Ethiopia's Foreign Minister has announced to the diplomatic community in Addis Ababa on Tuesday, January 5, 1999, that "the peace effort can be considered as good as dead."

The Foreign Minister's curious statement raises serious questions of motive and timing, coming as it does almost three weeks after the Summit of the Central Organ was convened in Ouagadougou.

As it may be recalled, the Central Organ had, among other things, "took note of the respective positions of the two Parties on the proposals and, ... requested the OAU High Level Delegation to remain seized with the dispute." So what has changed today? What is the rationale behind this ominous pronouncement when the High Level Delegation is in fact expected to continue its work?

We recall the threat of war made by the Foreign Minister, just on the eve of the Summit of the Central Organ, asserting that "if the conflict is not resolved peacefully soon, it will not be long before the government and leadership of Shabia (EPLF) are buried in the holes that they themselves have dug." So perhaps the announcement signals that the Ethiopian government is about to unleash the war it has been preparing for the past eight months. Or perhaps not, as ultimatums and threats have long become predictable weapons in Ethiopia's diplomatic arsenal. Whatever the case, only time and Ethiopia's actions during the coming days and weeks can decipher the full meaning of this oblique pronouncement.

The speech of the Foreign Minister was moreover replete with numerous fallacies, distortions and outright lies. We shall address here the most prominent ones.

1. Eritrea has certainly sought clarifications on a number of issues in the Framework Agreement. But, unless the Foreign Minister believes that this is a special prerogative reserved for Ethiopia only, this is neither abnormal nor unjustified. Indeed, his country had asked for certain clarifications during the November Summit. The clarifications that Eritrea is seeking are substantive as attested to by the High Level Delegation.

2. Eritrea did not reject the Framework Agreement. It had given its preliminary response during the November Summit and its full and considered opinion on December 15, 1998, where it accepted most of the recommendations while seeking reformulation of a few others. Ethiopia, too, did not accept the Framework Agreement in toto. It has accepted an amended version or its own interpretation of key clauses in the Framework Agreement.

3. The OAU Ambassadorial Committee has not "proved Eritrean aggression without a shadow of doubt" as the Foreign Minister claims unabashedly. This is an outright lie. Furthermore, Eritrea did not "want to stop the Ambassadorial Committee from investigating who had been administering Badme before May 12." Eritrea's reservations, which were duly noted by the Committee, concerned the singular focus on Badme and the incidents of May 6-12 to the exclusion of preceding incidents of Ethiopian aggression and occupation. Eritrea's communications to the Ambassadorial Committee, which were partially reproduced in the Report to the Central Organ, read: "... It must be borne in mind that Badme is one of several Eritrean towns 'contested' by Ethiopia, although we do not as yet know the totality of Ethiopia's claims other than what can be inferred from the map of Tigray Administrative Region that carves out large swathes of Eritrean territory. For example, it would make equal sense for the Committee to collect information as to which Authority administered Adi Murug prior to July 1997. For the OAU to investigate one without considering the other is making an unacceptable prejudgment. Moreover, administration by itself does not have any meaning if the process by which this administration was installed is illegal. What is of critical importance is where Badme, Adi Murug and other areas lie within the recognized boundary." Eritrea's requests have been partially vindicated by the insertion in paragraph 7 of the Framework Agreement of an investigation of the incidents of July-August 1997 and 6 May 1998 "in order to determine the origins of the conflict."

Ethiopia's Foreign Minister waxes eloquent on the need "not to reward aggression" and pleads for economic sanctions to be imposed on Eritrea. But the fact remains that it is Ethiopia which has committed repeated acts of aggression against Eritrea by, among other things, i) forcibly occupying Eritrean territory in Bada in July 1997; ii) publishing a map that carves out large areas of Eritrean territory in October 1997; and iii) provoking the recent incidents by attacking Eritrean units on May 6, 1998, in the areas around Badme. Ethiopia has violated basic principles of international law through the illegal expulsion of more than 47,000 Eritreans in the most inhumane manner, confiscating their property as well as detaining in special concentration camps thousands of Eritrean youth on the basis of their ethnicity. Ethiopia also refuses to renounce the use of force as a means for settling the border dispute and has consistently rejected all calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities. Eritrea welcomes the imposition of sanctions against the aggressor party, which is Ethiopia on all these counts. The purpose of the comprehensive investigations that Eritrea has called for is to corroborate this fact without any shadow of doubt. Ethiopia remains lethargic to these investigations.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Asmara, 8 January 1999
=20