Commentary:

Send the Right Message: Aggression Will Not Be Rewarded

The framework agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea which was begging for implementation for over ten months failed to bear fruit due partly to the lukewarm support it got from the international community.

The right pressure at that time would have prevented the February 1999 Badme War and the subsequent wars that brought about catastrophic human and material losses to both countries. The powers that are trying to mediate for a peaceful end must realize the following.

1) The failure to condemn aggression has deepened the mistrust and removed the possibility of face to face rapprochement between the parties to settle the issue.

2) Most of all it failed to bring about the necessary status quo ante of 1991-1998 that could have enabled the parties to start to negotiate the serious issues they needed to deal with.

3) The serious questions of the two countries, which include border demarcation, trade, immigration etc., could only be dealt with by the two parties and only at a peaceful time.

4) Forced or coerced settlement of these issues at this time of war and atmosphere of mistrust is like creating a condition for a huge war and destruction in the near future. One needs to take note that because it was done hastily even the peaceful settlement of the independence of Eritrea from 1991 to 1993 did not solve the total problem between the two countries.

Therefore the pressure that the international community is trying to apply to coercively bring about a settlement between Ethiopia and Eritrea is counterproductive for a lasting peace in the region in general and the two countries in particular. I arrived at this conclusion for the following reasons.

1) The Modalities and the Technical agreements failed to uphold international laws that prohibit the use of force to acquire a claimed territory. They failed to condemn the Eritrean aggression.

2) The proposed settlement requires an introduction of foreign military force to oversee the disengagement. Although the intention is honorable, in this part of the world the involvement of foreign forces will further implant suspicion and mistrust.

a) It will create a buffer between the two forces and gives both an artificial security which will enable one to destabilize the other with impunity and hence a continuous absence of peace. Eritrea will especially be free to continue the war by proxy. One only needs to realize how Eritrea is trying to destabilize Ethiopia by supporting the warlords of Somalia and other Liberation fronts through the provision of arms, training and other support.

b) Due to the fierce colonial experience of this region such force will not be a welcome sight for the indigenous local people where such force is gong to be deployed.

3) The issue of demarcation and delineation of border based on colonial treaties needs a serious look.

a) Colonial treaties that were imposed on the rest of the world would be difficult to apply on the border of Ethiopia and Eritrea. There was no time Ethiopia accepted the imposed occupation of Eritrea by Italy. Hence, to apply such treaty would amount to recolonizing Ethiopia. That would not be acceptable.

b) Since the would be boundary between the two countries divides the same people into two, this has to be delineated with utmost care and joint understanding with respect to where borders need to run so as to minimize division on families, keens and neighbors. To apply a cartographic division by the UN or any other external body will not bring about a just and lasting solution to this delicate problem.

4) Some of the occupied areas have never been contested by Eritrea, and if Eritrea is to show “some good will” as is mentioned in the proposal, then it must withdraw from those uncontested lands immediately and without any precondition. The proposed Technical Arrangements have miserably failed to address this glaring fact. Why should Ethiopia negotiate on areas that have never been contested by Eritrea?

5) The response to Ethiopia's request for clarification is very authoritative and defiant. Neglecting the fact that Eritrea took several months to 'study' and 'seek clarification' on the Framework Agreement; not acknowledging the fact that the modalities and Technical Arrangements contained substantial points that were non-existent in the Framework Agreement; the response indicates that the latest proposal is 'not open for amendment'. In simple terms when a mediator closes all avenues for amendments, changes, or further negotiations it effectively means the deal has gone astray.

What could the international community do at this moment?

a) First and foremost condemn aggression. International laws as well as UN and OAU conventions require that border disputes must not be resolved by brute force. It is an established fact that Eritrea invaded Ethiopian administered territories. It has to be reminded that this is contrary to international laws and before any kind of negotiation starts the aggressor need to remove its occupying army.

b) Stick to the original OAU Framework agreement that calls for aggression to be undone. The Modalities and Technical arrangements have substantially deviated from the original intent of the OAU Framework. Instead of helping the cause of peace they have further complicated the process.

c) Among other things the proposal must demand the immediate withdrawal of all Eritrean forces from all occupied areas.

d) Empower the OAU and encourage it to continue its search for avenues to make its Framework Agreement a reality. It is the OAU that has the regional interest and the continental responsibility to resolve this regional crisis. All other forces could supplement and assist the OAU in handling this difficult task.

e) Assist those people that have been dislocated because of the war.

The international community, especially the West needs to pay the required attention to the people of the Horn. These people have a negative experience with the predecessor of the UN, the League of Nations. Ethiopia has been betrayed by the very League of Nations in whose creation it participated. The League failed to condemn the Fascist Mussolini's aggression on Ethiopia. It imposed an arms embargo on both the aggressor and the aggressed. Almost 63 years later the UN exactly implemented the same measures. Only this time the aggressor is a former province of the aggressed. This is a province that has been under the brutal occupation of the expansionist and fascist Italy of the early 20th century.

Let what the former Emperor Haileselassie of Ethiopia said about the responsibility of the world nations be heeded this time. Compare this with the current UN resolution that asked for the world nations to impose a military embargo against both nations: the aggressor and the aggressed; the country that has 1000 kilometers of access to the sea and a land locked Ethiopia. History repeating itself! The Emperor said, “When the danger became more urgent, being aware of my responsibilities towards my people, during the first six months of 1935 I tried to acquire armaments. Many Governments proclaimed an embargo to prevent my doing so, whereas the Italian Government through the Suez Canal, was given all facilities for transporting without cessation and without protest, troops, arms, and munitions. "

This is how he pleaded to the world powers to be true to international laws and explained the resolve of the Ethiopian people to protect their age-old independence. “On behalf of the Ethiopian people, a member of the League of Nations, I request the Assembly to take all measures proper to ensure respect for the Covenant. I renew my protest against the violations of treaties of which the Ethiopian people has been the victim. I declare in the face of the whole world that the Emperor, the Government and the people of Ethiopia will not bow before force; that they maintain their claims that they will use all means in their power to ensure the triumph of right and the respect of the Covenant"

Today, the people of Ethiopia seem to be as angry with the UN as they were at the League of Nations. The World Body must not betray Ethiopia twice. Justice must prevail. The task that is required of the international community is clear: send the clear message stating that aggression will not be rewarded. Nothing less will resolve the crisis that has been precipitated by the Eritrean aggression.

Samuel Fasika