The OAU and the Eritrea/Ethiopia Dispute - RESPONSE

A Reply to an Article by Kerrie O'Connor
Correspondent for the Australian National Broadcasting Company
July 25, 1998
mc.gos@bigpond.com.au

This response article is also avaialable at:
Ethiopia/Eritrea Conflict Website

Excerpt No. 1: With the shadow of ethnic cleansing again cast over Africa, is it time for the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to pack its bags, leave its long-term headquarters in Ethiopia and look for a more stable African state to operate from?

It's a deliberately provocative question history may forgive Eritreans for asking.

The unfolding dispute puts the OAU under intense pressure, erupting as it did over a key clause in its charter: the sanctity of colonial borders.

When Ethiopia publicly tore up the colonial map last year, printed a new one and granted itself extra territory in the process, it was a political seismic tremor that passed unnoticed in the west and remains largely unreported.

Response No. 1: Could you please cite the date and location when Ethiopia publicly tore up the "colonial map." In any case, which "colonial map" are you referring to? The one drawn by Mussolini? Why is Ethiopia's map, (a far more honest representation of the 1902 treaty) less valid than the unilateral Italian map created during the expansionist era of Fascist Italy?

The "seismic political tremor" you are referring to is a non-event. The border discussions began long ago in the late 1970's between the EPLF and TPLF. These discussions have continued through until May 12, 1998, when Eritrea resorted to the large-scale use of force. Each side was perfectly aware of the positions of the other - a joint border committee was dealing with the problem peacefully.

ALSO PLEASE NOTE: Ethiopia has already accepted the OAU-backed, US-Rwanda peace plan. The border issue will be submitted to international arbitration. It is a moot issue. The issue today is Eritrea's insistence in displacing the Ethiopian civilians and their civil administration from the disputed areas by force. Please do not endorse this illegal use of force.

Excerpt No. 2: It was noted, one assumes, by the OAU's early warning systems in Addis. Now, with both sides preparing for a protracted war, how the OAU jumps in these shaky times is critical for the Horn of Africa, indeed the continent, balanced as it is on the faultlines of colonialism.

And historians, once again, may find good reason to ask if the OAU's allegiance to its Addis Ababa hosts, inhibits its ability to foster stability in the Horn.

In 1993, the UN supervised a referendum which would formalise an independence Eritreans had grasped for themselves two years earlier.

This tiny former Italian colony, with just three and half million people, had won a 30 year war with Ethiopia.

Eritreans say the war should never have happened: like other former colonies in Africa, they wanted independence after World War II.

Response No. 2: I would encourage you to check your references on this issue. (If you need additional refs: Tekeste Negash, 1997. Eritrea and Ethiopia: The Federal Experience; and Longrigg: Eritrea - Colony in Transition are good starting points).

You will see that the Unionist party was the strongest political organization in Eritrea. Most observers noted that at least half the population of Eritrea supported union with Ethiopia. Even Eritrea partisans such as Ruth Iyob acknowledge that a large segment of Eritrean population supported Union with Ethiopia.

That Eritrean national identity developed and took the Eritrean people in different direction is understandable given the brutality of Mengistu.

Excerpt No. 3: By the time Ethiopia abandoned the farce of federation for annexation and openly occupied Asmara in 1962, an armed independence struggle was underway.

Response No. 3: The Eritrean parliament voted to dissolve itself in 1962 and form a full union with Ethiopia. Though influenced by Ethiopian diplomatic pressure, this action of the Eritrean parliament is far more valid than the Italian war offensives against Ethiopia which led to the creation of Eritrea in the first place.

The struggle you are referring to (starting in 1961) is the action of Idriss Awate - An individual who the Kunama people consider as a mass murderer. (Reference: Article by Oxford University Scholar - Local Prohibitions, Memory, and Political Judgement among the Kunama: an Eritrean Case Study. Dominique Lussier, 1997)

Are the Kunama Eritrean? Do you think they deserve full citezenship in Eritrea despite the fact that they were overwhelmingly against the EPLF? Do you think they had no right to fight against the EPLF as the overwhelming majority of them did? Do you support a UN-referendum for these people to determine their wishes?

Excerpt No. 4: At the heart of the dispute is the boundary of the old Italian colony of Eritrea. Eritrea, Afwerki told CNN et al in 1993, defined its very existence by that boundary, in line with the OAU charter.

"Irrespective of whether we have a long history of thousands of years with Ethiopians, with neighbouring societies, the boundaries of African nations were created by colonial forces," he said. "That is the demarcation line when it comes to self-determination.

Response No. 4: Ethiopia was never colonised. It never has, and never will accept the unilateral imposition of boundaries on it. The colony of Eritrea never had a legal boundary separate from what was agreed to by Ethiopia. All unilateral Eritrean claims, which are based on unilateral Italian actions are legally worthless.

Excerpt No. 5: But a quick glance at the Ethiopian Government's web site, last updated in 1997, reveals the Orwellian nature of this dispute. There, in cyberspace, is the border both nations publicly agreed on, at least until the middle of last year.

Response No. 5: Again, could you please provide us with the public agreement you are referring to? If you are not able to provide evidence for your claim, should you not retract it? Remember you have written the phrase "the border both nations publicly agreed on."

If you can not support this statement with evidence you need to retract it immediately. If indeed it was a public agreement, you should have no problems producing evidence to support your claim.

Excerpt No. 6: It shows the border demarcated early this century in three separate treaties between Imperial Ethiopia, Italy and Great Britain. In practise, the border was not clearly defined in some areas, with farmers grazing their herds on either side . . . a minor point for both parties until recently.

Response No. 6: If you believe the border is clear, "passing through geographical coordinates", and "leaving no room for doubt," (as the Eritrean president falsely states) then I would urge you to draw the border as specified in the treaties. The treaties are available at Eritrean websites. An Italian map is also available from the Eritrean government "Carta Della Colonia Eritrea (1934)."

If you prefer to use a more detailed map (the map provided by the Eritrean government is of poor quality), please visit my website [Ethiopia/Eritrea Conflict Website] and look at the Italian military maps prepared for the invasion of Ethiopia. I can also send you hard copies should you desire.

Can you draw the border and make it match Eritrea's claims? Do you not agree now that the Ethiopian position; that the border treaties are vague and were never fully implemented, is correct? Do you now see that the Ethiopian map of 1997 is the most honest representation of the border treaty? Do you see that the border line drawn by Mussolini in 1934, is in clear violation of the treaties?

Excerpt No. 7: What has escaped most observers, is that while Ethiopia may have one map on its web site, it wants a bigger one on the ground - yet it accuses Eritrea of invading.

Response No. 7: Ethiopia only began mapping its own territory in 1963. At this time Eritrea was an internal province of Ethiopia. The remote border area that is now the center of dispute was never a priority. In fact it soon became off-limits for surveying when the ELF and the TPLF established themselves on both sides of the border region.

In 1993, Eritrea became an independent country, and it became necessary to carefully delineate the border according to international law. The new maps produced by Ethiopia are the result of this process and represent Ethiopia's first ever mapping of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border. Ethiopia has absolutely no legal obligation to any other map.

Excerpt No. 8: Their currency, the Birr, was reissued in November last year, showing a new map of Ethiopia.

Tigray province had grown to include three new chunks, including the Badme Triangle, where hostilities flared in May. The new map is yet to make it into cyberspace, but on the ground, its birth has been deadly.

Response No. 8: No, this is not true. You can visit the Ethiopian embassy's website in Sweden. Also please visit my website to see the maps - I got them from the UNDP website. (they are using it to coordinate relief planning and do not take a position on the legality of the border)

The death that has resulted comes from Eritrea's unilateral application of large-scale force, not from the publication of the map. Eritrea was perfectly aware of Ethiopia's position as long ago as the late 1970s.

Ethiopia had never militarised or fortified the disputed Yirga or Badime areas. Ethiopia was not preparing for war. In fact Ethiopia was training Eritrean air force pilots at Ethiopia's main air base at Debre Zeit. Please contact me and I will refer you to a photo of these pilots posing in their uniforms at Debre Zeit in 1996.

Excerpt No. 9: To a casual observer of shuttle diplomacy, Eritrean intransigence has frustrated efforts to broker peace. Eritrea refuses to withdraw from areas it occupied after May 6, when the border dispute 'officially' broke out.

To do so, Eritrea says, would leave Ethiopia holding territory it breached the colonial border to occupy militarily as early as July last year, not by virtue of any confusion over boundary markers, but by expansionist intent.

Response No. 9: This is not true. Even the Eritreans have not challenged Ethiopia's claim that these areas were never occupied and administered by Italy. There are no boundary markers placed by the Italians in that area because they never occupied it.

Excerpt No. 10: Eritrea has released documents to support its claim Ethiopian soldiers occupied Eritrean territory in July last year, evicting farmers and burning crops. In a letter to Zenawi in August last year, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki complained "there have been intermittent disputes in the border areas arising from different and minor causes.

Response No. 10: This refers to a small area in the vicinity of Bada. It does not refer to the far larger Yirga area which was occupied by Eritrea on May 12. Regardless of whose fault it was, the problem at Adi Murug was defused peacefully. Troops were withdrawn. Eritrea should likewise withdraw its troops today. (Please note that the Eritrean version of events at Adi Murug has been contradicted by Ethiopia)

Excerpt No. 11: A few months later, when Ethiopia released its new Birr, complete with new map showing an expanded Tigray province, Eritreans realised why "demarcating the boundary" would not be so simple.

Ethiopia says the areas it has included in its map have traditionally been administered by Tigray and should be incorporated. The argument has some force: Africa is crisscrossed with lines which had more to do with colonial convenience than local reality. But by that logic, Eritrea itself would not exist.

Until independence, its entire territory was 'administered' by the Ethiopian army, with OAU approval.

Response No. 11: This is not a correct analogy. The areas under dispute were never administered as part of Eritrea province. They were always part of Tigrai province. Eritrea cannot now claim pieces of Tigrai which have never been part of Eritrea. Furthermore, even according to the colonial treaties, these areas were never meant to be part of Eritrea. The problem was caused by the fascist-era expansionist policy and Italian dishonesty towards Ethiopia. This was made crystal clear to the entire world during the Wal Wal incident of 1934 and its aftermath.

Excerpt No. 12: To Eritreans, the OAU has again brought an historic double standard to peace talks. All proposals to date have depended on Eritrea withdrawing from ground it did not hold before May 6. So far, neither the OAU or the UN has formally asked Ethiopia to withdraw behind the colonial boundary lines, as they stood before the map was redrawn last year.

Response No. 12: Again, please provide us with a reference to the legally-binding "colonial boundary lines." Which country or international organization has endorsed Eritrea's territorial claims? If you have examined the maps in detail you will agree that the Ethiopian map is the most honest representation of the treaty. Eritrea is the one that needs to withdraw deeper into the Gash-Setit region. I strongly urge you to consult the original treaties and maps before repeating these claims about a "colonial boundary line" Remember, no entity can impose a "colonial boundary line" on Ethiopia in violation of the original treaties.

Excerpt No. 13: And therein lies the rub for the OAU. For better or worse, its founding charter accepted colonial borders, to avoid a bloody division of Africa on ethnic lines.

Response No. 13: No, this is also wrong. The OAU charter stated that countries should keep the borders they had at independence. Eritrea's independence was in 1993. You are encouraged to read the original OAU resolution.

Ethiopia was an independent nation during the period of African colonization. To assert that any Ethiopian borders or territorial claims are inherently inferior (in legal terms) to those asserted by European countries is ludicrous. In fact this issue has already been dealt with in Ethiopia's favor at the League of Nations's in 1935.

Excerpt No. 14: Again, following the prevailing logic in Addis Ababa, the fiercely independent semi-nomadic Afar could carve a nation from parts of Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Response No. 14: The Afar do not live in Somalia. Most Afar already live in the Afar State of Ethiopia. This state used to include the Red Sea coastline nearly as far as Massawa, but the coastal strip was turned over to Eritrea in 1993 without the consent of the Afar people. Surely a UN-sponsored referendum is in order to decide if the Afars would like to join Eritrea or join the Afar state of Ethiopia. Without a just resolution, the Afar people will have no choice but to resort to arms and continue their struggle for liberation.

Excerpt No. 15: It has become a cliche that this dispute, beginning as it did in the Badme Triangle, is about a "useless triangle of land", or "two bald men fighting over a comb".

Today Eritrea claims no more than it is entitled to under international law: the colonial border - and says its forces remain within the boundary displayed on its neighbour's web site. It wants the disputed areas demilitarised so UN cartographers can verify borders.

Ethiopia also says it wants disputed areas demilitarised - but it's insistence on backdating the dispute only to May 6 means it is continuing to claim territory beyond the colonial border.

Response No. 15: No, this is wrong again. It is Eritrea that stated May 6 was the first incident instead of May 12. Ethiopia is simply saying that whether May 6, May 12, or earlier it doesn't matter. These areas have never been administered by Eritrea or as a part of Eritrea.

Again, you need to provide a reference for what you claim is the "colonial border." If you are referring to the border as drawn by Mussolini, it is worthless and not legally binding as even the League of Nations established in 1935! Mussolini has been dead and buried for more than 50 years. Why are we still dealing with the fascist era actions of Mussolini as if they are legally binding on Ethiopia?

If you are referring to the colonial treaties, I kindly request again that you draw the borders following the instructions in the treaties and try to make them match Eritrea's claims. Can you do this? Again, I will volunteer to provide you with any reference material if you are not able to obtain satisactory maps and documents from the Eritrean side.

The only legal border between Ethiopia and Eritrea is that jontly endorsed by both nations. Again I kindly request you to provide a legally-binding reference for what you refer to as the "colonial border."

Excerpt No. 16: How the OAU reacts is critical to future stability in the Horn. If Ethiopia is allowed to redraw its boundaries by the simple expedient of printing a new map, consider for a moment the implications.

If the new map had included parts of Djibouti, for instance, or Somalia? If Ethiopia had occupied the new areas and then accused Djibouti of invading if it fought back? The scenario is ludicrous. Why is it any less ludicrous when applied to Eritrea?

Response No. 16: Thank you for bringing up the issue of Djibouti. Eritrea is claiming the northern part of Djibouti extending to the Bab-el-Mabdeb straits. Please see my website for three different maps that show this, including an official Eritrean map issued in 1996 or 1997.

Eritrea's claims against Djibouti arise from the fascist-era territorial concessions that Mussolini extracted from France in 1935. He claimed also a part of Chad for Libya, and small pieces of mainland France itself to be included into Italy.

These extorted concessions where never ratified by France and have no legal basis. Gadhafi continued trying for many years to grab the Aouzou strip of northern Chad, partly on the basis of Mussolini's expansionist activities in 1935. However, an international court ruled in 1993 that these claims were null and void.

France has already told Eritrea that the maps it is using are outdated and unsuitable for establishing territorial claims. Yet Eritrea continues to put out maps that claim the northern part of Djibouti.

I will provide you with the three Eritrean maps and at least three different news reports describing Eritrea's territorial claims against Djibouti.

Now do you think Eritrea would be justified in invading Djibouti and grabbing the disputed territories? Would you not demand that Eritrea withdraw if it did such a thing? Why then do you endorse Eritrea's use of force against Ethiopia?

Mrs. Kerrie O'Connor: Your country, Australlia, has a territorial dispute with Indonesia. Do you support the use of force in this dispute? If Indonesian troops occupied disputed areas which were being administered by Australia, would you not be justified in demanding the withdrawal of the Indonesian forces?

Please do not try to force Ethiopia to adopt a position which you would never ask of your own nation under similar circumstances. Ethiopia has already accepted the OAU-backed, US-Rwanda peace plan. Please urge Eritrea to accept it also.

Sincerely,

Ethiopia/Eritrea Conflict Website