On September 2, 1999, in a piece entitled "Why Ethiopia Should Sign the Peace Plan", one of my favorite Ethiopian writers argued that Ethiopia should accept the OAU Peace Plan. One of the reasons he gave for his piece was that "Eritrea has finally accepted all Ethiopia's conditions for a ceasefire. There are no more officially announced conditions for Eritrea to fulfill." Since then, the writer must have been appraised by his government of the other "unofficial" and "unannounced" Ethiopian conditions because he is backpedaling furiously and attacking the Eritrean "elite" and "intellectuals" as cowards, hostages or, in the case of this writer, peddlers of a "gratuitous lie."

First of all, before you get terribly impressed that there is, finally, an independent Ethiopian writer who is actually pushing peace"--a break from the Electronic Alulas at Walta--it should be noted that this same writer was, before the Ethiopian balloon deflated at Tsorona, advising his government on issuing new ultimatums for peace including presenting the "dictator Issayas Afeworki to the International Court in Hague for a trial." [This is when he is not giving his government advice on how to wage war.] His call for the Ethiopian Government to accept the Technical Arrangements was not because he values peace or justice; it is only because he feels his government did a terrible job at negotiating a better settlement. He is also, despite all evidence to the contrary, persisting in pushing the lie (talk about gratuitous) that the tragic bombing of the school in Mekele was deliberate. The same writer also has no comment on his government's policy of deporting Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean heritage. It should be noted that the Ethiopian Governments handling of the deportations and its exploitation of the tragic bombing of the elementary school in Mekele were the two incidents that have fanned the flames of this horrible Eritrea-Ethiopian war.

Moral Authority

Let me digress a bit. At the Eritrean Bay Fest held in Oakland (September 3, Septmber 5, 1999), almost every vendor one walked by was playing the music of Tareke. One song in particular ["Eritrea Ajoki" (Attaboy Eritrea:)] was particularly ubiquitous. Tareke is an Eritrean musician deported from Ethiopia. He is also blind. As in stone-blind, sightless, unseeing. Yet, to the Ethiopian government, whose deportation policy criterion is not liking the color of people's eyes, unseeing eyes were a threat to its national security. An Ethiopian "elite" who has no moral qualms about defending a government that engages in this inhumane act is in no position to give others moral lectures and accusations of cowardice.

About the OAU.

At the Eritrean Bay Fest, the loudest and the most sustained cheer and the only standing ovation was given to a Somali Ethiopian who called for the shutting down of the OAU. So, lest there be a confusion here: Most Eritreans (including the so-called "elite") think that the OAU is corrupt-to-the core organization and have been calling on the Eritrean Government to withdraw Eritrea's membership (a country renowned for its aversion to corruption) from this worthless organization. This is an organization that, for 30 years, tabled the Eritrean agenda through intrigue and deception. This, despite its charter of standing against "all forms of colonialism." (For details of the extent of its corruption, read "Eritrea: Miracle Land". The author used to work at the OAU and is thoroughly familiar with its evil machinations.) Some Eritreans--including government officials--argued that Eritrea should retain membership with the OAU because it is only through principled hard work and membership that the OAU will ever improve. Their view has prevailed. And for evidence, they can point to the difference between Bouteflika's vs the Campore's OAU.

What is Ethiopia's Position: Official/Unofficial, Announced/Unannounced?

The Ethiopian writer has interpreted "verifications of lines of deployment" to mean "prior specification of how and where the Eritrean withdrawals would take place." I interpret it to mean withdrawal. Two things need to be addressed before we accuse each other of lying:

(1) Context: What has the Ethiopian position been with respect to cessation of hostilities? (2) OAU's Understanding of Ethiopia's Question: Judging from the answers given by the OAU, what did the OAU understand the question of the Ethiopian Prime Minister to be?

(1) Context:

The last time the Ethiopian Government showed any flexibility on the question of what comes first Eritrean withdrawal or cease-fire was when the Ethiopian Prime Minister was interviewed by the Voice of America in mid-April 1999 (archived April 19, 1999)

"Prime Minister Meles says there can be a ceasefire before Eritrea withdraws as long as president Isaias promises to do so on a set timetable."

No sooner was that interview aired than the Ethiopian Spokesperson rushed to issue a clarification on April 15, 1999. Dashing what appeared to be a breakthrough, the Spokesperson said:

In an interview with Voice of America this week, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi reiterated Ethiopia's position regarding the Ethio-Eritrea conflict: Eritrea must formally agree to withdraw from the Ethiopian territories it invaded and currently occupies before a cease-fire can take place. As soon as the Eritrean government accedes to this requirement, a cease-fire can be implemented, followed by demilitarization and demarcation of the common border. To date, however, Eritrea has only agreed to a cease-fire without accepting the entire package deal. UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT IN ASMARA OFFICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS TROOPS ARE OCCUPYING SOVERIGN ETHIOPIAN TERRITORY AND AGREES TO WITHDRAW THEM, THE REST OF THE PACKAGE CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. [Emphasis mine]

This Ethiopian pre-condition that disputed territories be recognized as sovereign Ethiopian territory, is what is holding up the technical arrangement. In fact, it is what has been holding up the peace process and, when the Eritrean Government told the OAU that, contrary to the terms of the Framework, Ethiopia is insisting that Eritrea "acknowledge" the disputed territories as Ethiopian, it fell on deaf ear.

If the territories are recognized as Ethiopian, what is the point of the whole exercise of quoting the sanctity of colonial treaties, fact-finding missions and cartographers?

OAU's Answer

Judging from the answers the OAU gave--more precisely, Bouteflika, the Americans and the UN gave-- it is apparent that they interpreted the PM's question exactly the way I did. Judge for yourself by reading the following excerpt:

As a practical matter, the safety of the members of the Commission as they visit an area currently a military frontline can only be assured in the context of the cessation of hostilities called for in paragraph 2 of the Technical Arrangements In any event, the Framework Agreement, which remains the reference for the settlement process (supplemented by the Modalities), specifies under paragraph 1 that "the two Parties commit themselves to an immediate cessation of hostilities". Similarly, the Modalities specify under paragraph 3 that "the two Parties agree to put an end to all military activities and to all forms of expression likely to sustain and exacerbate the climate of hostility and thus compromise the implementation of the Framework Agreement". On their acceptance of the Modalities, the two Parties thus committed themselves to this provisionThus, the cessation of hostilities committed to by both Parties on their respective acceptance of the Framework Agreement and the Modalities must come into force with the commencement of the implementation process.

The second question raised on this issue asks whether redeployment of the Eritrean troops 50 days after D-day is not contrary to paragraph 4 of the Modalities, which provides for immediate commencement of redeployment following cessation of hostilities. The answer is a practical one. Paragraph 4 of the Framework Agreement specifies that "this redeployment be supervised by a group of military observers, which will be deployed by the OAU with the support of the United Nations". A period of time between the cessation of hostilities and the actual start of redeployment will be required. Furthermore, time must be allowed for the work of the Neutral Commission. Qualified experts from the OAU and the UN have determined that a period of 50 days following signing will be required for the work of the Neutral Commission and deployment of military observers. The evaluation of this period of time must remain the prerogative of the OAU and UN, which will be determined, in consultation, of course, with the Parties. It is clearly understood that acceptance of the cessation of hostilities by the Parties is an indivisible part of their acceptance of the complete Technical Arrangements, including specifically paragraph 8.

[If you think I am quoting out of context and want to read the entire text, visit http://www.primenet.com/~ephrem2/eritreanoau/oau.html.

You won't find the entire Arrangements in any of the Ethiopian sites. A good question the Ethiopians should ask their government is: Why are the Ethiopian homepages who used to rush posting the Framework Agreement, the clarification requests Eritrea made as well as the modalities unwilling to make the entire Technical Arrangements public?]

When the OAU is politely saying that Ethiopia's request is impractical, what is it calling impractical? When the OAU has to repeatedly remind Ethiopia that it has accepted the Framework Agreement's call for cessation of hostilities and its Modalities, what is it reminding Ethiopia of? When the OAU is reminding Ethiopia that "qualified experts" from the OAU and the UN (both of whom were invited to mediate at the request of both parties), what is it trying to say?

D+50 is considered too long a time for Ethiopia to wait to reclaim its "sovereignty" but generations of war is never too long. Why?

The Neutral Commission--whose only job is to ascertain the pre-May 6 positions of both parties--is considered a foreign intrusion force. Why?

The answer is found in the "unofficial" and "undeclared" Ethiopian position. It does not want a third party--even a third party that it invited--to determine ownership. It does not want the Eritrea-Ethiopia border to be permanently demarcated. The Ethiopian Government wants to settle the dispute on its own terms. It wants to continue waging war because, according to the VOA (April 10, 1999):

"ETHIOPIAN OFFICIALS SAY IT IS ECONOMIC STRESS ON ERITREA'S GOVERNMENT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR.WITH MORE THAN 55-MILLION PEOPLE AND A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER ECONOMY, ETHIOPIA BELIEVES IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE ERITREA'S POPULATION OF THREE-MILLION MOVES AGAINST PRESIDENT ISAIAS."

Thus, the Ethiopian call on the Eritrean intellectuals" and particularly those in Diaspora to turn against their Government and choke off the moral and material support. So, nice try brother. But even a blind man can see that that is an invitation for Ethiopian re-occupation of Eritrea. And we, elite and commoners, government and governed, in unison say "No to Dagmawi Megzaiti."