London 02 Feb 2006

I attended a meeting held at Chatham House last week on a briefing paper published on Eritrea and Ethiopia.  The briefing paper was titled ‘Ethiopia and Eritrea: Allergic to Persuasion’.  The paper was written for Chatham House by Sally Healy, an Associate Fellow of the Africa Programme at Chatham House, and Martin Plaut, the Africa editor at the BBC World Service. 

The room was full to capacity and present were people from various organisations including the Foreign Office and various NGOs.  The paper was aimed to give policy makers a broader ‘insight’ into the conflict.

Richard Dowden, the Executive Director of the Royal African Society was chairing the meeting.  Richard opened the meeting by making a remark that implied that “might” and “being a friend of America” is more important than being “right”.

The briefing was presented by Healy.  Plaut joined her for the questions and answers session.

Healy gave a brief background to the conflict and the current state of affairs regarding the border situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia. She stated efforts that have been made by the international community to bring lasting peace in the region, the ongoing challenges faced and possible future scenarios.  She also highlighted differences in diplomatic approaches between the two parties and described the concept of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ being an entrenched reality in the region.  Healy went on to say that the status quo favours Ethiopia and, in the absence of lasting settlement and peace, there may be a desire from major players that it is maintained as such.     

I went to the meeting after having briefly read the report.  For a start, the title is erroneous and misleading in that it gives the impression that both countries are at fault.  It is well known that Eritrea accepted the 2002 Boundary Commission decision in its entirety and has eagerly sought its implementation ever since.  Sadly, Ethiopia is yet to be ‘persuaded’ to accept what it initially signed to be a final and binding agreement.  If there is a country that needs persuasion, it is only Ethiopia.  Yet again, many lives and five years later diplomats and ‘experts’ are still knocking at the wrong door. 

The first part of the report appears to be balanced and it gives a false impression that serious thinking has gone into it.  Unfortunately, beneath the surface lie many hearsays common in BBC reporting, purportedly researched with objectivity and balance in mind.

A couple of comments made by the authors in the report are too outrageous to be left unchallenged. 

The authors, very sadly and misguidedly, heap praise on what they called Ethiopia’s ‘vastly superior diplomatic skills', while suggesting that such ‘unequal’ match in diplomacy to be the root cause impeding progress.  Consciously or not, they justify Ethiopia’s illegal intransigence and manipulation through lies as traits to be imitated, when, in fact, it should be absolutely repudiated.

I asked the authors if being submissive and subservient to the west can be defined as good diplomacy.  I also added if they were implying that being good in diplomacy equates to getting away with flaunting international rules.  My question went unanswered, but there was an admission of sort that one needs to be seen as advancing American and British foreign policy to get away with serious crimes.  That is, unfortunately, the state of the world that we live in.

Eritrea has indeed played by the rules and done everything humanly to resolve the conflict peacefully.   In myriad occasions, we have witnessed the powers that be, laughably acting as ‘honest mediators,’ trying to shift the goalpost to satisfy Ethiopia’s whims and endless prevarications. It simply matters very little whether Eritrea has a well oiled diplomatic machine or not, a fact that seems to have escaped the grasp of the authors.

The authors state that the two states did not appreciate the risks of signing up in advance to a final and binding arbitration. That is simplistic and perhaps immature.  One minute they praise the Ethiopians for their diplomatic skills and in the same breath underscore their naivety to have signed such agreement.  The authors also seem to be using an un-calibrated magnifying glass in search of weaknesses in the Algiers Agreement.  Mind you, they are ‘experts’, so they have to come up with something that others haven’t thought about.  

At the time when the agreement was signed, Kofi Annan had said ‘other leaders would look to this day and this agreement and find the wisdom to end their own wars.’  The agreement which was hailed as exemplary by many is now finding unscholarly ‘experts’ attempting to tear it apart just because Ethiopia did not like the outcome.   This is just simply going too far, but their transgression did not stop there.  This is what they had to say to highlight the weakness of the agreement:

“It is worth asking whether the ‘colonial borders’ methodology was the right one to employ in circumstances where one side had apparently already won the war.” 

The authors also quoted Christopher Clapham as the person to have drawn attention at what they called the ‘striking’ flaw at the heart of the Boundary Commission ruling as it doesn’t make any allowance for the fact that one side had ‘won’ the war. 

Are the authors here advocating violence to resolve conflicts? Are the authors unaware that the sanctity of colonial borders is an enshrined principle of the Charter of the OAU (now AU)?    Both protagonists in the conflict acknowledged and reaffirmed the principles of respect for colonial borders as stated in the 1964 resolution AHG/Res 16(1) of the OAU submit in Cairo.  On what basis were they then advocating the resolution of disputes through the power of force?   What legal justification can they give for this outrageous statement?      

With regards to the peace process, the authors state that ‘the two nations had at their disposal a thoroughly credible conflict resolution process, including in the Boundary Commission the services of some of the world’s most respected international legal authorities on borders.’  They declared that the process was about ‘as good as it gets’.  Only a page later, they contradict themselves by going into overdrive to find faults in the peace process and the agreement.     

There was simply no need for the Authors to split hair when the cause of the current problem is well known.  There is no other magic solution to the conflict other than compelling Ethiopia to honour the Algiers Agreement.  There is no need to beat about the bush and go into a great length to justify Ethiopia intransigence.  One cannot thwart justice forever; it may take a year, 5 years or as in our past experience 30 years, but in the end justice will prevail.     

Eritreans know well that Martin Plaut does not report a story.  He makes a story …..  ‘tartly’ at that.  'Tartly' is the word that Plaut used in the report to refer to the boundary commissions response to Ethiopia’s accusation.  What a choice of word!  In the meeting, Plaut did not want to respond to the allegation that my colleague made that he has made a job out of bashing Eritrea at every given opportunity.   Only this week, he reported Eritrea as receiving a ‘bloody nose’ in Somalia.   In the briefing note that he co-authored, he had stated that there was no evidence of Eritrea’s involvement in Somalia.  A couple of paragraphs earlier, he had forgotten stating that ‘Ethiopia’s strategy of support for the Transitional Government of Somalia is matched by Eritrea’s support for the Union of Islamic Courts.’  The mystery of 2000 Eritrean soldiers melting away in Somalia is yet to be explained.  The facts seem to indicate that Eritrea’s ‘nose’ is still intact.

Plaut praised the British and American diplomats for being extremely patient and doing everything possible to resolve the conflict.  He said, if it was up to him, he would have thrown out the entire files through a window long ago. He mentioned that it is good that he is a journalist and not a diplomat.   It is sometimes good to know your limits.  There is of course one option that he may find difficult to resist.  Plaut’s colleague in crime, the ‘independent expert’, Mr Giles is now an advisor to the Government of Ethiopia.   When Richard Dowden jokingly stated this fact, Plaut gave away this cheeky smile that was difficult to decipher.  

In answering to a question raised, Plaut admitted that Eritrea has a track record in adhering to international rulings and stated his belief that had Badme been awarded to Ethiopia, Eritrea would have accepted it and the conflict would have been resolved by now.  Healy agreed.

Comments made from the floor made the Ethiopian Ambassador who sat in front of me very uncomfortable and he was shuffling on his seat, eager to say something.  He stated the usual drivel of villages being split and Ethiopia wanting sustainable peace.  He said in all seriousness that Eritrea and Ethiopia has a bright future ahead and all Ethiopia is asking for is dialogue. 

I also had a chance to chat with Sally herself.  She appeared to be well meaning and said that she has the best intentions for Eritrea and Ethiopia.  I had no reason to doubt her and let’s hope that she will be careful and be objective in the future. 

Professor Clapham…..Another ‘expert’

During the reception, my colleague and I had a chance to meet Professor Clapham.  As many would know, Professor Clapham is the head of the Centre of African Studies at Cambridge University.  I have read a number of articles by the Professor and have heard him express his views in meetings.  He is a man who tries hard to be Ethiopian than the Ethiopians themselves or shall I say more Catholic than the pope.   When we approached him, I noticed that he had a tightly held tattered black bag with 'the Ethiopia Conference' written on it.  There was no pretension on his part as to where his heart lies.  As the discussion progressed, he declared that the Ethiopians had won the war and they should have dictated the outcome.   At the time he was not aware that the authors had quoted him word for word on the briefing paper. He was of the opinion that if it wasn’t for Melles, Eritrea would have been under the control of Ethiopians.

He also repeated his disbelief as to how the five judges could sit at Hague and make a decision without consulting the local communities that reside along the border.  I reminded him that he had stated the same view in the Times newspaper and those involved in the legal process had given him an appropriate response.  The Professor has been attacking the commission for a while.  This is what Christopher Clapham said on the Times:

“[Those who judge] have a moral obligation to act, within their terms of reference and the limits of human knowledge and wisdom, in a way that stands the best prospect of bringing peace to people, on both sides of the border, who desperately need it. The commissioners failed to do so. They stand condemned.”}

In other words, what the good Professor was trying to say was that the judges should have taken into account his views that Ethiopia had won the war.

The following is a response from Professor Malcolm Shaw who is involved in the case (Times Jan 17 2006):

“Far from standing "condemned" or sowing "the seeds of renewed war", the neutral Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary commission, composed of five leading international lawyers with substantial litigation and judicial experience, produced its delimitation report as prescribed by the two states with authority and skill…………….. Christopher Clapham (letters, Jan 12 and 14) demonstrates a troublesome absence of knowledge about the nature and role of international law. ………..It is true that the commissioners did not visit the area in question. But this is neither essential nor indeed unusual in such cases, as is amply demonstrated by the considerable experience of the International Court of Justice in analogous situations. However, it is understood that attempts to visit the area were delayed and eventually thwarted by a combination of the consequences of 9/11, weather conditions and the requirement in the Algiers agreement for speed in producing a judgment. Both sides formally accepted the decision of the commission, before and after its rendering, as final and binding, and it has been repeatedly endorsed by the UN Security Council, which continues to monitor the situation closely. Current problems, which are related to the demarcation part of the commission's task, do not flow from the valuable work of the commission.”

When we put to him that he is undermining the sanctity of international law and that his view is not compatible with the position that he holds, he was not too impressed and affirmed that this is the ‘winners-take-all’ world and tried to justify his position by giving an example as to why the Americans are resisting the formation of an international court.  To the professor, there are laws that apply to the powerful and another set of laws for the weak.  

I found the Professor to be more extreme in his views in real life.  He disclosed that as his retirement approaches, he is heading to Addis Ababa possibly for further assignment and patch up his differences in due course. I am sure he will appreciate the first class treatment that awaits him at the Sheraton Hotel in Addis at the expense of the millions of poor Ethiopians.   

During the questions and answers session, the Professor said that there is one thing that both countries had not considered.  I have heard the Professor come up with bizarre statements in the past and I thought, for once, that he will say something that makes sense in relation to the conflict.  The professor announced his wisdom in all seriousness that both countries should now go back and ask the people at the border as to which side they want to belong and demarcate the border on that basis.  The professor is familiar with Ethiopia's attempt of moving people to the occupied territory to make a case on the ground.  His comments were laughed at by the audience, which I assume, is for being out of touch and ridiculous.

Four organisations including Chatham House have set up a group known us the Horn of Africa Group which will provide a platform for discussions to be held on the subject and influence policy makers in the process.   It will therefore be important for Eritreans and their friends to make their voices heard over and above those who are intending to inflict injustice on the people of Eritrea.  We need to show that if Eritrea is allergic to anything, it is to unfairness and injustice. Eritrea deserves to live in peace.

I was quite pleased to see Eritreans join hands to defend Eritrea’s interest.   Regardless of their position vis-à-vis Eritrean politics, all Eritreans who were in the meeting and had the opportunity to air their view advanced Eritrea’s just cause.   It is my belief that Eritreans should stand together and resist the blatant miscarriage of justice that is being committed against our country and people.  If we don't, history will not be so kind to us.