I was impressed with the solid argument that was superbly articulated by Belai Abbai and Zeru Kehishen regarding Ethiopia's fundamental interest in the Afar coast. The writers successfully avoided the two most common pitfalls that invariably seem to trap many of our compatriots who venture to write on national issues. They did not get entangled in emotional negativism and name-calling and they did not try to address all of our country's complex issues in one piece. The issues related to Aseb and the Afar coast are complex enough to be competing for attention with the other hot issues of the day.

Belai and Zeru prominently positioned the following points on the national agenda for debate and conversation.

(1) Ethiopia has a paramount national interest in the Afar coast including the port city of Aseb.

(2) The sovereign state of Ethiopia has a legal, moral and a longstanding historical claim to the Afar coast that is entirely within established global norms.

(3) The Federal Republic has a constitutional duty to defend and protect the interests and territories of all of its constituent parts including the interests and territories of the people of the Afar region.

(4) The leaders of the government of democratic Ethiopia who are to speak on behalf of the Ethiopian people during the peace negotiation have a constitutional responsibility to consult with the people they represent prior to entering into any agreement that may bind them.

Bouyed with the clarity of their language and the logic of their argument, I was looking forward to a flood of amens and congratulatory responses to be posted on this and other Ethiopian websites. What came instead were postings that do not appreciate that this paper represents a water-shed event in our country's short experiment with democratic discourse. Worse, most postings castigate the two individuals as some sort of pariah from the past. They call them obstructionists, revisionists and/or empire builders who call for the continuation of war.

These are not constructive comments or rebuttals that advance the discussion towards forming a consensus national position on this important matter. Instead, they seek to discourage citizens from stepping forward and presenting their views on issues of national import. They intend to sow confusion by dressing themselves in the language of the high-fluted academy. The net effect of comments of this nature, is to muzzle and silence not just dissenting opinion, but all meaningful debate which is required to advance consensus building and trust among and between Ethiopians.

The article by one Aynalem Sebhatu, recently posted on this website, stands as a good representation of the ilk I speak of. I will point to the poison imbedded in a few of Aynalem's observations to highlight the sinister nature of this and similar postings.

Aynalem's commentary begins by pronouncing the question of Aseb to be "often difficult and complex". She/he (sorry about my inability to discern the gender of the author) warns the reader that "Most of the views on the question of Aseb... perhaps reflecting the lack of depth of knowledge ...and also reflecting the (writers') political biases ...are somewhat simplistic." Hence from the get-go Aynalem places himself/herself in a position to know and to evaluate the utterances of others and warns the reader that this issue may be too much for the reader to hope to grasp.

Aynalem charges that the first sin committed by Belai and Zeru is framing the issues and problems of Aseb as issues of sovereignty and ownership rather than issues of Ethiopia's access to Eritrea's Aseb. This sin supposedly reflects Belai and Zeru's willingness "to use force" and to continue the "cycle of violence (which) would have undesirable and counter productive effects on the entire fabric of economic, social, national, regional and international relations." This is clearly an attempt by Aynalem to deflect rather than to enlighten. Why would any nation that believes to have a legitimate right of ownership to a territory, as Ethiopia believes to have in Aseb, settle for a right of access to the territory under terms controlled by another country? For an answer to that obvious question Aynalem points to the dreaded "w" word ...war. The invocation of the prospect of war is expected to cow down Ethiopians who are exhausted with war.

The fact remains that the consequences of war are double edged. It is only a fool who would accede to Eritrea's invocation of the prospects of continued war as a means of getting concessions. Aynalem seems to count on Ethiopia's experience with the ravages of war and hopes that we have a collective amnesia and forget that we just went to war to ensure that what is rightfully ours remains ours. We knew two years ago that war has a multitude of undesirable consequences. We also know that war is just as painful to the other side. Perhaps even more importantly Ethiopians know that a nation which allows itself to be hostage to its desire for peace may never achieve peace.

Aynalem recites the arguments forwarded by Belai and Zeru either as facts which support Ethiopia's legitimate claim on Aseb or as reasons which make it imperative for Ethiopia to vigorously pursue its legitimate claim. She/he then dismisses each point as either insufficient for pursuing the claim or as unfounded and unsubstantiated. No new (or old) fact is forwarded; no evidence is proffered, nor is any explanation given for either characterization. Instead, Aynalem surmises that "...it is therefore unlikely that any formula for determining a justifiable course of action towards Aseb will be satisfactory for all Ethiopians." Thus Aynalem invokes yet again that most effective of military tactics: if you cannot overwhelm them with numbers, try confusing them with diversionary tactics. Hmmm, what are we to do?!?!

At the risk of being labeled a "hard-liner", let me say that Ethiopia finds herself at yet another crossroad. One of these roads can lead Ethiopia to a future of peaceful relations with her neighbors, greater prosperity at home, a greater sense of security and a future where all who claim her to be their home will come to live under her roof. The other road, if taken, will willingly subjugate Ethiopia to domination by and dependence on her neighbors, plant the seeds for future wars and lead to yet another disconnect between the people and their government. The last war can be the war to end all wars for Ethiopia if we do not squander at the negotiating table what was gained at the battlefront.

To understand the importance of Afar coast to Ethiopia and the legitimacy of Ethiopia's claim on it, all one has to do is go back to May and June and read what the Western media was writing. Before any Ethiopian government official ever uttered a word about it, well before the independent Ethiopian media ever wrote a single line regarding it, the Western media covering the war invariably concluded nearly every news report of the war by referring to Ethiopia's recent status as a land-locked country and speculating that victorious Ethiopia will ultimately drive east to capture Aseb and the coast. The OAU, the UN, the EU as well as every major world power expects Ethiopia to push for Aseb. Certainly, the British who still hold on to Gibraltar and the Falklands, the Americans who hold Diego Garcia and the world which condones that, will not suggest that Ethiopia has no legitimate claim on the Afar coast.