During the various attempts at peace-making since the Eritrean aggression and occupation of Ethiopian territory, Eritrea has been consistent only on one point - that it might pull back its troops only within the context of mutual redeployment both by Ethiopia and Eritrea.

This was also the position that Eritrea wanted the OAU High-Level Delegation to endorse, but it was rejected. Ethiopia's position has been consistent as well, and this was what was eventually endorsed by the High-Level Delegation and formed the basis for the Framework Agreement - that Eritrea should withdraw from all occupied Ethiopian land in order to prepare the ground for the peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Some might have been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Eritrean declaration "accepting" the OAU Framework Agreement after it had suffered defeat at Badme. That the Eritrean move was bogus, that it was simply a tactical move to buy time, and that Eritrea's sincerity could not be taken for granted was immediately obvious to Ethiopia.

This has now become crystal clear and that Eritrea's expressed acceptance of the OAU Framework Agreement is only a fake commitment has been made abundantly clear by the statement issued by its Foreign Ministry on 10 March 1999. By making its withdrawal from the rest of the occupied Ethiopian territory conditional on demilitarization along the common border and on mutual redeployment, Eritrea is simply confirming that its declared acceptance of the Framework Agreement is bogus and, as Ethiopia has already insisted, is tactical and designed to buy time.

That Eritrea in its latest statement is simply reiterating the same old position considered a non-starter by the OAU requires little explanation. But it must be necessary to repeat what the Eritrean president said to the summit of the OAU Central Organ in Ouagadougou in December 1998:

" ... [A] though we believe, given a cessation of hostilities, that demarcation can be done expeditiously, we have expressed our readiness to redeploy our forces within the context of mutual demilitarization."

What the Framework Agreement demands that Eritrea do, so that peace may have a chance through negotiation, is withdraw from all occupied Ethiopian territory. It was because Eritrea in effect rejected this that it became necessary to rout its army of occupation to liberate Badme. Eritrea is now advancing the same position - rejected by the High-Level Delegation as well as earlier by US-Rwandese facilitators - with respect to other parts of Ethiopian land still occupied by Eritrea.

It should thus be clear that the apparent step taken by Eritrea when it informed the Security Council that it had accepted the Framework Agreement is only a deceptive move. Even those who were prepared to give Eritrea the benefit of the doubt should take this as Eritrea taking two steps backwards. In reality Eritrea has never moved an inch and by reiterating the position that it has always advanced, it has simply made it plain how difficult it is to accept the principles upon which the OAU Framework Agreement rest. It is this same difficulty that made the battle of Badme and the routing of its army of occupation necessary.

The lack of sincerity of the Eritrean authorities appears to have no limit even with respect to issues that are as clear as day. The restoration of Ethiopian sovereignty over the Badme region required Ethiopia to pay a price in human lives which would have been unnecessary if Eritrea had accepted the OAU peace plan. Now, Eritrea wishes, in the statement by its Foreign Ministry referred to above, to imply and to shamelessly tell the world that it had redeployed from Badme in compliance with the OAU Framework Agreement.

It is therefore necessary to underline and reiterate the key elements in the statement that the Foreign Ministry issued on March 10, 1999, which Ethiopia considers as irreducible minimum conditions for the resolution of the crisis imposed on Ethiopia by Eritrea. These are the following:

1) The yardstick for Eritrea's genuine acceptance of the Framework Agreement is its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the remaining occupied Ethiopian territory and the return of the status quo ante in full, in line with the letter and spirit of the OAU peace plan.

2) In light of the huge loss of lives, the humanitarian crisis and the destruction of property caused by the Eritrean aggression, Eritrea must assume full responsibility for all the damages.

We once gain call on the international community - as we have not tired of doing so during this entire period of madness in Asmara - to convey the message even belatedly that aggression cannot be rewarded and violating principles of international law has its consequences.

March 12, 1999

ENDS

Since the Ethio-Eritrea crisis first erupted in May 1998 when Eritrean troops invaded sovereign Ethiopian territory, Ethiopia's position has been clear: the status quo ante must be restored. This means that the Eritrean troops must withdraw from the occupied territories and the Ethiopian civilian administration must be reinstated in these areas. Not only has the Ethiopian government consistently emphasized these points, but these fundamental principles also form the foundation of the OAU Framework Agreement. Ethiopia's requirement that these two conditions be met before demilitarization and demarcation of the border occur is completely consistent with the OAU peace plan.

The principle that borders cannot and must not be changed by force not only underscores the Framework Agreement, but it is also a deeply held principle of the OAU and a fundamental concept of international law. In the event that a country abrogates this basic rule and invades the territory of another, the OAU and international law also have clear standards that there must be an immediate return to the status quo ante. To allow an invader to continue to occupy another's sovereign territory would only reward aggression. Because the OAU agreement was loyal to this principle (a return to the status quo ante), Ethiopia accepted it.

In contrast to Ethiopia's position, for the past nine months Eritrea has consistently rejected a return to the status quo ante and has refused to withdraw from the occupied territories. During this time, the Eritrean government has continually called for the mutual demilitarization of the border while still occupying sovereign Ethiopian land. Thus, the Eritrean Foreign Ministry's announcement of 10 March 1999 that they are ready to redeploy troops from "all other contested areas along the common border within the framework of demilitarization" is simply a reiteration of the very same position they have adhered to for months. Moreover, it is the same position the OAU refused to endorse when Eritrea attempted to make it the basis of the Framework Agreement. Instead, the OAU plan called for a return to the status quo ante and Eritrea refused to accept it for nine months for this very reason. In short, Eritrea's position on the conflict remains completely unchanged.

The recent statement from the Eritrean Foreign Ministry, however, highlights the essence of the difference between Ethiopia and Eritrea's perspectives on the conflict. Ethiopia has throughout the crisis been guided by two fundamental principles. First, that borders cannot and must not be changed by force. Second, if such a transgression occurs, then there must be a return to the status quo ante. In contrast, Eritrea continues to violate fundamental principles of international law by refusing to withdraw its troops from Ethiopian territory and by calling instead for a mutual demilitarization of the common border. Although the OAU rejected Eritrea's position nine months ago, it continues to obstinately maintain this stance. But, as the OAU Framework Agreement makes clear, any demilitarization can only be contemplated after there is first a return to the status quo ante.

Ethiopia has consistently maintained that allowing Eritrea to get away with such aggressive and manipulative behavior will be a recurring source of instability in the Horn of Africa. It has appealed to the international community to recognize and condemn the aggression of the Eritrean government. This latest press statement is just one more classic example of how the government in Asmara is once again trying to confuse the international community and distorting the fundamental principles that underpin the OAU Framework Agreement to suit its own position. Far from being sincere in its commitment to lasting peace, Eritrea is merely trying to gain time to reorganize its troops for further aggression.

If Eritrea is genuinely willing to accept the OAU Framework Agreement and settle the conflict peacefully, it must:

1) withdraw immediately and unconditionally from all the Ethiopian territories it has been occupying since 6 May 1998,

2) accept the reinstatement of Ethiopian civilian administration in these areas, and

3) bear full responsibility for the loss of lives, the humanitarian crisis and the destruction of property that has resulted from its unbridled aggression.

ENDS

Issued by the FDRE Office of Government Spokesperson on 12/03/99