Response:

Ethiopia Should Sign a Peace Plan But Which One? One That is Out of Tune!

All right Ethiopia should sign a peace deal. There is nothing more rewarding to the people of Ethiopia than a peaceful resolution. They know war and its cost and they know what, in its absence, the dividend from peace has been. The people of Eritrea could not be more happier either. Almost every household is a story of causality. More than two third of the households are forced to send their children or any adult above twelve to the war front. Which family would not be happy when children and spouses are back to re-start a normal life. Unfortunately those who have a lot at stake are not the decision makers, particularly in Eritrea. And those who make the decision or participate in the decision process have a different agenda, than a human life. Those agendas are filled with intricacies, complications, shoddy diplomacy, and with half baked truths. And many time are prone to crumble in a fortnight. Such is the so-called “ Technical Arrangement”. The new ‘technical arrangement has many flows and shortcomings which I will elaborate below, and particularly the process. But let us see some interesting elements first.

If Eritrea could manage, one of the warring parties and the aggressor, to have its way and waste a year and half long to sign into the Peace Proposal of June 1998, why Ethiopia should be rushed into signing a new few weeks old and very murky document is amusing. Eritrea has been literally begged to accept a simple concept: the return of the Status Quo Ante. It refused to do so and gave various excuses for a year and half, one of which was it was not good for Eritrea. Now the so-called “Technical Arrangement” comes and Ethiopia is expected to accept it immediately, just simply because Eritrea liked it? Is it possible to think that it could be out of line from the Framework of Agreement? Inconsistent with the Modalities of Implementation? Does the fact that such detailed, complicated and lengthy document of a ‘Technical Arrangement’ took Issayas “Ten Minutes” to accept, provide room for some suspicious maneuvers? Was he informed, worse ‘promised’, that he is getting a reward?

The government of Ethiopia may be pressured, I hope they do not, to accept a deal forced by third parties and particularly the United States. But if the people of Ethiopia do not like it, it will not work. You can not blackmail and threaten the people of Ethiopia to sign a patched and tattered deal. History provides us ample evidence to that.

The New Technical Arrangement

The government of Ethiopia understood the magnitude and risk involved in taking back its territory and protecting its sovereignty with full military option. Rather it choose regional mediators and international bodies to undo aggression through diplomatic mechanisms. It placed all faith on mediation efforts, first on the US-Rwanda and later on OAU. When the government of Eritrea rejected all peace efforts, worse when it further escalated the conflict then Ethiopia had to retaliate. This resulted in partial recovery of its territory. Ethiopia throughout the entire crisis steadfastly insisted on peaceful withdrawal of Eritrea and despite its legitimate reason and several opportunities to do so, Ethiopia did not raise the bar which otherwise would have made it difficult for Eritrea to fulfill. Unlike that of Eritrea, its position remained consistent, principled yet unfortunately minimal. In many ways than one, Ethiopia looked like the mediator. The angle which is out trying on face saving Eritrea. After sacrificing thousands of brave souls to regain Badme and many more to protect it from EPLF army’s further invasion, from February 1999 till present, Ethiopia could have simply made the peace proposal null and void unless it was made to accommodate new realities on the ground. But despite many and provoking reasons Ethiopia did not. Ironically this has become to hurt Ethiopia’s position. Ethiopia is being asked to give a lot and more than it should. Ethiopia, for respecting international law and order and for behaving by those norms is being penalized by the vary institutions, and particularly the UN, that are supposed to promote those noble ideals.

At the expense of its sovereignty, huge human suffering and destabilization, material cost and national pride a new group of mediators are trying to force-down a skewed and adulterated ‘Technical Arrangement” on Ethiopia’s throat.

The problem with the so-called “Technical Arrangement”?

The new so-called ‘Technical Arrangement’ not only is far in spirit and content from the very foundations of the peace process but it is very likely that it can throw everything in disarray and threaten the whole peace process. There are too many flaws and short comings in this new “Technical Arrangement”. And what is worrisome is even the process by which this “Arrangement” was developed is open to several seeds of suspicion. In the first two parts let us see the process how this arrangement came to develop and the proposed structure by which this is planned to be executed.

The Process

In the current highly ‘confidential process’ (except it is leaking from Eritrean sources) the OAU has been sidelined and its future role marginalized. The United States and the United Nations, through a push and some maneuvering by the United States, have found their way, unannounced, to play a major role as mediators in this conflict. The UN and US, undeclared, have evolved from a ‘Shadow Team’ to major actors and decision makers in the peace process. How did this happened and what does it entail?

The United Nations should be allowed and must play active role in bringing peace to the region and elsewhere. The UN is mandated to do such job and any serious interest by the UN should be welcome. The actual problem has been UN’s reluctance and powerlessness when it comes to problems in Africa. However UN’s role and participation can’t be at the cost of undermining regional bodies such as the OAU. The OAU and other regional bodies are hoped to take more and more role in mediation efforts and bringing peace to Africa. Unfortunately there is a fear big powers such as the United Stand do not seem to have the interest at heart to see OAU taking charge. As of late such fear is becoming very real with the current Ethiopia-Eritrea war. The sad part, that it is suspected that other major forces and players are making this unholy maneuver pitting the OAU against the UN. Two venerable institutions meant to support and strengthen each other. How did this evolve?

During this entire peace process and particularly prior to the Algiers meeting the UN had been consulted and refereed to at the recommendation and official declaration of the mediators composed of High Delegates of Heads of States and the OAU General Secretariat. This was done with the consent of both warring parties, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the process was very transparent. However this time around the UN not only did invite themselves in a big way, as opposed to the usual follow-up and monitoring through Ahmed Shannon, but pushed away the OAU to the sideline and made themselves and the United States the dealers and makers of this peace process. The entire year and half long effort by the OAU to reach at this stage resulted in its being thrown-out from facilitating the final deals. This very fundamental process of marginalizing the OAU has brought a cloud of suspicion and serious allegations against certain quarters which are playing overt and covert roles.

What went wrong?

How the UN and the US took over the OAU on this matter is nerve wrecking. Certainly the OAU’s Algiers Summit did not mention let alone pass a resolution on such transfer. The transfer of power from the regional body OAU to this ‘Shadow Team’, over a serious matter that involves the sovereignty of countries, is going to be the mystery of the year. If not for Ethiopia’s request for clarification, which prompted the revelation, the environment of this transfer would have remained shrouded for a longer time. It is good it is caught-up early before things get-out of spin.

We definitely know the following facts. Firstly, no decision was made by the delegates of OAU heads of states to pass the torch to UN and for the OAU to watch from the sidelines. There are no official statement made by OAU to indicate that. This has led many to speculate that this ‘power transfer’ was done behind closed doors and back deals. Secondly, the very fact that this decision was made without consultation and consent of both parties (see Ethiopia’s request for clarification) makes it suspect and for either parties to mistrust the process.

It is regrettable this is done not only jeopardizing the peace process but to the determinant and marginalization of the OAU.

The OAU and Conflict Resolution

The OAU is a regional body with all the understanding and principles to solve such regional problems. It has established a Central Organ ( Cairo 1993 Summit) to deal with crisis such as that between Ethiopia and Eritrea. More over it is the first regional institution that offered its good offices and services to mediate between the warring parties. It is the one institution which the first peace mediators, US and Rwanda, after failing to break the deadlock passed upon their findings and effort in resolving the crisis peacefully.

Both warring parties as members of the OAU have been willing and accepted the OAU to take the only and only mediation party in resolving their dispute, with out the proliferation of other third-parties. That was the very reason why the UN was always following the developments and endorsing the decisions of the OAU. Why now the ‘Shadow Team’ stole the torch and is seeking the lime-light is anybody’s guess.

There is a sound historical and political reason for the regional body to solve regional problems, draw lessons from its efforts in order to better cope with any other conflict and prevent any crisis in the future. That was the whole concept behind capacity building in conflict management and the establishment of African Peace Keeping Force. Sidelining the OAU for logistical reasons, when very well this peace process do provide an excellent opportunity to build OAU’s capacity in conflict management and improve its shortcomings is really dubious for an excuse. If there was any talk by the UN and particularly the United States to strengthen OAU in its capacity to prevent conflicts and manage crisis, it must have been a lip-service. Actually the ‘Shadow Team’ have robbed the OAU of an excellent opportunity. OAU has invested resources, time and goodwill for more than a year and half and has a vested interest to see this peace deal succeed. In addition this new “Technical Arrangement” have even infringed upon and altered the very working mechanisms of the OAU.

When the resolution by the Heads of States of African countries was passed, it elected the then OAU Chairman and Burkina Faso’s President Campoare, Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, Djibouti’s Aptidon and OAU’s General Secretary Salim Ahmed Salim to make up the mediation team. Their Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers were also involved and actively participated in every stages of the process such as fact finding mission. This group was entrusted in bringing a peaceful resolution and reporting to the OAU Heads of States General Meeting. They worked in consensus and each warring party’s claim’s and counter claims were carefully weighed and accommodated. Given their sheer number and diverse composition of the High Level Delegation, both warring parties felt secure in the fairness of both the process and the outcome.

Now not only are the two other members Djibouti and Zimbabwe dismissed unceremoniously, they are not even replaced by any other African country. Their place has been taken by the United States and the United nations. This is an insult to Africa and the development is very alarming. It is bewildering how such gross mistake occurred. Worse this ‘Shadow Team’ and its Chairman have entrusted themselves with sweeping and final powers that were not stipulated nor granted by the Heads of States Algiers Summit. The document produced under “Technical Arrangement” by this ‘Shadow Team’ is very telling. It has assumed powers of enormous proportion and completely out of the scope of what the Framework agreement and the Modalities provide. Nowhere does the FRAMEWORK of Agreement nor the Modalities of implementation provide for the OAU Chairman alone to be the sole interpreter of the agreement and nor the ‘Shadow Team’ to be the guarantor of a peaceful end. The Framework of Agreement stipulates that both parties are getting into the deal and, peace would prevail as long as both parties implement the deal in good faith. It does not give the false impression nor the pretension that it will guarantee peace just to lure the other party to sign-in. This is a very dangerous precedent and can not be taken lightly given what is at stake. OAU’s resolutions and working mechanisms should not be undermined just to ‘bring’ about a ‘patched peace’. Unfortunately this is not all. The ‘Shadow Team’ have managed to change the Modalities of Implementation by replacing Military Observers with ‘Peace Mission’ force with new roles such as policing disputed areas.

There are several elements that are either absent from the Technical Arrangement or new ones introduced that can jeopardize the process. These will be discussed further but to highlight few: how the theme of the Framework of Agreement and Modalities of Implementation namely ‘Return to Status Quo Ante’ got replaced by ‘Cessation of Hostilities’; how the arrangement closed the door further negotiations above and beyond the alleged border dispute and which were stipulated by the Framework of Agreement; how the ‘Technical Arrangement failed to address the issue of natural and un-hindered access to the sea for Ethiopia; how this ‘arrangement’ facilitated and literally rewarded aggression by asking Ethiopia to rescind its sovereignty over areas such as Zalambessa and Irob which are not even contested by the invader Eritrea nevertheless remain occupied. The Ayder massacre; the more than 350,000 displaced citizens; the deported, tortured and raped citizens. And many more.

The Solution

Simply put the current ‘Technical Arrangement’ as it stands now lacks transparency, has too many flaws and shortcomings. It sets bad precedent and is bad for the OAU and bad for Ethiopia. The OAU need to continue with playing its active, major and important role which has been entrusted by Africa’s Head of States Summit. The UN and the United States should continue giving all the support needed and facilitate the peace process. Both warring parties need to have trust in the process. The most reasonable and rational way for this war to end is a peaceful resolution. The best mechanism and viable institution suited for this job is the OAU.

Hence the Technical Arrangement need to be revised again to reflect and within the bounds of the Framework of Agreement and Modalities of Implementation. The main packages endorsed by Heads of States. The confidence of each parties should be rebuilt. Before the whole process goes in disarray it is the responsibility of the UN and the United States to stop assuming power they have never been granted. It is better for all parties involved that the UN and US continue playing their constructive and supportive role which they have been doing for more than a year and half. But they should not rob the OAU of a every opportunity of breaking the deadlock and which it has invested a great deal. Logistical reason is a dubious excuse and counter the very ideals of strengthening the OAU to deal and manage regional crisis.

Both Ertirea and Ethiopia need peace, but not through patched deal that could crumble overnight and certainly not a forced one for Ethiopia which is a victim in this war. The Framework of Agreement works for both. The Modalities work for both. It is only the ‘technical arrangement’ that need to fit into those two. It is out of tune and it must change. Good thing it is at its early stage and the concerns of both parties could still be well addressed.