By Haileselassie Girmay, June 11, 2000

The Proposal of the OAU for an agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of Eritrea is but a dented sword that has come too late to consider it worthwhile an effort. It is, at this point in time, more of an effort to save the Eritrean aggressors than to do justice or maintain peace and stability in the region. I was amazed to see how quick some International VIPs were deployed in the two capitals while battles left, center and right flanks were raging fierce and the Eritrean were clearly desperate to see someone come to their rescue from the fires they themselves ignited in the first place.

The fifteen point peace plan the OAU under the strict supervision of the USA, UK and The UN has come up with simply exonerate the Eritrean aggressors scott free even though their initial claim of Bademe, Zalambessa, Alitiena, Burie and Bada were to be found nothing but void. Short of that to the surprise of the Eritreans, the fifteen-point plan may help them stand a chance of being rewarded with some if not all the regions the Ethiopia fought back hard and reclaimed. Who knows anything can happen. We have been treated in the past equally if not worse than an aggressor when we are clearly the victims. Remember the Arms embargo imposed on us and the possible diplomatic embargo that were to follow? That was not long ago. In fact it was about three and a few days ago. Eritreans may have forgotten the trophy they got from the world arbitrators. They say, "YeWega Beresha Yetewega Ayresa." But we do remember it quite well.

One thing must be clear though- as is stated in the OAU resolution inclusive in the peace proposal submitted for the two antagonists - even to the OAU and others, which helped draft the peace proposal - the "REJECTION of use of force as a means of imposing solutions to disputes." If this is the stance of the OAU, and it must be, demarcation or no demarcation, handing over 'disputed land' or no handing over land To Eritreans, Respect of Colonial treaties regarding boundaries delimitations or no colonial treaty boundaries delimitations, Eritrea as an aggressor must be condemned for what it is and own up the responsibilities of its actions. All that Ethiopian blood split, lives lost, properties destroyed and other incalculable non-material losses incurred are not addressed in this Peace Proposal for Cessation of Hostilities. It has to be and must take priority. As I said it has nothing to do with the outcome of the litigation that is tobe. Ethiopia must establish this as a priority justice delivered before anything else is considerd. Then Ethiopia can sit for further negotiations.

The 25 Kms free Security distance Eritrean armed force are to be barred from entering should be beyond the areas within Eritrea the Ethiopian defense forces are now currently in charge. Ethiopia should not allow the Eritreans to take over the land it fought to maintain distance from their menaces. In other words it ought to be 25 kms say for example from Senafe, Shelalo etc inwards.

Besides the Peace proposal reiterates that the OAU calls for "respect for the borders existing at independence as stated in the resolution AHG/Res 16 (1) adopted by the OAU summit in Cairo in 1964...." Eritrea was part of Ethiopia in 1964 and Eritrean question of demarcation is out of limit of this resolution. This resolution can only be applicable to nations that were still under colony in 1964. This is so because all African nations, including Ethiopia, with Eritrea being part of it, that came to the submit to adopt the resolution constituted as whole evolved entities /nations capable of being recognized as such and out of reach of the resolution. .

Now if the Eritreans are claiming they have been colonized by Ethiopia, fair enough. However, such a claim is a different kettle all together, but then Ethiopia would be the sole nation that would determine the boundaries between itself and its "former" colony. There is no need to go and refer the Italian Treaties for verification of the authenticity of the demarcations. It would be a case of Italy, an old colonizer that had lost its power and colonial territory to Ethiopia - Eritrea. Just like some of the Latin American, African and Asian countries were first colonized by the Portuguese and the Spaniards and the Germans but later they were transferred to the English and the French colonies. Now is this the case that the British and the French have the last say according to the 1964 resolution or is it Portugal, Spain or Germany which have the say over the fate of the countries stated above as examples? The former colonizers have precedent over the latter.

On the other hand, if the Eritreans do not claim to be colonized by Ethiopia that they indeed were part of Ethiopia who now have chosen to secede, then again the matter become an internal issue between Ethiopia and Eritrea and no more international. Others have to simply implement the wishes of the two countries with out pointing their fingers.

To sum up, I would say the proposal has gone some distance in the right direction but not far enough as it stands. I know what it means but let us stand together and fight this last ditch effort to save the face of an aggressor. We deserve nothing but justice. There are hundreds of thousand of households in Ethiopia who have lost their loved and bread winning altars. They needed to be looked after. They cannot be left alone. Eritrea must pay for what it had done wrong - gravely wrong.