The provocative act of aggression by Eritrea has attracted wide public attention since the Council of Ministers of the FDRE issued a statement on May 13 urging the Eritrean government to pull out its invading forces from the occupied territories of Ethiopia. It thus, seems, pertinent to give an overall view of the crises.

The areas that have been occupied by the invading Eritrean force are the whole of Badme Woreda and part of Shiraro Woreda which are both located in Tigrai State. These areas have never been part of Eritrea when Eritrea was under the occupation of Italian colonialists, the British protectorate and later under the Haile-Sellassie imperial administration. During the Derg regime, the residents of the two Woredas fought the military junta gallantly under the vanguard of the Tigrai People's Liberation Front (TPLF). The puzzling question remains: why did the Eritrean government opt for such a flagrantly provocative aggression contrary to the crystal clear reality.

Despite the indisputable historical records onthe disputed areas, the Eritrean government has for long raised territorial claims. It should also be clear that the Ethiopian government has territorial claims on some areas which have been unfairly incorporated into today's Eritrea.

As a matter of fact, there may be nothing wrong in raising territorial claims. Taking that fact into account, the two countries had established a joint committee to resolve territorial disputes peacefully.

Both governments had reached a common understanding:

1) to resolve territorial claims through peaceful negotiations; and

2) to respect their respective boundaries which both occupied at the time of the fall of the Derg. it was on these basis that the joint committee was active until recently.

While this was the case, however, an unexpected thing took place. The issue was that while the joint committee set up by the two governments had been working to peacefully settle the dispute based on the aforementioned understanding and while they had agreed to hold a meeting on Friday, 8, May 1998, the Eritrean forces touched off a clash in the north-western part of Ethiopia on Wednesday, 6 May 1988. In this regard, There was initially taken by the Ethiopian side; but this claim would not be sustainable for the simple fact that the locality where the clash broke out belonged to Ethiopia.

If the two governments will peacefully settle the dispute over territorial claims and if they establish a joint committee in charge of solving this problem through peaceful dialogue, it is well and good. if the agreement could not be reached this way, however, there was earlier awareness on the need for the involvement of a third party to help settle the dispute based on international law. While this was the case, the May 6 clash is quite puzzling. In addition ,the Ethiopian side was on no conviction that the situation would get worse, probably except assuming that things may unexpectedly go wrong.

That is why the Ethiopian government gave priority to make consultation with the Eritrean delegation which came to Addis Ababa. Following the consultation and based on the already set principles, they reached agreement to leave aside the territorial claims issue between the two parties as they were, to stay confining themselves to the respective territories they occupied until the downfall f the Derg regime, to peacefully settle the dispute by the joint committee and to make option to solve the problem through the involvement of a third party only if the issue could not be tackled by the committee as well as to have the Eritrean forces leave the Ethiopian territory they occupy at present.

However, three days later, on May 1998, the Eritrean government again took provocative action by violating the agreement.

Those who had been deployed to maintain security in Badme and Shiraro localities were the Ethiopian police units and the local militia. As military sources, indicate, those who were supposed to be in proximity of the occupied areas where the clash broke our were the Ethiopian armed forces who were far away from the said areas by hundreds of kms.

This shows that there has been no provocative action taken whatsoever by the Ethiopian government against Eritrea. Nevertheless, as it was mentioned above, the Eritrean government was able to occupy the whole Badme Woreda and parts of Shiraro by deploying its mechanized force on 12 May, 1998 in violation of Ethiopian sovereignty. this measure, however, could lead to the conclusion that the Wednesday, 6 May 19988, action should not be overlooked by simply assuming that it was made accidentally or in error. this is so because the provocative action taken by the Eritrean government shows a deliberate and pre-planned violation of Ethiopian sovereignty by deploying a huge mechanized force just after three days of the agreement which was reached to peacefully settle the issue based on the set principles.

The provocative act against the sovereignty of Ethiopia is but a deviation from the friendly policies the two countries were following. Not only that; it was also a transgression of international law and non-conformity to the measures nations are taking to solve their problems, peacefully.

It has to be mentioned here that their root-cause for this act which Eritrea took is, I fell, the problem that arose with the change of the country's currency.

The policy Ethiopia follows with regard to this is clearly manifested. The country has got its own policy of development. Based on this the five-year development policy was drafted together with the policy for its implementation.

The country's limited hard currency is one source of problem which has been tried to be solved by inviting local investors to import goods using L.C.

This will help in putting the money on appropriate goods and in supplementing development activities the nation is undertaking.

The policy is indiscriminately being practiced with Kenya, Djibouti and the Sudan.

The same is true with Eritrea when it made change of currency. And the reason for the application of this policy emanates from the fiscal and the different monitoring policies the two countries follow.

The common currency that Ethiopia has therefor, chosen is the dollar that will serve the two countries.

The other point that has to be considered is the consensus reached to continue exchanging their nationally produced goods without payment of tax.

The people of the two countries have, for a long time, been living in a climate of good neighborliness and are culturally bound. therefore, in order for this atmosphere to prevail the government of Ethiopia has suggested that they exchange goods without L.C. and, at that, not exceeding 2,000 birr or naqfa.

The above policies were not meant to benefit either of the parties more than the other. But the Eritrean government was against the idea and took it as a device deliberately prepared to jeopardize its economy.

Thus, they have denied Eritrean businessmen their right to use L.C. and have been creating problems for the people living around the boundaries not to use birr and naqfa for the exchange of their goods.

It cannot be denied here that Eritrea now finds herself in a high cost of living not because of the policy Ethiopia pursues but solely due to her own failure to formulate a means to work in tune with this policy.

Because of this there were signs that clearly indicate the relations between the two countries were cooling. there was no any desire or effort on the part of the Eritrean government to seek immediate and lasting solutions whenever problems arise around port or border areas. And it can be assumed that this wrong stand might have contributed to the occurrence of the present crisis.

Looking back at the 30 year old armed struggle in which the Eritrean people paid heavy sacrifices to do away with the oppression they were subjected to during the reign of the emperor and the Derg regime, the EPRDF has always been sincere and supportive of their struggle. there has never been a time when it was seen trying to work against the interest of the Eritrean people for it were not its nature to do such a wicked thing.

The means EPRDF applied to resolve the Eritrean question through referendum after it overthrew the Derg regime and assumed the reign of power is a clean testimony to the respect the Front gives to the Eritrean people.

The efforts made by the Ethiopian government to continue with the exchange of commodities without tariff and conducting trade exchange along borders without LC were measures taken to lay strong foundation for the long-standing relations between the two people. but unfortunately, these were given wrong interpretation on the part the Eritrean government.

And even now, it should be clearly stressed that it were the Eritrean government and the ruling party that committed this provocative act. the healthy cooperation and brotherhood between the people of the two countries is an issue that should continue with the creation of strong relations.

The destructive measure taken by the Eritrean government and the ruling party is in now way to tolerated under any pretext but should be condemned for it was violating the sovereignty of a country that follows a policy of peaceful co-existence with her neighbors and has only a development agenda.

The present issue can be resolved if and only if the two countries adhere to the agreed principles regarding border disputes. The only option for the peaceful resolution of the conflict is, therefore, the unconditional withdrawal of the Eritrean occupation forces from Ethiopia territory.

And if the warning given by the Ethiopian side is not met with constructive response, Ethiopia has a legal right to take any measure to upheld the respect of her sovereignty.

I conclude my comment with the suggestion that the Ethiopian peoples should get prepared to fulfil their national obligation in the in the move to defend their country's sovereignty if the Eritrean government fails to held Ethiopia's warning.