The United States thought that OAU's summit at Algiers was a major achievement in that the revised agreement had clarified any ambiguities on the implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement. Here's how Dr. Rice put it in her July 15, 1999 State Department briefing:
"What appears to be different [with this agreement]is that while some weeks back we had a situation where both sides had accepted in name the OAU framework agreement but had decidedly different interpretations of what that agreement meant, we now have the OAU putting forward a document which is meant to state quite clearly what is meant in terms of implementation by this framework agreement so that there can be no remaining dispute or ambiguity about it."
The OAU thought that the summit at Algiers was a major achievement. "African leaders consider Ethiopia-Eritrea agreement major achievement" is how AP put it in its July 14, 1999 Web issue. As for the OAU General Secretary, Mr. Salim, he, according to David Fox (Reuters, 7/16/99) told "reporters in Algiers that both sides had agreed to the new, revised framework agreement and further mediation, but admitted ``there are different nterpretations.''
So far, we have the US, the OAU Heads of States, and the OAU General Secretary stating that the Modalities are new and that, thanks to the responses of both Eritrea and Ethiopia, they are optimistic because the ambiguities have been clarified.
What does Ethiopia have to say about that? The Ethiopian Government was not certain of its position but it knew precisely what Eritrea's position was: Eritrea had not accepted the OAU Modalitiers. In a span of merely three days, Ethiopia has been all over the place. There is nothing new in the Modalities, but Ethiopia accepts it because it is based on "correct" principles-was the first response. There won't be a response until the Cabinet or parliament (or whatever Ethiopia calls its organized criminals) meets-but meanwhile, before the parliament meets, Salome Tadesse told BBC that Ethiopia accepted the Modalities. A few days later--perhaps the much advertised parliament meeting had happened-Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was issued his new marching orders and the media was full of reports dashing whatever hopes the media had built up.
What is Ethiopia's position? To get the definitive statement--if ever there is one--it is futile to go to Salome or Meles. The person to watch is the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, a walking tantrum known as Seyoum Mesfin. Ato Seyoum always gives a press conference right after the OAU issues a proposal. Here's the most recent one which occured right after the Algiers Summit:
Reporter's Question: - If the Modalities are accepted by both parties how is it going to be implemented? What will be the next move if the opposite takes place?Seyoum's Answer:- The Modalities are based on three principles: first, acquisition of territory by force abrogates international law; second, return to the status quo ante- that is the Eritrean government is obliged to redeploy its forces outside the territories it occupied after 6 May 1998. And this has to be done peacefully. If not, the position of the Ethiopian government right from day one of the invasion up to now is to use force to defend the sovereignty of the country in line with international law. And the third one is resolving the border conflict peacefully. These are the contents of the Modalities.
<< It was based on these principles and by repeating those contained in the Framework Agreement that the Modalities were framed. it is stated in the Modalities that the Ethiopian government commits itself to redeploy from places, if any, it took after 6 February 1999 and which were not under Ethiopian administration before May 6, 1998. It doesn't state "from places it invaded."
<< And this clearly indicates that the Eritrean government has violated the territorial integrity of a sovereign country - that of Ethiopia - and is obliged it to pull out its forces from these territories. It is clearly stated in the Modalities: " The Ethiopian government commits itself to redeploy thereafter its forces from positions taken after 6 February 1999, and which were not under Ethiopian administration before May6, 1998." Ethiopia is also obliged to redeploy its forces from Eritrean soil, if there are any, taken during the war and were not under its jurisdiction before May 6,1998. This is in relation to the return to the status quo ante principle, which states returning to positions held prior to 6 May 1998.
<< The other is regarding the restoration of civilian administration and population. The position of the Eritrean government now and before on this issue is very clear. It wants the establishment of a neutral administration or one composed of both countries or settlers both from Ethiopia and Eritrea or else it be under UN mandate until the border is demarcated. This has been rejected outright. It says " re-establishment of the administration and population". The summit rejected this position of the Eritrean regime which was trying hard to change facts on the ground noting that it was against international law and invasion has to be reversed and not rewarded.
These were the core principles. AFTER ALL THESE ARE ACCOMPLISHED, THE TWO PARTIES SHALL SIGN A CEASE-FIRE FOLLOWING WHICH THE DEMARCATION AND DELIMITATION PROCESS WOULD BE CARRIED OUT. [Emphais Mine]
In the world according to Seyoum, the sequence and the means of implementation is:
There is no point arguing with Ato Seyoum that this makes no sense; anyone with any sense of logic would agree that cease-fire should precede re-deployment. The Foreign Minister couldn't possibly have misread the OAU Modalities because they clearly set out when re-deployment and reinstatement of civilian administration is to occur:
"The redeployment of troops shall commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities.""The modalities for the re-establishment of the civilian Administration and population in the concerned territories shall be worked out after the cessation of hostilities."
What could be clearer than this? What script is Ato Seyoum reading from? The fact is the OAU did not buy Ethiopia's "unconditional withdrawal" etc. If Ato Seyoum had the courage of his conviction, he would argue that the OAU is wrong and Eritrea should withdraw unconditionally. Instead, he saves his wrath on the UN (for daring to tell him to save his money and feed his people who are facing famine of "biblical proportions") and completely misinterprets the OAU Modalities.
What about Eritrea? We have heard of Eritrea's request to make July 1997 and not May 1998 the flash point only from Ethiopian authorities. It can be presumed that this was--rightly, in my opinion--suggested by Eritrea since July 1997 was the period Ethiopia-a nation that craves no one's territories and is a stickler to the rule of law--invaded Ad Murug, Eritrea in the Bada area. Since it is not in the final Modalities document, it can be presumed that the OAU did not accept Eritrea's argument. But for Ethiopian authorities to squeal that Eritrea should not even have made that argument is ridiculous.
As for compensation for the deportation issue that is mentioned in President Isaias' letter, it is something that the Eritrean Government has every right to insist on--in fact, all righteous Ethiopian citizens regardless of their position in the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict should insist on it since their government looted the property of their fellow Ethiopian citizens. It was Eritrean-Ethiopians this time; next time, it could be Somali-Ethiopians and Oromo-Ethiopians. Just like Eritrea has a right to raise the issue, the OAU has every right to say, "that is not part of the original deal; wait until after peace breaks out and take the Ethiopian Government to court." My sense is that Eritrea included that issue as a pre-emptive strike because it fully expects the Ethiopian "Parliament" to come out with a demand that Eritrea pay billions of dollars for the damage it caused through its aggression. (And if we cannot pay the billions, and we won't, Ethiopia would be happy to settle for a 100-year duty-free lease of Asab.)
The Ethiopian Government is not interested in peace because peace is a one-way street to demarcations. And despite the tens of thousands of Ethiopians massacred, the demarcations will decide the fate of territories largely in Eritrea's favor. In other words, when Susan Rice, in her briefing said, "both sides have agreed from the very early days that the determination of where the actual border lies is a technical matter that would be accomplished through a formal process of delimitation and demarcation by the United Nations", she is expressing the hope of peace-loving people everywhere-including many Ethiopians who have bought the TPLF line hook, line and sinker. The reality is this: the bluff has been called and as soon as Ethiopia rejects peace--and it will-- theEthiopian Government's territorial ambitions will soon be on display for everyone to see. Everyone except the electronic Alulas at Ethiopian cyber land--you know, the ones who say that famine killing millions of Ethiopians and Ethiopia going on a begging spree is fine and honorable--but compromise with Eritrea is not.