Council with an African as its President. After all what sort of African leader would decline to accept, with a wink and a nod, letters from the OAU Chairman ?
Mr. Seyoum Mesfin said that two letters from the OAU Chairman, President Campoare to President Isaias had agreed with Ethiopia's interpretation of "Badme and its environs" meant the whole length of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border, all 600 miles of it. The Foreign Minster's claim flew in the face of the OAU's official clarification to Eritrea that "Badme and its environs" meant "the area surrounding Badme Town." After receiving the clarifications, Eritrea accepted the Framework Agreement, and after Eritrea's acceptance , the Security Council called for an unconditional cease fire. This is where matters stood until Mr. Seyoum Mesfin's June 14 letter to the Council in which he announced the OAU's revised definition of "Badme and its environs."
The breaking news about the "new and improved" definition was orchestrated for maximum effect. The English translations of the two letters (originally in French) were leaked by "unnamed diplomats" to Ethiopian journalists working for the various wire agencies who dully told the world that the OAU had asked Eritrea to pull out of "Ethiopian territories." Immediately the Ethiopian press officers in Ethiopian embassies abroad disseminated the news to various news outlets. Ethiopian government and TPLF web pages used the occasion to celebrate that Ethiopia had been right all along.
A June 22 Fax Cover Page from the Press Office of the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington, boasted," After many months of confusing debate on the implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement and Eritrean withdrawal from Ethiopia, the OAU has finally taken a stand." The Press Office sent out copies of a BBC report and a Reuters report with Tsegaye Tadesse's byline. The Associated Press's Abebe Andualem also wrote on the story. While the BBC's headline, said simply, " OAU Calls for Eritrean Withdrawal," Reuters and Associated Press went further. Both carried the same date (June 19). Both were written by Ethiopians. Both had similar headings: Reuters said, "OAU Calls on Eritrea to Withdraw from Ethiopian Soil." Associate Press's wrote, " OAU Calls On Eritrea to withdraw from all occupied Ethiopian territories."
All the news accounts wrote of the existence of two letters from President Campoare to President Isaias. No one claimed to have seen or read the original letters in French. They all used someone else's translations in writing their stories, translations they assumed to be faithful. Not a single reporter pointed out the obvious contradictions between the two letters, as the May 20 letter contradicted the May 8 letter in a most crucial area.
We are told that in his May 8 letter President Campaore appealed to President Isaias that the "Eritrean government agree to redeploy its troops out of Ethiopian territories occupied after may 6, 1998." The letter, if authentic, introduced a new interpretation of the disputed area. Contrary to the Framework Agreement, President Campoare has decided to accept Ethiopia's definition of the territories as Ethiopian. But the implication is clear. If Ethiopia can persuade the OAU to accept Ethiopia's characterization of the disputed areas, then the game is over for Eritrea. The next step would be demarcation not on the basis of colonial borders rather on Ethiopia's claims of what constitutes Ethiopian territories. Ethiopia would present the 1997 Map of Tigray for official demarcation by the UN's cartographic unit. That was the implication of the May 8 letter.
But in the follow up May 20 letter, President Campoare goes back to the Framework Agreement language. He writes, "the redeployment does not prejudge, in any way, the claims that parties might have on the disputed areas, or their (areas) belongings to any of the parties." It's hard to believe the same person wrote the two letters, or what could have precipitated the change of heart.
The May 20 letter did not come out of the blue. It was in response to a May 11 letter from President Isaias. In his letter to President Campoare, President Isaias spelled out the conditions Eritrea would contemplate pulling out of disputed areas with out giving up Eritrea's right to those areas. The conditions were the following : (a) a binding agreement on the acceptance of the Framework Agreements to be signed by the two countries; (b) formal signed agreement concerning the "mechanisms" and "technicalities" of implementing the Frameworks; and (c) a formal agreement on a cease fire, to be signed and declared. Once these three conditions have been met, goes the letter, "The Government of Eritrea will exhibit, in the process of the implementation of the Framework Agreement, necessary flexibility and cooperation without compromising its claims over its territory." In plain English, Eritrea is willing to accommodate Ethiopia's request for a pull out from territories without giving up Eritrea's claims to the areas if Ethiopia agrees in writing to certain conditions.
Five days after Eritrea signaled its readiness to move towards creating conditions for a peaceful settlement, Ethiopian jets bombed Massawa. Ethiopia's response of May 16, follows the usual pattern of taking a strong military actions anytime peace talks were underway. Four days after the bombing of Asmara, President Campoare wrote another letter to President Isaias.
Indeed the May 20 letter can only be read as a retraction of the assertions made 12 days before. Once you have identified the disputed areas as Ethiopian territories as the May 8 letter did it makes no sense to talk about not wanting to prejudge the issue. Protestations not withstanding, you have prejudged the issue. If you say the area belongs to one side, then as far as you are concerned the other side should not have any claims. If President Campaore had indeed written the first letter, it's mystifying why he would write the second one.
Surely the May 20 letter has a reference to returning to the status quo before May 6. One assumes that the phrase was inserted intentionally to imply different things to different people, by itself a disastrous approach as it would do nothing to solve the long term problem like a latter day Oslo Accords. Ethiopians may take the last eight years as the status quo, and Eritreans, following the OAU Charter, may assume the status quo referred to the colonial borders. But from previous discussions leading to the Framework Agreement, the status quo referred to Ethiopian administration of Badme and its environs which Eritrea was asked to vacate temporarily not because the area belonged to Ethiopia, rather as an act of goodwill to the OAU. As far as the Agreement is concerned any interpretation of the status quo as a pull out from "Ethiopian territories" violated the letter and spirit of the Frameworks. In fact if such an interpretation were to be adopted the Framework Agreement becomes a dead letter, in fact and spirit.
Indeed except for the stray reference to returning to the prior to May 6 status quo nothing in the May 20 letter supports the sensational headlines or Mr. Seyoum Mesfin's exaggerated claims. Perhaps this explains why the May 20 letter was held up for 20 days in Addis Ababa before it was sent to Eritrea. Someone in the OAU decided not to send the letter to its original destination, for reasons that have never been explained. What we can only do is surmise at the surreptitious chicanery at Eritrea's expense.
Eritrean officials learned of the existence of the May 20 letter from an unnamed high ranking State Department official who called to inquire Eritrea's response to the letter. The Eritrean official's response was one of puzzlement. He did not know a thing about a May 20 letter. He did not know what the American was talking about. The American was surprised Eritrea had not received the letter. A few days latter, June 11, the May 20 letter was faxed to Asmara. The Eritrean government asked the OAU to provide an official English translation of the letter. The translation was never provided. Instead translations were made available to Ethiopian reporters working for the wire services. Eritrean officials heard about the translations on the evening of June 19 on BBC radio.
Why did Washington receive copies of the May 20 letter before Asmara did ? What role did Washington, or the American embassy in Addis play in writing the letters ? Why was the letter held up for almost three weeks before Eritrean officials received the letter ? The May 8 letter read like it was dictated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, written by the OAU Secretariat, and probably reviewed by Washington, for President Campoare's signature. It has never been made clear in whose behalf Campoare signed the letter. did he consult with the other Heads of State in the High Delegation ? Was what he did proper for an outgoing OAU Chairman, whose term was set to expire in two months ? Did he not know that his letters, especially the May 8 one, had the cumulative effect of undoing the Frameworks ?
The OAU Secretary General Salim Salim is after a fourth term appointment. He knows he needs two crucial votes: Ethiopia's and the US's. To secure his appointment he will do whatever is required of him even if it means turning the OAU into a witless and gutless continental organisation. Indeed Prime Minister Meles boasted in an interview with an Amharic paper, abyotawi democrasi, that Ethiopia had scored a major diplomatic victory when the OAU adopted Ethiopia's demand that Eritrea pulled out of "all Ethiopian territories." (it's interesting how history repeats itself. In 1952 the UN Commissioner for Eritrea, Dr Anze Matienzo was blackmailed into inserting in the Eritrean Constitution he was drafting, a clause the Ethiopians wanted. At first he resisted. Then Aklilu, Ethiopia's Foreign Minster , told him that if he did not do what Ethiopia wants, the Commissioner would be out of his cushy UN job. He complied.)
Four months after Eritrea accepted the Framework Agreement, the two countries are no longer closer to peace than they were 14 months ago. Thousands have died, maimed and have been displaced. Those on whom a lot was expected to play the honest broker's role have been anything but. They broke the most elementary rule in effective mediation: they took sides. In so doing they lost the trust of one, and provided false hope to the other that it did not have to sit down to negotiate in good faith. With such friends in high places in Washington and the OAU Secretariat, if you can call them friends, Eritreans and Ethiopians continue to bleed. It must be God's Wrath that Africa is stuck with the OAU. It's a shame.