Dear Netters:
The US-Rwanda peace plan was released to the public on June 3. That same day, I immediately wrote that the plan was sensible and should be accepted. Ethiopia duly accepted the plan the next day (Thursday) while Eritrea rejected it.
Eritrea initially objected most strongly to the clause that called for re-establishment of the pre-existing civilian administration in the disputed regions. But in discussions with the OAU team on June 19, it became clear that Eritrea has now started objecting to a second clause; the clause that mentions the use of international law in demarcating the border. Eritrea wants to use only the phrase "colonial treaties" or "colonial boundaries." It does not want any reference to international law.
In this article I will explain why the Eritreans are refusing to return to the May 6 status quo, and why they are avoiding the phrase "international law." (Basically it is because of their weak legal position and their confidence in a military solution)
Status Quo: The Eritrean refusal to return to the status quo as of May 6 has been analyzed in detail elsewhere. Mainly it stems from misplaced pride and overconfidence in Eritrean military strength. In additon, the Eritreans want to create new facts on the ground to bolster their weak legal case.
What the Eritreans are demanding from Ethiopia is what no other country - at least any country capable of defending itself - would submit to. In effect, Eritrea is asking to be rewarded for its use of force. No country would allow its citizens to be forcibly displaced from their homes and then negotiate with the aggressor. Eritrea's strident position has left it isolated diplomatically. Other than Libya, not a single country supports its position.
Eritrea's only chance: Because of the undefined border, any future border delimitation is going to be decided to a large extent by who has been exercising sovereignty in the area. Since these areas have never been administered by Eritrea (either during the colonial, federal, or independent eras) the international laws will almost certainly assign the disputed territory to Ethiopia. Without an Eritrean administration and in the absence of Eritrean settlers established in the area, Eritrea's case is hopeless.
Eritrea's only chance to gain control of the disputed areas is by forcing Ethiopia to accept the Mussolini map from 1934 as the only legal document defining the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Treaties from 1897 to 1906 are not of much use to Eritrea as they do not specify the precise border locations except where natural features existed (such as rivers). Italy had not even mapped Eritrea at the time.
But the Italian map from 1934 - the very year when Ethiopia and Italy were conducting fruitless negotiations at the League of Nations in an attempt to resolve border disputes - is totally unacceptable to Ethiopia. Italy was a hostile nation preparing to invade Ethiopia in 1934. That Issayas Afeworqi would try to use this map against Ethiopia in 1998 is a measure of his arrogance and overinflated ambition.
As I have stated elsewhere, a National Geographic map from September 1935, shows the Eritrea-Ethiopia border with the notation "Bounday in Dispute." Mussolini refused to demarcate the border because he was planning to use border problems as an excuse for his invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. (It should be noted here that Issayas Afeworqi has been lying to the Eritrean people and telling them that the border was one of the clearest and most well-known of borders)
Ethiopia's strong case: In comparison to Eritrea's case, Ethiopia's case is very strong. Ethiopia has had undisputed de-facto soverignty of the Badime area during all phases of Eritrea's existence. The evidence to support this is so overwhelming that even Eritrea hasn't denied it.
International Law: With regard to international law, Ethiopia has a wide array of legal support, and this is why the Eritreans are trying to delete any reference to the phrase "international law" in the peace negotiations. A few notes are listed below:
1) All treaties between Ethiopia and Eritrea were made null and void by Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.
2) Even so, the Eritrean - Ethiopia border was in dispute and being mediated at the League of Nations prior to the Italian invasion of 1935.
3) The Eritean parliament voted in 1962 for full union with Ethiopia - although influenced by Ethiopia, this act was far less coercive than Italy's war offensives which led to the creation of Eritrea in the first place.
4) Not a single foreign government or international organization has disputed that Eritrea was an internal part of Ethiopia until 1993 in international legal terms.
5) Ethiopia redrew Eritrea's borders in 1987. Eritrea now must receive Ethiopian agreement for any changes to these borders.
6) Even using commonly available maps, Badime and the Yirga triangle lie within Ethiopia
7) The argument that the "colonial" border is the only legitimate border is contradicted by the longstanding Eritrean claim that Eritrea was a colony of Ethiopia's. Thus the colonial border is that defined by the last colonial power - Ethiopia
An Immodest Proposal: In recent days, Eritrea has started to make noises about its own proposal to "solve" the dispute. Strip away the self-serving language, and the proposal consists of nothing more than (a) sending out technical experts to mark the ground according to the 1934 Italian map, and (b) preventing the Ethiopian civilians who used to live in the area from returning, and deporting those that remain.
Clearly this proposal is not a sincere effort to peacefully resolve the problem. Instead it is just a publicity stunt. The hypocritical tactic of condemning the use of force one day after invading Ethiopia, and then refusing to withdraw, may work with the brainwashed Eritrean public, but it is not going to impress seasoned diplomats.
Conclusions:
1. The Eritrean people need to educate themselves better on the history of Ethiopia and Eritrea. There is currently a serious problem among Eritreans whereby they blindly and unquestioningly follow the EPLF leadership.
2. Ethiopia needs to stop sending mixed signals to Eritrea. Fraudulent activities by the EPLF government were tolerated for far too long. This has encouraged their aggressive behavior. Ethiopia should adopt a very hard stance and insist that all Eritrea's claimed territories be subject to discussion. This would include the Afar coastline and the Kunama inhabited western lowlands between the Mereb and Tekeze rivers.
3. It should be noted that the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea is not just about a small patch of rocky land. Slowly, fundamental underlying questions about Eritrea's history and legal status are emerging. Eritrea wants to define itself according to the Mussolini map of 1934. Ethiopia wants to use international law.