Ethiopia has rejected the Technical Arrangements for the implementation of the OAU sponsored peace package-the Framework Agreements and the Modalities, according to a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office, September 4, 1999. The rejection was couched in a lengthy and vitriolic bill of particulars against the Eritrean government. In its tone and contents, the statement was a veritable declaration of war.

Eritrea was accused of culpability of every ill but the famine that's plaguing Ethiopia and the Horn region. The incendiary words were of the type usually reserved for the Amharic Program of Radio Ethiopia. The rejection of the Technical Arrangements was as clear-cut as it was unambiguous. The statement's fighting words must have made donors and the OAU uncomfortable. The Prime Minister's Office, always sensitive to the sensibilities of the donor community, was forced to issue another statement saying Ethiopia did not reject the Arrangements nor did it express war like intentions against Eritrea. It is not true. Ethiopia has rejected the Technical Arrangement. It is also finalizing preparations for the resumption of war.

Ethiopia's September 7 statement is a remarkable document in that for the first time Ethiopia divulged the "deal-killer". We knew was around but could not get Ethiopia to admit its existence. In a stunning display of candor so uncharacteristic of TPLF's modi operandi, the statement disclosed what the international community had to do to get Ethiopia to sign the Technical Arrangements. Not only should the disputed territories return to Ethiopian administration, but more importantly, Ethiopia has to be guaranteed that the territories forever remain Ethiopian. In letter and spirit, Ethiopia's interpretation is a rejection of the Technical Arrangements. It is the opposite of what Ethiopia had agreed when it accepted the OAU sponsored peace package.

The Framework, the Modalities, and the OAU's Clarifications are crystal clear whether Ethiopia could claim explicitly or implicitly, sovereignty over the disputed territories. In calling for the redeployment of Eritrean forces "presently at Badme and its environs" to their pre May 6, 1998 position, the Framework Agreement said,

".....it being understood that this redeployment will not prejudge the final status of the area concerned, which will be determined at the end of the delimitation and demarcation of the border and, if need be, through an appropriate mechanism of arbitration."

The Algiers Summit had this to say on the issue:

"The redeployment of troops shall commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities. This redeployment shall not, in any way prejudge the final status of the territories concerned, it being understood that this status will be determined at the end of the border delimitation and demarcation."

In responding to a question from Prime Minister Meles whether the Technical Arrangement's prohibition of deportation from the areas where civilian administration had been restored did not violate "the sovereign right of a state," the OAU said,

"The answer to this question is clear: a reading of the Framework Agreement, the Modalities and the Technical Agreements shows that the three documents as a whole (constituting the settlement plan) are not meant in any way to question the sovereignty and authority of either of the two Parties over the whole of its territory, it being mutually understood that the redeployment shall not prejudge the final status of the territories concerned, which will be determined at the end of the border delimitation and demarcation process."

The peace package Ethiopia had accepted could not be any clearer on the determination of the final status of the disputed territories. Yet either Ethiopia changed its mind about the process, or never intended to respect the package it had accepted, and championed. Or perhaps Ethiopia carefully assessed its chance of winning on the merits of the case and decided it could not afford a possible adverse decision. Regardless of the circumstances Ethiopia no longer wants to wait for the process to work. It now demands to be awarded the territories beforehand as a condition for agreeing to sign the Technical Arrangements. Incredibly astounding in its gall and reach, Ethiopia demands to amend the Framework, the Modalities and the OAU's Clarifications to guarantee Ethiopia sovereignty over the disputed territories before having to go through delimitation, demarcation or if need be, arbitration. "Short-circuit the process, and endorse my claim, or I will go to war", is what Ethiopia's statement of September 7, 1999 is saying.

The September 7 statement says, in part:

"Specifically the principle that aggression cannot be rewarded must be upheld by assuring that there is a return to the status quo ante, including full restoration of the former civil administration, and a guarantee of Ethiopia's sovereignty in its own territories."

Ethiopia wants the OAU and the United Nations Security Council to award the territories to Ethiopia before Ethiopia agrees to sign the Technical Arrangements as a punishment for Eritrea's "aggression." Never mind the fact that who initiated the conflict is very much in dispute. This is why the OAU wishes to investigate the circumstances that led to the armed conflict going as far back to the events of July 1997, conceding to Eritrea's argument that the conflict predated the May 6 incident.

In plain English, Ethiopia does not wish to have to show any evidence that the disputed territories are Ethiopian. Its claim for the disputed areas is based on the novel legal argument that Eritrea should make amends to Ethiopia because, as Ethiopia claims, Eritrea is the "aggressor." Ethiopia's vehement opposition to the OAU or UN investigating the Adi Murug incident of July-August 1997 is because it undermines Ethiopia's sequence of events that led to the war, and consequently Ethiopia's argument for compensation.

In Ethiopia's view the task of the Technical Arrangements will be simply to endorse Ethiopia's claim, regardless of its validity. Accordingly, the elaborate time lines so painstakingly stated in the Technical Arrangement's Annexes would be a waste of time and resources. If Ethiopia had her way, the UN Cartographic Unit's sole responsibility would be to discharge its assignment on the basis of Ethiopia's interpretation only, on where the border should be.

The OAU and the UN are clear on the basic principles and approaches for resolving the border dispute. The principle remains the OAU Charter; and the approach, the use of pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law. The principle and the approaches have been the bed-rock of the Framework Agreements and the Modalities, and every UNSC Resolution and Statement on the dispute. Before the Technical Arrangements were published, Ethiopia had agreed to the Framework and Modalities, and implicitly to the basis for resolving the dispute. Obviously in a classic case of "bait and switch" Ethiopia never intended to abide by its word.

The international community should be clear as to what the stakes are. Ethiopia agreed to the OAU sponsored peace package that contained as a cardinal principle the inviolability of the OAU Charter. Eritrea agreed to make painful procedural concessions because it was assured by the international community that the final disposition of the disputed territories would be based on "pertinent treaties and applicable international law." Ethiopia is now saying, No way. This is blackmail, pure and simple. What is Eritrea to do in the face of the stunningly arrogant Ethiopian demand? How long can Eritrea wait before the situation gets out of hand? How long?

Who will be responsible for the consequences of the international community caving in to Ethiopia's blackmail? Ethiopia's demand that the entire process be short-circuited to guarantee Ethiopia sovereignty to the disputed territories will undoubtedly result in carnage and mayhem unlike anything the region has witnessed so far-and it has seen much too much destruction already. Who, then, will be responsible? The Technical Arrangement has said that the OAU and the UN will guarantee the full implementation of the peace package. Where are the guarantors now that Ethiopia is making a mockery of the peace package? The guarantors need to be heard from, before it is too late. Haven't the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea suffered enough? Those who pushed Eritrea to make difficult concessions to give peace a chance have a responsibility to ensure that peace DOES have a chance. Eritrea is abiding by the rules of international norm. Why not Ethiopia?

Ethiopia said it has not rejected the Technical Arrangement. How clever. All it has done is to demand that as a condition of agreeing to sign the Technical Arrangement Ethiopia be guaranteed sovereignty over the disputed territories way before the process starts. If the insertion of a "deal killer" demand is not a rejection of the entire document, then one wanders what is. Anyone who thinks Ethiopia has not rejected the Technical Arrangements is whistling Dixie. Ethiopia has rejected the Technical Arrangements and those who sponsored the peace package better acknowledge this sad fact. No amount of evasion would do. They cannot pretend not to know what Ethiopia is up to. If given a breathing space, Ethiopia would use the time to prepare for the resumption of war. In the final analysis, the guarantors would have to be prepared to accept the consequences of their evasion of responsibility.

A few weeks ago, President Clinton told an audience of Veterans about the role the US has been playing in helping to bring peace and stability around the world. He mentioned the Eritrean-Ethiopian war and the 70,000 lives it has claimed. Then he told his audience the good news how the US was working closely with the OAU in bringing the two countries closer to peace. He was talking about the two sides agreeing to the Modalities for implementing the peace package. That was two months ago. The high hopes that were raised by the Modalities should not be cruelly dashed by Ethiopia's intransigence. The US, which has done so much to shepherd the peace process so far, cannot bail out now before accomplishing the task. It has to push and nudge. Seventy thousand have already perished. Is that not enough?