May 21, 2000

Only 10 years ago, the US was leading an international coalition against Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The US allowed a total of five months for sanctions and negotiations before it opted for military force to swiftly resolve the crisis.

US congressmen gave impassioned speeches rejecting an offensive and calling for a diplomatic solution. But the calls to wait and give sanctions time to work were rejected. Calls to allow diplomacy more time were also dismissed. Despite last minute indications that Saddam was close to ordering a troop withdrawal, the US had run out of patience.

The bombing began, the four day ground war followed, and Saddam is today a defanged and declawed housecat. He is no longer the threat he once was. The Gulf neighborhood is far more peaceful now that the militaristic dictator of the region is hobbled. It should be remembered that not only did Saddam invade Iran and later Kuwait, he was also a destabilizing factor across the middle east. He supported the most violent Palestinian fronts, funding them with Iraqs oil wealth (he also funded the EPLF).

As a side outcome of the Gulf War, we now have a legitimate peace process underway between Israel and the PLO. Egypt is no longer isolated from the other Arab countries - indeed it has resumed its leading role in the Arab world. And although Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates are on a spending binge, buying advanced weaponry from the US/UK, the arms race is not as hectic as it once was.

All these outcomes were important to the US and were factors that went into determining the US response to the Saddam aggression.

Diplomats and scholars who follow the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict would be wise to draw parallels between this conflict and the Gulf War.

For example, complaints from Eritreans and their friends that Ethiopia is penetrating deep into Eritrea are silly. The US plan of attack during the Gulf War called for a massive invasion of Iraq, and only a limited frontal advance through Kuwait. No one ever criticized the US alliance for sweeping hundreds of kilometers into Iraq.

At this juncture, US policymakers should consider the potential outcomes should the Ethiopian military sweep continue to the logical end. US policy makers should reflect on the benefits of a swift and permanent end to the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict.

These would include:

• The termination of the wasteful arms race between Ethiopia and Eritrea

• The elimination of Eritrea as an agent for Libya’s ambitions in Africa.

• The permanent reduction of the Eritrean arms budget and a concurrent increase in the percentage of Eritrean spending devoted to development.

• The end of Eritrean-sponsored terrorist acts in Ethiopia.

• The end of Eritrean support for destabilization of Ethiopia.

• The end of cynical Eritrean armed support for the Djibouti opposition FRUD and a boost for the current Djibouti reconciliation agreement.

• A respite for Somalia from the depradations and unbridled ambition of Mogadishu warlord Hussein Aideed. The reduction of Aideed’s military potency will help speed the process of peace and reconciliation.

• A further isolation of the main agent of religious intolerance in Sudan –Turabi. He has already been sidelined. It is best to leave the Sudan people alone to sort out the remaining task of reconciliation. The end of Eritrean manipulation of Sudanese opposition will lead to a more rational alignment of the Sudanese political forces. In addition, Ethiopia will be a strong bulwark ensuring that radical fundamentalism does not spread in the horn of africa.

US congressman are noting that without the war, the drought-related food crisis in the horn-of-africa would have been minimized. They are right, but without Gilman-like politicians who refused to condemn the Eritrean invasion, and instead lavished praise on the Eritrean dictator, there would have been a quick and peaceful solution to the conflict. Mr. Gilman is an honorable man, but he was deceived by the Eritrean propagandists and echoed their mocking language in his article on Ethiopia. He should refocus on his responsibility of advancing American interests in the region. American interests in the horn of africa are better served without the dictator Issayas Afeworki's oversize army constantly engaging itself in military adventures.

Americans should also take note of the interventions by Libya’s Gadhafi in support of Eritrea. He has a long record of militarily supporting African dictators from Mobutu to Idi Amin. His support for international terrorism need not be reiterated here.

The US, as the dominant force in the UN, did not condemn Eritrean aggression in 1998. In fact, prior to operation Sunset, in early February 1999, the US was giving indications of wanting to pressure Ethiopia to agree to Eritrea’s demands.

Now that Ethiopia has firmly taken matters into its own hands, the US should back off. Ethiopia is simply doing on a smaller scale, what the US did in 1990. The US officials should keep their eyes on the long-term outcomes and align themselves with the forces of peace and stability in the region.

- Dagmawi