2.3 The Basis of the Peace Proposals of the Ethiopian Government and the International Community:

It could be rightly discerned from the foregoing that the recommendations put forward by the US-Rwanda Facilitators, which have been subsequently endorsed by the OAU and the UN Security Council, are in-line in substance with the position of the Ethiopian Government on the crisis. It is useful and appropriate to pose a question here. Why have the Facilitators, the continental organization and the world body essentially adopted one and the same set of recommendations? It would be unthinkable that any person who has a normal state of mind would entertain the notion that the Facilitators, the OAU and the UN would unjustifiably stand in favour of one or the other party to the conflict. It is therefore not so difficult to conclude that these bodies have taken one position regardless of whether their position would please or displease one or the other of the contending parties. It is hence pertinent to conclude that the Facilitators, the OAU and UN Security Council have taken an impartial position on the merits of the case on the basis of accepted norms of international law and correct principles of conflict management and resolution. And it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that they have invoked international law that no country should occupy another country by force and that any country which has a territorial claim should only make the necessary effort to resolve it through legal and peaceful means and not by first forcibly changing the facts on the ground and then attempting to legalize the illegal seizure of territory which is forbidden by international law.

In fact all existing international laws and principles of conflict resolution clearly dictate that any country which embarks on aggression should not be tolerated and should not be allowed to reap any benefits or advantages out of such unlawful act. If such a trend is tolerated world peace and stability cannot be maintained and rogue countries would be encouraged to be governed by the rule of the jungle which would seriously put in jeopardy all international norms and peaceful practices. If any country has forcibly occupied the territory of a sovereign nation, it is evident that prior to the start of a negotiated, peaceful settlement of the dispute the aggressor should first pull back its forces and that the status quo ante should be restored. The point is that the situation on the ground which was created as a consequence of aggression should first and foremost be redressed, as dictated by the principle of international relations that an aggressor should never be rewarded. It goes without saying that the recommendations put forward by the US-Rwanda Facilitators, reinforced by the subsequent resolutions of the OAU summit and the US Security Council, state that to initiate a process of legal and peaceful negotiation on settlement of the dispute, the aggressor Eritrean forces should first withdraw from the occupied areas of Badme and its environs; and the civilian administration should be reinstated; that the forcibly altered scenario should be unmade and the status quo ante put in place as dictated by international law and principles of conflict management and resolution.

Why the Ethiopian Government adheres to the internationally accepted resolution demanding the withdrawal of Eritrean aggressors from the illegally and forcibly occupied Ethiopian territory before embarking upon a peaceful and legal means to settle the dispute is explained by two cardinal principles. The first rationale arises from the fact that since the now occupied Ethiopian territory had never been under the jurisdiction of an administration whose center had been Eritrea, the forcible occupation of these areas is a flagrant violation of Ethiopian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Hence, it stands to reason that prior to the start of applying any legal and peaceful mechanism to untangle the problem, the situation should be redressed or aggression undone. The areas had never been part of the territory under an Eritrean Jurisdiction during the Italian colonial period, during the British administration or during the time of the armed struggle, not even for an hour. The Eritrean government cannot forward any legally acceptable argument to substantiate its claims.

The crime committed by the Eritrean Government is not only that it has unleashed an aggression on a sovereign state. It is all the more a naked and brutal aggression which stabbed Ethiopia on the back when it had wholeheartedly put the trust and faith on a neighborly country with brotherly confidence. Not only that, as a consequence of this unsuspecting trust, the Ethiopian government had not been suspicious enough to station its forces in the border areas. Hence the Eritrean aggression mercilessly overpowered a few members of the local militia and police with a fully mechanized and heavily armed regular forces. Ethiopia has thus put the resolution, among other reasons, because it has the bounden of duty and right to reclaim its territory and safeguard its sovereignty, which has been trampled upon by the brutal and vandalic act of Eritrean aggression and encroachment.

The second rationale for Ethiopia's insistence that the Eritrean aggressor forces should pull back to their original positions before entering into dialogue is to highlight the dangers inherent in the Eritrean government policy of imposing its will on the countries of the region by force and the implications it entails on regional peace and stability. While it is common knowledge that bi-lateral or multi-lateral relations among nations should be based on mutual respect and equality, it is to be noted that on the contrary the Eritrean government is bent upon accomplishing its desire by adhering to a trend of forcibly imposing its policy on its neighbors. When it comes to differences that arise between the Eritrean Government and its neighbors, be it a border issue or any other agenda, the normal practice has been prior to any attempt to resolve the issue at hand in a peaceful, legal and amicable manner, the Eritrean Government chooses to follow its fashionable dictum of fire first, talk later! This is a weird philosophy that advocates flexing the muscle to lord it over its neighbours. Thus the unbending belief of the Eritrean government to determine any bond with its neighbors by the logic of force is a stumbling block to promoting solid brotherly relations based on mutual interests, equality, respect for each other and stable ties among the neighboring nations, and it is a danger to regional peace.

Suffice it to point out that while Eritrea had all the right to put its claim of the Hanish Islands by legal and peaceful means, it occupied the territory by force first and then invited the Government of Yemen for dialogue. This dangerous incident was not reversed in time. Consequently, the Eritrean Government repeated its dangerous course by attempting to justify its territorial claim on Djibouti by force. Fortunately, at this juncture the Ethiopian Government intervened and the Eritrean Government that this particular action was wrong and counterproductive, thereby contributing to normalizing the situation temporarily. And now, when the territorial dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea was being addressed through proper channels, the Eritrean regime resorted to the only formula it prefers and unleashed an unprovoked aggression on Ethiopia, thereby fanning an environment of hostility and war which jeopardizes the stability and peace of our region. It should be borne in mind that, let alone differences between sovereign states, even relations amongst family members are guided by legal and orderly means to the exclusion of violence. Even in individual cases of claim of land and estate if force precedes law and order a legal resolution of the question at hand cannot be attained. For no negotiation, arbitration or compromise could be forthcoming unless the relationship rests on equality, law and order. Likewise, the Eritrean Government which has refused to abide by international law and norms of behaviour, choosing to impose its will by force of arms, must be made to accept legality as the only way to conduct its relations with other countries. Otherwise, it should be crystal clear that the region will be engulfed in unimpeded chaos and commotion. It would be unthinkable for peace and stability to reign in our region unless and until the Eritrean Government is made to realize that the path of force and violence is closed once and for all and that it could only benefit by becoming loyal and accountable to existing internal law and norms of civilized behaviour.

Member organizations of the Ethiopian Peoples Democratic Front (EPRDF) and later the EPRDF itself had been staunch advocates and supporters of the just cause of the people of Eritrea for self-determination and freedom and had firmly stood alongside the Eritrean people. It is also to be recalled that the EPRDF and the Ethiopian Government had strongly and firmly struggled and created a conducive atmosphere for the Eritrean question to be addressed in a referendum. The EPRDF and the Ethiopian Government adhered to their stand on the Eritrean question in the face of a bitter political struggle at home and abroad with forces that equated the referendum with forfeiting Assab and Massawa, choking Ethiopia by denying it access to the sea.

The Government of Ethiopia is insisting that Eritrean forces should first withdraw from the occupied land, only and only because it is its sovereign territory and is determined to see the prevalence of law and order and not for expansionist ambitions. Had the EPRDF and the Ethiopian Government had an expansionist dream it is evident that Badme could not be more important than Assab and Massawa. The Ethiopian Government believes in principle that much as it should not realize by force of arms its territorial claim in Eritrea; likewise, it does not allow Eritrea to realize its claim by resorting to force. The Ethiopian Government, irrespective of whether a country is big or small, adheres to a principled stand of relations of equality, mutual respect based on law and order. Likewise, it does not bend to any aggressive pressure divorced from internationally accepted norms of bi-lateral, and multi-lateral ties and least of all to relations accompanied by the philosophy of imposition by force of arms.

What is of significant value to the Ethiopian Government is relations based on law and order; adherence to the principle of equality and mutual respect, and strong bond among countries that will guarantee peace and stability. What is of deep concern to the Ethiopian Government is that unless the irresponsible and dangerous trend, based on the logic of force, followed by the Eritrean Government is not checked the region would be engulfed in an unending conflagration and unimpeded crisis thereby spelling doom to the desire for peace and development of the peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea. To avoid such a catastrophe, Ethiopia calls for the prevalence of law, order and justice. Therefore the Ethiopian Government has an unequivocal firm stand for the realization of the lofty aspirations of the peoples of the region for peace, order and law to prevail.