One can understand why the Ethiopian leaders resorted to
prevarications. They were
caught with their pants down and correctly realized that they had to
provide plausible
reasons to explain their preposterous behavior during the previous two
years: periodic
intrusions into and violations of Eritrean national borders; the
dismantling of the
administrative structure and forced occupation of the Eritrean town of
Adi Murug in the
Bada region; the issuance of an illegal map which includes tracts of
Eritrean territory;
the unprovoked and cold blooded murder of Eritrean border unit and
their deliberate
efforts to undermine the work of the Joint Border Commission.
For the Eritrean Government, however, the issue was simple: the
preservation of the
nation's territorial integrity. Consistent with this, it persisted to
achieve a legally
and politically equitable and enduring solution within a reasonable
amount of time. To
this end, it sought to engage negotiators into deliberations of issues
which were based on
facts and substance.
Initially, the Ethiopian government, to some degree, did manage to
hoodwink international
mediators and some news media into believing that they were victims of
Eritrea's
aggression. Hence, the May 30th US/Rwanda debacle can be attributed to
a hastily
formulated and delusive "solution" to the conflict primarily
aimed at appeasing
Ethiopia and acquiescing to its expansionist plans. Some of its
recommendations implied
that the rights and interests of a small nation and its people can be
sacrificed for
"more important" regional geopolitical considerations.
To the Eritreans the genesis of the conflict was beyond dispute,
subsequently even a
novice could have correctly guessed how they were going to respond.
The Ethiopian
government, however, misconstruing this diplomatic fiasco as a gain
became increasingly
belligerent and engaged more actively in lies and misinformation. The
proposal continued
to dominate and permeate subsequent
negotiation efforts initiated by the OAU despite the Eritrean
Government’s insistence
that a more workable and impartial document be produced to bring about
a lasting solution.
Consequently, the OAU appeared virtually incapacitated to invoke its
1963 Charter and
provide fair arbitration within the context of the indisputable
material evidence made
available to it.
The Ethiopian Government perhaps frustrated by its inability to
achieve its political
goals and increased diplomatic isolation began to engage in a willful
and systematic
violation of human rights against Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean
descent. These acts
are clearly in violation of the provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as
well as the principles enshrined in the UN and OAU Charters. So far,
45,000 Eritreans and
Ethiopians of Eritrean descent have been expelled including employees
of the OAU and the
UN office in Addis Abeba; thousands are languishing in detention
camps, more than 1500 of
them in one camp near Awassa. Their confiscated properties are
estimated at hundreds of
millions of dollars. These blatant violations of human rights have
been independently
confirmed and documented by UN agencies, member states of the European
Union as well as
several non-governmental organizations.
Despite accusations by the Ethiopian Government, the Eritrean
Government has not
expelled any Ethiopians against their will. Through its declared
policies and practice,
the Eritrean government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to the
protection of human
rights. The unconditional release of Ethiopian prisoners of war was a
noble act from which
one can extrapolate the fates and conditions of ordinary law abiding
Tigreans and other
Ethiopians living in Eritrea. The Ethiopian government has not yet
produced a shred of
evidence and neither is there an independent verification of
violations of human rights by
the Eritrean Government. Nobody could have put this bizarre set of
circumstances more
lucidly than the Eritrean Foreign Minister, Haile Woldetensae, in an
address to the UN
Assembly in October of 1998, he stated," Yet, the Ethiopian
government, in an
amazingly refined application of the Orwellian principle, accuses the
Eritrean government
of precisely the outrages and atrocities it itself has been committing
against Eritreans
and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin. The truth is that the Eritrean
Government has not
detained, expelled or deported or otherwise violated the rights, human
or otherwise, of
Ethiopians living in Eritrea. This has been verified by legitimate
third parties like
representatives of the EU, the UN agencies and the ICRS. As usual, the
Ethiopian
Government has called all of them liars."
The Eritrean Government has extended an invitation to all interested
parties to carry out an on the spot verification of the human rights
conditions in Eritrea. In fact, the OAU High-Level Delegation has
made it clear that there is no "systematic or official action
directed against Ethiopians in Eritrea." By contrast, on July 1st
1998, Mary Robinson the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human
Rights, issued the following statement, " I am deeply concerned
by the violation of human rights of Eritrean nationals being expelled
from Ethiopia, and particularly by the fact that their passports are
being stamped 'expelled never to return'.......These are serious
violations of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal
Declarations of Human
Rights, to which Ethiopia is a party."
To echo this concern for human rights, the US State Department singled
out Ethiopia as a perpetrator of violations against Eritrean civilians
and the Human Rights Watch, in its 1999 World Report, stated that
"compelling evidence pointed to a deliberate campaign by the
Ethiopian authorities to expel Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean
origin to Eritrea ......The campaign swiftly degenerated from
selective targeting to
indiscriminate deportations." Relative
to the expulsions of Eritrean UN employees, the UN has accused
Ethiopia of "violating the UN Charter and showing disrespect to
the privileges and immunities to which all UN employees are
entitled." Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs, Mr.
Ralph Zacklin stated that "Ethiopia's refusal to reverse the
expulsion of 38 Eritrean UN staffers raised the most concerns for the
UN system and that Ethiopia cannot take unilateral action without
giving the Secretariat the chance to investigate the
allegations."
With the passage of time and the concerted effort of primarily the
Government and people of Eritrea, the foundation upon which the
"arguments" of the Ethiopian Government stand, has begun to
erode. The Eritreans once again realized that it was only through
self-reliance and its practical political, economic and military
implications and not serendipity that they would prevail
over
these new challenges. They became fully aware that their very
existence as a people and the sovereignty of their country was at
stake. They became indignant of the tolerance and in some instances
the tacit approval that the international community was displaying
towards Ethiopia’s expansionist territorial designs and its
blatant human rights violations. It became abundantly clear to
Eritreans that the World would at best pay lip service and at worst
simply sit idly by as Ethiopia, a big nation with 52 million people,
seemed determined to trample upon the rights and interests of Eritrea,
a small nation with 3.75 million people, with impunity. This situation
was
actually ominously reminiscent of how the international
community responded during their long struggle to exercise their right
to self determination. With utmost determination and perseverance, the
Eritrean Government with the unequivocal support of Eritreans from all
walks of life, left no stones unturned to squarely face and resolve
the military, economic, political and diplomatic challenges that this
conflict entailed. Consistent with their past behavior, they again
demonstrated to the world their sense of obligation, their will and
capability to protect their national borders and preserve the
sovereignty of their nation.
With respect to the diplomatic and political dimensions, one can
safely argue that the situation is slowly being reversed. The
Ethiopians have depleted their bag of tricks and their incessant
efforts to slow the peace negotiations to a crawl have been largely
ineffectual. Subsequently, substantive and relevant issues are
increasingly becoming the foci of discussion at the negotiating
tables. In relative terms, the "Proposals for a Framework
Agreement" a document issued by the OAU High-Level Committee
following its meeting on November 7-8 is a good illustration of the
new context within which negotiations are occurring. The talking
points contained in it provide a rather fresh insight into the genesis
and resolution of the conflict. The document does not make any direct
reference to the US/Rwanda proposal nor does it imply that it should
be employed as a framework within which future negotiations should be
discussed and recommendations formulated. Clearly, it has become less
salient and one hopes that it will soon be totally immaterial.
The Eritrean Government has identified some positive elements in the
document, namely:
1-the recognition that the border dispute did not start in May of 1998
and the need to
investigate the incidents of July-August of 1997 and May 6, 1998,
"in order to
determine the origins of the conflict." 2-that the border dispute
can only be
resolved through demarcation on the basis of
the established colonial boundaries. Among other things these points,
which were
repeatedly raised for discussion by the Eritrean Government ever since
negotiations
commenced, will be critical in determining which party initiated the
acts of aggression.
For example, the fact that the Ethiopian Government used force to
create facts on the ground through its occupation of Adi Murug in Bada
and the premeditated and meticulously planned incursions into the
Badme area will be fully exposed. Similarly, the second point will
underscore that Eritrea’s boundaries with Ethiopia, which have
remained unchanged for at least nine decades, are clearly delineated
by several treaties. The important ones are those dated:
1- July 10, 1990 the area from the confluence of the Mereb river with
Mai
Ambessa (on the west) to Mai Muna (around Alitiena) in the
east.
2- annex from May 15, 1902, this is the treaty that sets the border
around
Badme. Starting from the Ethio-Eritreo-Sudanese border
(near Om Hajer, or
the confluence of the Khor Om Hajer with the
Setit River) heading eastward
along the Setit River and then from
the junction of Setit with Maiteb (on
the south) on a straight
line to the junction of Mereb with Mai Ambessa (on
the north).
3- May 16, 1908, this sets the boundary from where the
July10,1900 treaty
left all the way to the border of the former
French Somaliland better known
as Djibouti.
Hence, what has been stalling the negotiation process is
Ethiopia’s lack of sincerity and equivocation on this critical
point. An enduring resolution requires that Ethiopia rescind its
illegal map issued in October of 1997 and declare, in explicit and
unambiguous language, that it recognizes Eritrea’s already
established borders inherited from Italian colonialism. The UN and
the OAU, through their inaction and which the Ethiopian government
misconstrued as
policies of appeasement, actually exacerbated the
situation and unwittingly emboldened it to embrace rather belligerent
and intransigent positions. These organizations have a responsibility
to forcefully advocate for the territorial integrity of a member
nation regardless of its geographic and population size or any
geopolitical considerations.
It behooves the UN to recognize the fact that when it voted to
federate Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1950, of course against the
expressed wishes of the Eritrean people, the former was a well-defined
territorial entity with internationally recognized borders.
Similarly, OAU Charter and Resolution, AHG/RES 16 (1) of the First
Assembly of the Heads of State and Government held
in Cairo in
1964, is consistent with the stance of the Eritrean Government in that
it calls for the respect for colonial borders, the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of member states. It is only through the proper
and impartial application of these principles that an enduring,
equitable and
amicable resolution of the conflict can be achieved.
With regards to the redeployment of Eritrean forces from Badme and
administration of the disputed area which the document calls for, the
Eritrean Government, in a December 17, 1998 statement to the 16-nation
OAU Central Organ, reiterated its earlier position. This is a
committee charged with conflict prevention and resolution and
comprises the following nations: Burkina Faso, The Sudan, Chad,
Algeria, South Africa, Senegal, Madagascar, Rwanda, Egypt, Namibia,
Ghana, Tanzania, Burundi, Zambia, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. It postulated
that deliberations on this issue should be carried out within the
context of the exact geographical location of the area in dispute and
the findings of the investigation of its genesis. With a cease fire in
place and military observers on the ground, this a task that can be
accomplished expeditiously and without the complicated and time
consuming disengagement of hundreds of thousands of troops. However,
any act of goodwill on the part of the Eritrean Government should not
constitute relinquishing
sovereignty to a foreign country and
should be viewed within the context of the more salient issues of the
dispute, mainly the territorial integrity of Eritrea and inherited
colonial borders.
One hopes that in the days ahead more attention will be given to
substantive and relevant issues. Since, finally, international and
regional organizations seem to have realized that the Ethiopian
government, and the Ethiopian government leadership in particular are
bent on derailing the negotiation process by introducing digressive
points. As was stated earlier, their intent is to
confuse the
international community and render it incapable of gaining a correct
perspective of the conflict.
The Eritrean Foreign Minister, addressing the UN General Assembly in
October of 1998, put
it quite aptly when he said, "the dispute is about borders, pure
and simple. Any effort to transmute it into anything else must be
viewed as only a vain and brazen attempt by the Ethiopian Government
to camouflage its aggression and its expansionist policies." The
Minister concluded his statement with the following reminder which the
international community would be well advised to heed, "To date,
Eritrea has restrained itself against extreme provocations, and it
shall continue to do so unless it is forced to defend itself. If
aggression in committed against our country, however, Eritreans shall
have no choice but to defend their hard-won independence and
sovereignty as well as every inch of their territory with whatever is
at their disposal."