Eritrea and Ethiopia in Algiers: Above All Else, A Cease-fire
Tekie Fessehatzion
Tuesday, May, 2000
The Foreign Ministers of Ethiopia and Eritrea are meeting in Algiers for indirect talks, under the auspices of the OAU and its partners on the future of the stalled peace talks. The purpose of the meeting is to permit the two parties to provide their ideas on how the peace process should be implemented. This became necessary because Ethiopia took seven months to reject an implementation package experts from the OAU, the US, UN. and Algeria put together. Eritrea had accepted the package, as it did the first two components of the OAU/US peace package. The idea now is to see whether the third parties can piece together an implementation package acceptable to both sides. Given Ethiopia's continuing intransigence, it does not seem hopeful.

The region needs peace, but unless there is a change in heart in Ethiopia, peace will be as illusive as ever. The timing of the talks could not have come at a more critical juncture, although one would have preferred face to face talks, instead of going through third parties. But if that is the only way Ethiopia could agree to talk, then so be it. Third party talks are better than no talks. Any setting that keeps a modicum of communication alive, however indirect it may be, should be welcome. The Algiers talks are as much a test of Ethiopia's sincerity of seeking a peaceful resolution to its conflict with Eritrea, as it is of the mediators persistence that a peaceful resolution to the conflict is found.

A lot hangs on the outcome of the talks. A breakthrough will provide a possibility for a cessation of hostilities, and if one is allowed to be a dreamer, peace. A failure means a continuation of the war in the face of a catastrophic food shortage. Depending whose numbers one believes, 10 to 16 million people are under the threat of starvation in the Horn Region. The world community cannot provide relief supplies to the region's needy population as long as a state of war exists between Ethiopia and Eritrea. At a minimum a cessation of hostilities must prevail if people, millions of them, are to be helped. It's in this context that the indirect talks should not fail; cannot afford to fail. The parties should not leave Algiers without signing a cease fire agreement before substantive issues can be addressed. Without a cease-fire deal the state of war continues, and future negotiations cannot take place with the specter of war looming in the horizon. The OAU and their partners must not leave Algiers without getting the two sides to agree on a cease-fire.

It has been stated repeatedly that this is a senseless war, made the more so since it's taking place within the context of a devastating food crisis in the entire region. Resources have been squandered. In TPLF's Ethiopia relief supplies have been diverted, right under the nose of NGOs and Western Embassies. Food sent to feed the hungry goes directly to the armed forces. Development assistance have been routinely "reallocated" to pay for military hardware. Future coffee earnings have been mortgaged to pay for advanced weaponry and mercenaries to operate them. All this was done in full knowledge of the donor community. Looking the other way when resources were routinely wasted on the means of war, is acquiescence to the destructiveness of war by another name, an acquiescence for which the donors cannot easily shrug off.

The donor community that has inadvertently contributed to the prolongation of the war should now summon the courage to say enough is enough. It should demand an immediate and unequivocal cease-fire. The OAU and its partners whose incompetence is responsible for the region's agony, should pay attention to the pain and anguish of the poor and destitute in both countries by calling on both parties to agree to a cease-fire. It's not too late for the Continental Organization and its partners to redeem themselves, by doing the right thingQby demanding a cease-fire so that trucks can pass safely to the areas where the need for relief assistance is most acute.

Of course, Prime Minister Meles has vowed that agreeing to a cease-fire is tantamount to "humiliation" even if the cease-fire is intended to "save lives." But the world must decide. What's more important, addressing the sensibilities of the Prime Minister's brittle political ego or saving the lives of millions in the region? A leader who is pleading for a million tons of relief commodities to save 8 million of his compatriots is not in a position to dictate terms to save his political ego. An Ethiopian leader under whom Ethiopia is poorer than it was under the Derg does not have much to brag about. That, in itself, is humiliation although the Prime Minister is scarcely aware of it.

The time is well past for the international community to be concerned too much about Prime Minister's political sensibilities. The time has come to save lives. This can only come by calling for an immediate cease-fire. The Organization of African Unity and its partners should insist that both countries agree to an immediate cease-fire. This is not a new demand. It has been part of the two documents both countries have said they had accepted. So if both have accepted the peace package, there's no reason why there should not be a deal on a cease-fire. Both countries should affirm their signature on the peace package they have been telling the world that they have accepted.

The responsibility for pushing the talks in a positive direction lies squarely with the US Too hang up with Meles' political future; the US has let the people of the region down. Key U.S policy makers have vowed to provide Prime Minister with a "victory" on the negotiations to provide him with a cover against his political opponents within the TPLF and the opposition, making no bones about the fact that Meles' "victory" would have to come at Eritrea's expense. They have indulged Meles' government at every turn. And what do they have to show for it? A peace package they put together but could not get Ethiopia to sign, although it has repeatedly said it accepted it. And an implementation plan the U.S prepared but had to disavow because Meles did not want to accept it. At this late hour, the policy makers who made a mess of the negotiations have an opportunity to redeem themselves somewhatQby pushing both sides to agree to a cease-fire.

The U. S. has campaigned hard to save Ethiopia from starvation. Close to a million metric tons of relief commodities are in the pipeline. But it is one thing to brown beat the donor community, especially the European Union to be more generous, but entirely another matter to have the courage to convince Ethiopia to agree to a cease-fire. The U.S has a responsibility to urge Ethiopia to accept a cease-fire with the same urge it pleaded with the EU to send help to Ethiopia. What is the point of bringing in supplies if they cannot be delivered or if security cannot be guaranteed to allow relief workers to do their job? Without a cease-fire the commodities can not be distributed. Without a cessation of hostilities relief workers have no personal security. If Ethiopia wants the world to feed Ethiopians, the least Ethiopia can do is to agree to a formal cease-fire, to permit the orderly flow of supplies. Without a cease-fire that can be monitored and verified, relief supplies operation would be disrupted, and many more lives would be lost, unnecessarily. If there's no agreement on a cease-fire, hostilities could erupt any time, putting the lives of millions in danger.

A cease-fire is essential because as a recent report indicated there is a massive congestion at Djibouti, with commodities all piled up and nowhere to get them to the areas where they are needed. A formal cessation of hostilities could allow a limited redeployment from the front lines, to permit soldiers and their trucks to be utilized for delivering relief supplies. Trucks that normally ferry troops and their ammunitions can now carry relief supplies and relief workers. It is said by some that 400-450 truck a day will be needed for the next several months to deliver the supplies that have been pledged so far. It makes no sense to purchase trucks for relief purposes when there are hundreds, and probably thousands of trucks currently in use by the military. A cease-fire would release trucks and their drives for peaceful purposes.

An essential starting point in putting together an implementation mechanism is that both countries sign the two components of the OAU peace packageQthe Framework for Agreement and the Modalities for Implementation. It is no longer enough to pay lip service to the acceptance of this peace package. One has to endorse the package, in writing. A signed document is the proper starting point for any discussions. Since the packageQall niceties asideQwas put together by the US, Washington has a unique responsibility for making sure that Ethiopia endorses the package. U. S officials have repeatedly said that Ethiopia had accepted the peace package, if that's the case, then Ethiopia has to endorse the two components of the peace package by signing them. If neither the U.S nor the OAU can prevail on Ethiopia to sign the package then prospects for peace are dim. Both documents call for a cease-fire. By signing the documents, Ethiopia would agree to a cessation of hostilities, the absolute minimum requirement for proceeding with the peace talks. With a signed cease-fire document there's a possibility for a peace deal; without one, there's none. One assumes that the US and the OAU are aware of this.

Without a formal agreement on a cease-fire, the peace process can not go forward. Eritrea is ready to sign it; Ethiopia is not. By not signing it, Ethiopia is putting a gun to Eritrea's head, in effect saying, "either you agree to negotiate on Ethiopia's terms, or I will blow your brains out." No one should be expected to succumb to blackmail. Not Eritrea, anyway. The OAU and the US must know that no talks on implementation can proceed without an agreed upon cease-fire. The absence of an agreement of a cease-fire is like the Sword of Damocles, hanging menacingly over Eritrea's neck. If the OAU and its partners cannot prevail on Ethiopia to sign the documents it has been saying it has accepted, then there's no point in continuing the talks. If the OAU and the US cannot make Ethiopia take the first step toward a peaceful settlement, then they will only compound the region's agony, already ravaged by war and famine.