The Two-Sided 'Logic' of War

By Nora Boustany Washington post
Friday, February 12, 1999; Page A31

Despite President Clinton's divine supplication for peace between
Ethiopia and Eritrea at the National Prayer Breakfast last week,
bombing raids and ground assaults have killed soldiers and civilians
alike, and his plea for the combatants not to use planes in that African
conflict has been ignored.

Ethiopian Ambassador Berhane Gebre-Christos said in an interview
yesterday that he agrees it is a "senseless war," but, he added, "There
are causes. This invasion has to be reversed." According to Ethiopia,
Eritrea started the fighting in May 1998 by invading the border region of
Badame, whose ownership is in dispute, but Eritreans claim Ethiopia
attacked first, in July 1997. Berhane bristles at the mention of Eritrea's
incursion last year into the rocky and barren morsel of frontier territory --
no larger than 150 square miles. "It has always been administered by
Ethiopia," he argued.

Eritrea's decision to take on a country 10 times its size and its heavy
spending on military equipment instead of development is mystifying to
outsiders, but not to Eritreans themselves, said Yemane Gebreab, a
high-ranking adviser to Eritrean President Issaias Afwerki. "They
believe it is theirs; we believe it is ours. . . . Why does [Berhane] talk
about administration? It is a question of territory, of ownership," he
added, saying his country wants an independent investigation into how
the conflict began.

"All wars are foolish, of course," Yemane told Washington Post
reporters and editors yesterday. He expressed bitterness, however, at
the dismissive attitude toward what many people mistake for just
another border war in a long line of African border wars. "This is not a
war over some rocks," he said. "The issue is a matter of national
survival, the right of Eritrea to remain a sovereign and independent
country." He alleged that Ethiopian prisoners of war debriefed by
Eritrean officials said their objective was not to capture the border area
but "to take Asmara [the Eritrean capital] and set up a transitional
government in Eritrea."

Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia five years ago in a
referendum that followed three decades of fighting, but Ethiopian
irredentists are believed to regret the loss of the territory -- and with it,
access to the Red Sea. "If we are confronted with that objective, the only
thing we can do is to defend ourselves. . . . We have not seen the end of
them yet," Yemane said.

"The Eritreans know war; they suffered from war. Every single family has
lost someone. The fact that people feel strongly about this should be
taken into account. This is not something some official has dreamed
up," he observed.

But Ethiopia's Berhane contends that "here the problem is not land; it is
aggression. . . . Eritrea has a militaristic government that wants to solve
everything by war. If you have grievances, go to an international court,
don't jump and kill someone."

Be it narcissism or the need for expansion, living space, access to the
sea or national survival, the war appears to be in full swing -- although
both sides claim they would agree to a truce with different conditions. In
the end, does it not all boil down to who thinks he is better and who has
a larger sense of entitlement, rather than the facts of the matter? The
Ethiopian ambassador insisted in interviews last week and yesterday
that the Organization of African Unity had agreed overwhelmingly to a
"framework agreement" -- which the U.N. Security Council endorsed at
the end of January -- calling on Eritrea to withdraw its forces from the
border so cartographers can "do their work," and he called on the world
to "pressure" Eritrea into removing its troops. "Ethiopia is much bigger,
but the irony here is that we are invaded. Ethiopia is a victim here. . . .
We welcomed Eritrea's independence, but their approach to problems
is military, military, military," he said.

On the same issue, Yemane said: "We consider the OAU proposal a
very positive one, but some issues need to be ironed out. It talks about
respect for colonial borders, but we want very clear, precise language
about what that means."

"There is talk of redeployment," he added. "We are willing, but there is
an army facing us. We want a demilitarized zone. We are talking about a
depopulated, interim, ad hoc strip so we can have demarcation lines.
We cannot have Ethiopian sovereignty over a disputed area in the
interim."

Possible Hope in Congo

As Mark Twain would say, the war in Congo is like the weather:
Everyone complains about it, but no one does anything. Even as the list
of failed peace talks grows longer, a top diplomat from one of the
countries involved in the six-month conflict told Washington Post editors
and reporters last week that there is reason for hope.

Amama Mbabazi, Uganda's state minister for foreign affairs, said some
obstacles to resolving the war have been removed. Congolese
President Laurent Kabila no longer claims that there is no popular
rebellion against him, only outside interference by foreign powers,
Mbabazi said. The Congolese leader's insistence that the rebels'
backers -- Rwanda and Uganda -- are the only foreign forces involved in
the conflict also evaporated when it became clear that Kabila, too, is
being supported by foreign troops -- most notably from Angola and
Zimbabwe. Prospects for a deal are good, Mbabazi said, although
implementation is another matter. The truth always helps.