When the Ethiopian President, Mr. Negasso Gidada, speaks, is he speaking "authoritatively"? If so, this is what he told the world in his [Ethiopian Calendar] New Year's Address as reported by AP on September 12, 1999: "If Ethiopia's sovereignty is not fully restored in the occupied territories, Ethiopia has an obligation to liberate its territories by force." In addition, according to the same report, " Negasso expressed bitterness Saturday over what his government regards as equal - and unfair -- treatment toward both sides in the talks."
When the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry writes a position paper and places it
prominent at the Ethiopian Spokesperson website (www.ethiospokes.net), is it
writing "authoritatively"? If so, consider the following sentence that
appeared in its "Ethiopia's 'bottom line': Aggression Must Be Reversed"
article: " The Ethiopian Government cannot be expected to tell its people
after all that has passed that the restoration of Ethiopian sovereignty is
dependent on the decision arrived at by third parties at a future date."
Well, then, how does one explain the requests for clarification submitted by the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Mr. Meles Zenawi? Assuming that he was writing authoritatively, the following questions betray the nature of Ethiopia's bottom line:
3.1Article 9 (a) (2.1) provides for the prohibition of deportation from the areas where civilian administration has been restored. How does this square with the sovereign right of a state to take measures to remove any national security threat to the nation?3.2Paragraph 8 (b) of the Technical Arrangements provides for the restoration by Ethiopia of the civilian administration including police and militia within 7 days. This is a clear recognition that police and militia are an integral part of the civilian administration AS IT IS THE CASE IN THE REST OF ETHIOPIA. However, the Technical Arrangements provide under article 9 (a) 2.3. for the prohibition of display of weapons by militia. What does "prohibition of display of weapons" mean? Will the militia have law enforcement functions AS IN THE REST OF ETHIOPIA? If so as in the past will they be allowed to bear arms?
In response to Ethiopia's requests, the OAU said that by agreeing to the terms of the Framework Agreement and its Modalities, you, Ethiopia, have agreed to suspend the issue of sovereignty-and the corresponding governmental discretion--of these disputed territories pending border delimitation and demarcation. Dedeployment to pre-May 6, 1998 position "does not mean in any way to question the sovereignty and the authority of either of the two Parties over the whole of its territory, it being mutually understood that the redeployment shall not prejudice the final status of the territories concerned, which will be determined at the end of the border delimitation and demarcation process." And the sooner the process gets started, the sooner we can establish the permanent ownership-sovereignty-of these territories.
Meanwhile, Ethiopia has to accept modest limits on exercising full sovereign powers: the civilian administration and the militia can return to the disputed territories but there should be limits on the "display of weapons" in populated areas; (after all, "it is not accepted international practice in such circumstances that individuals may brandish weapons in a manner that could intimidate the population.) Ethiopia can pursue its policies of expulsion but this should be done in a transparent manner with due process. This must be done to build confidence, to diffuse tension between the two parties, and as per the Framework Agreement, to "refrain from any action which can cause further hardship and suffering to each other's nationals."
This is not good enough for Ethiopia. Seen from Ethiopian government's perspective, restoration of status quo ante means that Ethiopia gets to administer these disputed territories precisely in the same manner as "in the rest of Ethiopia" and in the same way it did prior to May 6, 1998. There is no prohibition on what kind of weapons the militia in the rest of Ethiopia can brandish, why should there be limits on the volume and type of weapons the militia in the disputed territories should carry? The Ethiopian Government can deport citizens from the rest of Ethiopia for any reason; why should Ethiopia be denied that right in the disputed territories? Any peace offer-including the ones it has "fully accepted"--that falls short of this, rewards Eritrea for its "aggression" and diminishes Ethiopia's sovereignty and cannot be entertained by the Government even on an interim basis.
When one compares the repeated Ethiopian calls for the reversal of "Eritrean Aggression" with the clear language of the Framework Agreement, its Modalities and the Technical Arrangement, the only way one can reach the conclusion that Ethiopia has not rejected them is to believe that Ethiopia never accepted them to begin with. The role of a facilitator or a mediator is to find common ground between two disputing parties. As Ethiopia is fond of saying, its position has not changed since May 13, 1998: unconditional withdrawal by Eritrea.
This means that the endless shuttles Mr. Anthony Lake has conducted over the past 12 months were all in vain. While he exercised his "silent diplomacy" and "shuttle diplomacy" and got-"authoritatively"-one assurance after another from the Ethiopian Government, and the never-ending search for "pragmatic camps" in the "all hard-line, all the time" TPLF, tens of thousands of Eritrean and Ethiopian lives have been lost.
There is a line between optimism and naivete and Mr. Anthony Lake, a man of good intentions and endless optimism, is playing into the hands of the militant Ethiopian Government. If the United States truly believes in the merits of the Framework, the Modalities and the Arrangements, it is way past time for Mr. Anthony Lake to stop wringing his hands, abandon his failed "silent diplomacy" and try, for a change, some loud diplomacy before the rainy season ends.