Press Release
Ethiopia's Agenda Has Always Remained War
The Ethiopian regime is again beating the drums of war. This saber rattling
is occurring at a time when major international donors are pouring huge deliveries
of food aid into Ethiopia.
Ethiopia's decision to go to war at this time has nothing to do with the peace
process. The fact is peace has never been on the agenda of this regime. As it
may be recalled, Ethiopia's Prime Minister had publicly stated in June last
year that "the offensive would be launched when the preparations are complete;
that it will not be brought forward or delayed by a day."
In as far as the peace process is concerned, the facts are the following:
1. After stalling for about seven months, Ethiopia rejected the Technical Arrangements.
These were submitted to both sides as non-negotiable under the express request
of Ethiopia, which was not willing at the time to participate in proximity talks.
Ethiopia's Prime Minister is now resorting to his usual armour of lies to deny
this explicit commitment. But official OAU documents, including the clarifications
that the OAU issued last September, establish the indelible truth.
2. Despite Ethiopia's rejection of the Technical Arrangements in contravention
of agreed ground rules, Eritrea accepted to participate in the proximity talks
proposed in the hope of salvaging the peace process. Naturally, Eritrea would
exercise its legitimate right and put forth its ideas regarding the new set
of Technical Arrangements since its earlier acceptance was predicated on the
"non-amendable" status of the document.
3. In the proximity talks in Algiers, Eritrea naturally requested a signature
of the two documents and an agreement on a cease-fire. In reality these are
not Eritrea's requests but specific provisions of the Framework Agreement and
the Modalities of Implementation. Indeed,
Article 1 of the Framework Agreement states: "The two parties commit themselves
to an immediate cessation of hostilities."
Article 9 of the Framework Agreement establishes that talks would start "as
soon as the Framework Agreement is signed."
Article 7 of the Modalities of Implementation states: "The two parties
commit themselves to sign a formal cease-fire agreement which provides for the
detailed modalities of implementation of the Framework Agreement."
Article 5 of the Modalities of Implementation again states: the modalities for
the establishment of the civilian administration and the population in the concerned
territories "shall be worked out after the cessation of hostilities."
4. Ethiopia is refusing to sign the documents because it has not accepted them
in reality. Its claim that it will not sign them until a "third document"
of detailed implementation is worked out is not tenable. In effect, this is
not only in breach of operative paragraph 9 of the Framework Agreement but it
is also making acceptance of the basic documents endorsed by the OAU Summit
contingent upon additional documents that have to be negotiated between the
parties. Moreover, specific arrangements that may have been made in working
out the Technical Arrangements under the explicit ground rules of "non-negotiability"
are not valid anymore when this has been violated and both sides are asked now
to engage in proximity talks.
In brief, peace has become elusive because Ethiopia's agenda has remained war
from the outset. Ethiopia is refusing to sign the documents because it has not
accepted them in the first place. Ethiopia has not accepted the OAU documents
because it knows that it has no legal case and does not accordingly wish to
see the demarcation of the boundary.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Asmara, 11 May 2000