THE BETRAYAL OF ETHIOPIA CONTINUES: 
IS THE UNITED STATES FRIEND OR FOE?
By Tecola W. Hagos

This is a follow-up to the Editorial of November 26, 2004 in this Website. In the last few days, we have learned more about the activities of Meles Zenawi and his government that is gravely endangering the national security of Ethiopia. We have also learned about the international manipulation of the leaders of the European Union and that of Germany, Britain, France, Italy et cetera leading up to the despicable declaration by Meles Zenawi in the Ethiopian Council of Peoples� Representatives (Parliament) to accept the decision of the Boundary Commission. The shameful applaud by Meles�s followers and most of the Representatives for being told that their country is going to give up its historic territories and millions of its citizens is beyond comprehension. Of course, we acknowledge and applaud the very few heroic voices of dissent of opposition members. A serious crime is being committed by Meles Zenawi (his subordinates, high Ethiopian Government Officials) and by most Members of the Ethiopian Council of Peoples� Representatives. 

It is time for the people of Ethiopia to use their �Constitutional rights� to recall their Representatives and throw out the Prime Minister and his Government from office. The people of Adowa and Tygrei have the primary duty to recall their �Representative� Meles Zenawi for his betrayal of November 25, 2004. Meles Zenawi is the elected Representative of Adowa, thus subject to recall. This is the first step to be taken in the rightful process of taking away power from a treasonous leader, equally treasonous government officials (diplomats), and Representatives. Article 54 (7) of the Constitution* states, �A Council Member may lose his mandate of representation upon loss of confidence by the electorate.� According to Article 72 (3), the term of office of the Prime Minister is limited to that of the Council of Representatives. The Prime Minister has standing only in as far as he is an elected Representative. This fact is enshrined in Article 73 (1) that states that the Prime Minister �is elected by the Council of Peoples� Representatives from among its members.� Thus, if the people of Adowa express �loss of confidence� in Meles Zenawi as their Representative, he has no other choice except to resign as Prime Minister. 

[*The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, adopted on 8 December 1995. Over the years, I studied the Constitution, and I must say that I am totally against at the mediocrity of its language, structure, and mostly at its intensely anti-Ethiopian theme and its hotchpotch of concepts. It reads, sounds, and feels more like a high school project than the work of professionals and mature politicians.]

It is not a metaphysical exercise or idle talk on my part when I wrote repeatedly that Meles Zenawi and officials of his Government have committed treason. It is a national duty of those who are responsible for the security of the State to arrest and bring him and all those who agreed to the illegal and corrupted decision of the Boundary Commission to justice under the Ethiopian Penal Code of Ethiopia of 1957 [as amended], specifically for the following crimes: 
- Article 261: High Treason, [1]
- Article 262: Treasonable Offences Committed by [Ethiopian] Diplomats, [2]
- Article 263: Economic Treason, [3]
- Article 264: Collaboration, and [4]
- Article 265: Espionage [5]
[See the Appendix for full text of the Articles from the Ethiopian Penal Code of 1957.]
The Constitution provides immunity to Members of the Council of Peoples� Representatives in Article 54 (5) and to Members of the Federal Council in Article 63 (1) and (2). Nevertheless, such self-serving constitutional immunity can be effectively challenged for the sake of justice in matters that threaten the very existence of Ethiopia. Even on a purely legal ground, the activities of Meles Zenawi and those of the Representatives must be considered as violations of specific criminal Articles. The fact is that no matter how one may label a criminal activity as a �vote� or �executive decision,� a court of law can pierce such deceptive cover and judge the underlying criminal activity. For example, such interpretation is consistent with the far clearer case of the rightfulness of charging for genocide representatives who voted to authorize the killing of an entire rebellious ethnic group of people without any discrimination. The fact that such decision was �voted� would not protect such representatives from criminal prosecution. To hold otherwise would render the criminal law provisions of any legal system meaningless. If we allow such crimes camouflaged as �votes� and �executive decisions� to be shielded from the reach of our legal system, we are simply failing in our duty to prosecute criminals who masquerade as �Prime Minister� and �Peoples� Representatives.� 

The collaborators of such crimes against the people of Ethiopia include also familiar leaders of foreign governments, the Members of the Boundary Commission, as well as new players such as the representatives of the Secretary General of the United Nations. It is time to consider such foreigners, who facilitate schemes aimed at alienating Ethiopian territory, compromising Ethiopian sovereignty, and destabilizing Ethiopia, as criminals under the Penal Code of Ethiopia [of 1957 as amended] Articles 255, 259, 265-272. This may sound far fetched, but Meles Zenawi and his regime are not going to be there forever. The people of Ethiopia will have their day soon, and at such opportune time will bring to justice all those who conspired or acted as agents of Ethiopia�s historic enemies to destroy Ethiopia. If there is a question of diplomatic immunity in such future case against an individual, it may only prevent the trial of the �person� and not his\her deeds.

No one hopes for unity and/or brotherly coexistence with �Eritreans� more than I do. However, any such long-term relationship will not work if it is built on false premises, elitist rhetoric, appeasement of bullies, shallow understanding of history, ignoring the existential needs of ordinary people, the hostilities of neighboring nations, or current events. The right of Ethiopia to its Kunama, Irob, and Afar costal territories is a fact supported by history, demography, and natural geography. No other single event cited by any claimant other than that of Ethiopia, as authoritative or as matter of fact, did establish a sovereign or colorable ownership right in anyone other than Ethiopia. Whether we consider self-determination principle or colonial uti possidetis concept as important, nothing can override the legitimate sovereign right of Ethiopia to all of its Afar Coastal territories and territorial waters on the Red Sea and its sovereign right and duty to safeguard all Ethiopian citizens in all of Ethiopia�s Afar Coastal Territory, Kunama, and Irob. The independence of �Eritrea� and the subsequent boundary conflict with Ethiopia illustrates the weakness of the foreign policy or the ad hoc, improvised, or on the stump activities of the United States. 

The importance of regaining sovereignty over the Ethiopian Afar Coastal Territories and over the territorial waters on the Red Sea for Ethiopia is indisputably a question of life and death. It is a matter of national security and a question of survival for Ethiopia to secure unencumbered access to the Red Sea and beyond. Ethiopia is surrounded by hostile governments. Our history shows that fact. I am not writing fiction when I state that both the Ottomans and the Italians found their way to attack and cause tremendous destruction to the great civilization of Ethiopia by occupying coastal Ethiopian territories first. Ethiopia should be able to maintain a navy and stockpile, as need be its defensive weapons without being censored or harassed by any other nations controlling its access to the Red Sea because its continued existence depends solely on its own defensive military capacity. Any other arrangement short of complete sovereignty to Ethiopia�s own Afar Coastal territories is a sellout and a crime against all future generations. There is no other alternative. 

Good defense discourages adventurous upstart leaders from attacking their neighboring nations. Equally important is the duty of the Ethiopian Government and Citizens to protect Afar Ethiopian citizens who have lived in the area from time immemorial. Ethiopian coastal outlet to the rest of the world is not to be erased by some cockamamie legal acrobatics and Super Power manipulation. The lives and rights of seventy million Ethiopians is not a joke, but a deadly serious matter. Not even a god has the gall to bottle up and visit upon millions of human beings atrocious suffering, let alone fallible mortals whose actions and outlooks reflect tremendous greed and hate. 

When I considering the activities of the Government of the United States in Africa of the last twenty-five years, I am appalled how much damage that one Government has committed, often times against its own long-term interest. It is tragic that such a powerful and rich nation, which might have done much good in the world, could be so shortchanged by the myopic vision of some of its leaders. [I do not consider its so-called �humanitarian� food aid program as an act of generosity, for it seems more the United States is dumping its surplus farm product thereby subsidizing its farmers and stabilizing its farm economy.] By not acting wisely, it helped the downfall of Ethiopia�s old regime of Emperor Haile Selassie. It did not provide or insert its huge influence as a safety net in order to catch democratic elements as the old regime was falling apart in the 1974 military coup d�etat resulting in the coming into power of an individual and his groups of �thugs� who devastated a nation. Ethiopians were easy victims without any public democratic political experience, and had no built-in civic defense against such development. The Carter Administration�s mistake in cutting off Ethiopia to its fate in the hands of Mengistu was only the final stage in a series of mistakes of previous United States Presidents and their Administration all the way to the time of Truman. The most harm was done by the Nixon Administration and his advisors, such as Kissinger whose cold responses to Emperor Haile Selassie�s effort to revitalize his shaky government in 1970-73 was pushed aside resulting in the disaster of the1974-75 �creeping� military coup d�etat.

There is no question that Africa, despite its contrasting �Hell-Heaven� paradox, is a great Continent endowed with tremendous mineral wealth, not to mention its human resource and its majestically beautiful wild animals and environment. One can say, except for extensive mining in limited areas, mainly in South Africa, Africa�s mineral wealth is still in the ground to be exploited by future generations. We can easily run statistical data about all that. The purpose here is not to provide the reader with detail, mineral-by-mineral, deposit-by-deposit, animal-by-animal et cetera report, but to point out the fact that the United States will not benefit by its involvement in the Ethiopian-Eritrean crisis trying to create an artificial state born out of the worst form of conspiracy. Because of such shortsighted policy, the United States is being pushed out of Africa, and it does not even know it. 

At one point in African history and not that long ago, the United States was perceived as a beacon of hope, freedom, and development for all freedom loving people around the World. African leaders started out inclined towards the democratic principles associated with the democratic form of government of the United States more than any other form of government structures. A review of the constitutions of nations in Africa that came into existence in the 1960s will show the democratic principles those constitutions promoted. However, soon after independence, many of the leaders of the newly independent African nations became corrupted leading into a series of military takeovers one nation after another. The 1970s was the most tumultuous period in Africa where several governments friendly to the United States were replaced by left leaning brutal military rulers among which Ethiopia�s Government was the most significant friend the United States lost mainly due to its own incompetent State Department and CIA functionaries. 

The United States Government spent billions cultivating such democratic and friendly images on shallow propaganda and showpiece grandiose programs, which were identified as such with most of the repressive local governments of African nations. The irony was that most of the harm was done to Africans by the economic and political structure left in place by the former colonial masters, Britain and France and not by the United States per se. Nevertheless, the result is all the same as far as the poor disfranchised, economically and politically oppressed Africans. The United States was simply used as scapegoat for most of the tragic state of governance and economy in Africa. The United States Government has learned nothing or very little from its past glaring mistakes and is still following a policy that benefits other rival nations and against its own interest. 

African nations are divided into blocks of affiliation and dominance, which structure is completely closed to the United States. The United States by being the �only� Super Power may manipulate its European Members of NATO to carry out some of its interests, but that has proven to be, largely, a divisive process as was ample illustrated in the Second Gulf War. African nations are effectively divided into the following three formidable and closely controlled political, economic, and cultural super-structures: 1) The Arab League with religious and cultural ties, 2) Britain with its Commonwealth scheme, and 3) France with its Francophone organizations and cultural ties. Our old enemy, Italy, is doing all of its dirty work hidden behind all of the players mentioned herein. Thus, it is the deadliest of them all. For the sake of giving you a clear picture, I have listed the nations of Africa according to their membership under each dominant super structure, and some of the same nations are tied into more than one block of interest and dominance.

I. Under the Arab League Dominance: 
A. Pending Membership/Observer
- Eritrea*

B. Members
- Algeria*
- Bahrain
- Comoros*
- Djibouti*
- Egypt*
- Iraq 
- Jordan
- Kuwait
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Mauritania*
- Morocco*
- Oman 
- Palestine 
- Qatar 
- Saudi Arabia 
- Somalia* 
- Sudan* 
- Syria 
- Tunisia* 
- United Arab Emirates
- Yemen

[*Members/Observer from Africa]

II. Under the Commonwealth British dominance:
Total Membership World Wide: 53 
African Members: 17

- Botswana
- Cameroon
- Ghana
- Kenya
- Lesotho
- Malawi
- Mauritius
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nigeria
- Seychelles
- Sierra Leone
- South Africa
- Swaziland
- Tanzania 
- The Gambia
- Uganda
- Zambia 


III. Under the Francophone French dominance:
African members

- Algeria#
- Benin
- Burkina Faso 
- Burundi
- Cameroon
- Central African Rep
- Chad
- Congo
- Dem. Rep. Congo
- Djibouti#
- Equatorial Guinea
- Gabon
- Gambia
- Guinea
- Ivory Coast
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Mauritius
- Morocco#
- Niger
- Reunion
- Rwanda
- Senegal
- Togo
- Tunisia#

[# Also Members of the Arab League]

The above three lists of African nations with membership in multi-national structures of political and economic blocks clearly show the undeniable fact that Ethiopia [before it was abandoned to the Soviet Union during Mengistu�s reign of terror] was the only African nation out of a total of fifty two countries (currently) that owes no political group any obligation or allegiance. Ethiopia was the only true friend of the United States with its religious openness and dominant Christian ancient culture. It is beyond comprehension how the United States Administration failed to understand such simple fact in relation to its long-term interest and sided with nations that hate and despise the United States abandoning Ethiopia.

The United States had a real presence in Ethiopia for a period of thirty years [1944 � 1974] after the signing of the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty between Ethiopia and Britain, a treaty that curtailed drastically the influence or role of Britain in Ethiopia and opened new opportunities for the United States to have a beachhead in that part of the World. It failed in all those years of involvement in Ethiopia to bring about meaningful political and economic changes when it had uncontested chance to do so. Ethiopia was the only an unadulterated friend for the United States with no divided loyalty to any other nation or group for all that time. Ethiopia is unique in Africa, as the only country independent of any encumbrances and on its own with a long history of survival�an island surrounded in an ocean of hostile religious fanatical governments, and free of any of the religious, colonial, or cultural blanket other African newly independent nations have to suffer and still are laboring under. The professionals at the State Department in the 1970s, rather than sizing up the political situation in that part of the World correctly and reinforcing the independence of Ethiopia, sided with the enemies of Ethiopia to destroy the one nation in the African Continent that was an independent counterweight to the three main influences or blocks of �dominion� dividing Africa. The United States is still struggling against losing its last footing in its tenuous relationship with some African nations. The relationships with those very few African nations is maintained due to some raw mineral trading arrangements that could be easily replaced with European Union scheme, or with China. 

The right approach for the United States Administration would have been to build its friendship with Ethiopia such that Ethiopia becomes its window to Africa. By helping Ethiopia to develop its tremendous natural and human resource, rather than trying to grab every African nation coming down the assembly line, the United States would have secured a permanent presence at a very strategically advantageous position with a very reliable and friendly nation and people. Through out its period of influence in Ethiopia, the United States did very cursory development projects: a single university, few agricultural projects, some highway renovations, et cetera. Its development assistance program compared to the potential and size of Ethiopia was negligible. There is almost next to nothing for the United States to show for its thirty years unchallenged presence and influence in Ethiopia. [Except for the United States Military that mapped Ethiopia inside-out every square feet for its own bizarre reason, there is nothing that can be displayed even as a memento from that period of the �developmental� activities of the United States in Ethiopia. No wonder Ethiopians in 1975 were angry when they vent their suppressed discontent of over three decade dealing with the United States. 

The new emerging nations of Africa may have looked to most of us invincible as they emerged from the dark womb of colonialism. That was more of a matter of perception than reality. Even though invisible to most of us cheering from the sidewalk of history, the umbilical cords of the newly independent African nations were still attached to their very navels of politics and economy with that of their colonial parents. The United States seems to have missed that fact too in its formulation of its relationships with African nations. The United States is making peaceful coexistence very difficult in the region because of its erratic policy and unreliability as a friend. It has now opened a military support office in Asmara with the excuse to deal with the Darfur conflict. The United States opening an office in Asmara with military purpose for whatever reason is tantamount to taking sides in the boundary conflict and a clear indication of the United States Government support of the regime of Isaias Afeworki. Such action is a direct attack against the security of Ethiopia; it is not a step that would avert war or earn the respect and loyalty of friends. Are we entering the second phase of the project of the destruction of Ethiopia by the United States moving its military and opening a base in �Eritrea� in the guise of �offices� for civilian military support staff? 

The United States� misguided support of the eviscerating of Ethiopia, by supporting the independence of a runaway province, and yet continue to strangle Ethiopia�s wounded body thereby preventing it from recovering its equilibrium by supporting a process of land locking a nation of seventy million people is a clear example of its monumental error in judgment and strategy. The consequence of that misguided policy is going to cost the United States a very high price indeed. The United States will be left holding an empty bag while new emerging economic and political powers such as China, the European Union, even Pakistan are going to be the new powerhouses that African nations will be beholden to for all their economic and political needs. African nations are divided up into three or four blocks, none of which friendly or welcoming to the United States as shown herein above. 

The recent event still unfolding in Sudan is a clear example how the United States is being pushed out and replaced by new economic and political powers in Africa�China, Pakistan et cetera. The way things seem to be developing, the United States will be pushed out of the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, all of Africa, and Asia except maybe Japan, in less than a decade. The resent frontal attack by militant Saudis on the Consulate of the United States in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, is a clear case that shows how far the United States Government is feared and hated in that part of the World. The events unfolding all over the Middle East leaves no doubt that the World is closing off the United States. Unless the United States starts reversing some of its past mistakes, it will become the World�s pariah shunned and ostracized from the family of nations. Thus, I see a great need for the United States to re-cultivate its friendship with Ethiopians, reverse its disastrous policy in relation to the Boundary Commission and Ethiopian historic sovereign rights to its Coastal Territories. The Boundary Commission represents the worst abuse of power and corruption. Allowing the decision of such a Commission to change peremptory norms of international law and principles (jus cogens) in the guise of boundary delimitation and demarcation will cause long-term damage to the rule of law and the sanctity of peremptory norms of international law principles and practices (jus cogens). The decision of the Commission must be dropped off as an error.

European nations, either as part of the Commonwealth block spearheaded by Britain, or as part of the Francophone block spearheaded by France, are supportive of the breakup or emasculation of Ethiopia. The disintegration of Ethiopia will serve the interest of their respective blocks either by ensuring unfettered exploitation of the waters of the Blue Nile or the secession of parts of Ethiopia, which will later join up with either Commonwealth or Francophone member countries. Germany is counting upon the strangulation of Ethiopia in order to partition Oromia and set it up as its satellite in order to exploit the gold and coffee wealth of the area. The Arab League nations are working through their surrogates, the two European Blocks, to destroy Ethiopia, without having to breach the African Unity there by avoiding antagonizing sub-Sahara African nations. The enemies of Ethiopia to frustration are using the United States as the big stick to bring about such devious scheme with its enormous influence in the United Nations Security Council. China would not care less what happened to Ethiopia, for it has its �pound of flesh� fully stuffed in its mouth�the lucrative exploitation of the new fabulous oil fields of Sudan worth billions of dollars. When I consider how the different powers, big and small, stack up with each other, the United States looks absolutely foolish in being used as a �bouncer� by all those nations including by its closest friend, Britain, while being pushed out of Africa and the Middle East.

It seems to me that most of the people [judging by the 2004 Presidential election] and Government leaders of the United States do not seem to understand how vulnerable and susceptible the United States really is and that it might as easily undergo irreversible steep decline even chaos. It is living off its accumulated reputation for meeting its debts and having stable governments over the life of its Republic. With trillions of dollars in debt and with its balance of payment showing hundreds of billions of dollars deficit year in year out, and overstretching its military trying to be the "policeman" of the World, it is more than probable it may end up having a breakdown unless it starts acting responsibly. The leaders and media moguls of the United States, rather than wasting their time congratulating each other as the �greatest nation in the World,� they would do us all a favor if they get down to business at ground level where most of humanity is to be found, and tackle the issue of survival, lasting relationship, generosity, and humility. The United States might as well start by focusing on few friendly nations such as Ethiopia by stopping its support of land locking and breaking up of Ethiopia, a totally insane policy that might destroy the only friend the United States has in that part of the World. 

If we consider the role played by �Eritrea� in this tragedy of the betrayal of Ethiopia, we can also evaluate the true nature of the people in power in Asmara. There is no question how sophisticated the leadership in Asmara has been in manipulating the Arabs, the Unite States, and the Europeans and molding them to all kinds of political shapes as wet clay. It is unbelievable that a leadership that had applied to make �Eritrea� a part of the Arab League could still command such influence with the Governments of the United States, Britain, and Canada not to mention with many European nations mentioned in this article. The Government of �Eritrea� for some time had applied to be a member of the Arab League especially during the border war, and only recently strategically lowered its intimate relationship with the Arab League to that of an observer trying to garner United States� support in order to enforce the Boundary Commission�s corrupt decision. 

The fact is that the majority of the people in �Eritrea� are Moslems making up almost 55% to 60% of the population. It will not be that long before the influence of Sudan with its oil wealth effectively marginalize the Christian highlanders and turn the government into a fundamentalist Moslem government just like the Government of Sudan itself. The current Government in Asmara is standing on razor thin political ledge, with very little maneuvering space, for the noose is being tightened around the neck of the Christian highlanders who had maneuvered to stay in power so far, but who are also the most vulnerable in any political takeover by the Moslem lowlanders. Before long, �Eritrea� too will be in the chorus line of the Arab League and Fundamentalists singing the damnation of the United States. Such is the price the United States is paying now, for having a myopic vision about Ethiopia�being kicked around from corner to corner by small and big countries in Africa and the Middle East. The tragedy is the fact that the people of both communities are suffering because of the narrow visions of their leaders. There are mutually beneficial reasons for the unity of the people of both communities, and with such unity, we can overcome poverty, hunger, migration and degradation. 

I do not want to make religion as a political tool or introduce it as a diversionary subject, but I must point out the significant role of religion in shaping the political endgame in �Eritrea� right at this time. In order to appreciate contextually religious undercurrents giving deep impetus to the conflict between the two communities, I suggest that we all read up hundreds of reports how Christians were singled out for attack and suppression in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a host of other Middle Eastern countries. It did not matter whether they were �Eritreans� or �Ethiopians� as long as they were Christians for such oppressive and violent treatments. Even within the refugee communities in Sudan, Moslem �Bejas� from the Bogos [Eritrea] are quickly integrated into the political and economic structure than Christian Eritreans. It is only natural and the dictate of natural human demographic movement, for a person to gravitate toward a community more akin or tolerant to his or her own religion, culture, et cetera than a community with fundamental differences. It is normal for Eritreans to prefer to migrate to other parts of Ethiopia than to fundamentalist and intolerant nations in the area, so would other Ethiopians. 
The people of Akale Guzai, Hamassien, Serie, Kunama, et cetera must understand that the destruction of Ethiopia will have disastrous effect in their lives too. By way of illustrating my point, let me recite a fable from the Panchantantra [an Indian ancient text of fables on morality and ethics from about 1500 BC] about a two-necked-headed bird. �Once upon a time there lived a special kind of bird which had two necks, and shared a common stomach. One day, one of the heads found a jar of nectar [honey], and on seeing this, the other head also wanted to taste the nectar [honey], but the first neck refused to let it have it. Enraged, the other neck soon found a jar of poison and it consumed it. The poison reached the common stomach and both the necks [heads] perished.�
We can all agree that the fable is a sad one, and an appropriate metaphor for the situation that Ethiopia and Eritrea, two members of a single family, are pushed into by unscrupulous politicians and insanely ambitious leaders. Ethiopia has tremendous resources, such as land, mineral, and great rivers, and precious fresh water lakes. It is a country that is underdeveloped, which means that there is unlimited chance for economic growth that would open new markets absorbing millions of people into its system. On the Eritrean side too there are both quantifiable and non-quantifiable human and other resources beneficial to all. Such large market and development potential of the larger community should be considered very carefully before adopting schemes to destroy Ethiopia because the loser in such scheme may not be only the Ethiopian community. 

In general, the political and economic problems in countries in the East African region are quite complex. At times, it may seem that I am oversimplifying extremely complex issues into simple contrasting themes of right and wrong, sovereignty and suzerainship, or colonialism and independence et cetera. There are good reason for simplifications of such issues in order to clear the fog of confusing minor events and myths. There are numerous liberation movements and opposition groups or parties in this one relatively modest sized region than anywhere else in Africa. Eritrea alone boasts about thirty opposition and liberation groups or movements. Ethiopia, thirty times larger than �Eritrea� in population, has as many. Sudan and Somalia are already an out of control entities where genocide and ethnic rivalry has taken its toll, with millions dead and as many in refugee camps. Since our focus here is the future of �Eritrea� as it profoundly affects Ethiopia, I have entered the following list [yet unverified]** of numerous opposition groups below in order to help us understand there is a ragging fire of dissatisfaction in both communities:

1. DMLEK: Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Eritrean Kunama
2. ECP: Eritrean Cooperative Party
3. EDP: Eritrean Democratic Party
4. EDPO: Eritrean Democratic Opposition Movement (Gash/Setit)
5. EIA: Eritrean Initiative Association (Al Mubadera)
6. EIPJD: Eritrean Islamic Party for Justice & Development (Alkhalas)
7. ELF: Eritrean Liberation Front (Jebha Abbay)
8. ELF-NC: Eritrean Liberation Front-National Congress (Ha.Gu.)
9. ELF-RC: Eritrean Liberation Front-Revolutionary Council (Sewrawi Bayto)
10. ENDF: Eritrean National Democratic Front
11. EPC: Eritrean People�s Congress 
12. EPM: Eritrean People�s Movement
13. ERDF: Eritrean Revolutionary Democratic Front (Se.De.Ge.E.)
14. IM: Islamic Movement
15. MDC: Movement for Democratic Change
16. PDFLE: People�s Democratic Front for the Liberation of Eritrea (Sagem I)
17. RSDAO: Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization
18. UF: United Front
19. CEU: Committee for Eritrean Unity
20. EDC: Eritrean Democratic Congress
21. EIDM: Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement
22. EISM: Eritrean Islamic Salvation Movement
23. EIJ Eritrean Islamic Jihad 
24. ERDF (No.2): Eritrean Revolutionary Democratic Front (Se.De.Ge.E.)
25. PDFLE: People�s Democratic Front for the Liberation of Eritrea (Sagem II)
[**The list was provided to us by a general e-mail by an unknown source through the Internet.] 

Under any standard of test of stability and security, a country that harbors so many opposition groups as indicated above, with some of the groups either engaged in armed struggle or leaning in that direction does not endear confidence in anybody. In Ethiopia too, there are several groups and a couple actually engaged in armed struggle. I am not providing here an updated day-to-day situation in either community. It suffices for us to see that we really need to take our conflict with a degree of practicality and equity. We should be ready to see problems in holistic manner and not just pursue one-sided interest driven by hate and greed. 

Some have suggested some form of economic cooperation and �confederation� as a possible solution for the current crises between �Eritrea� and Ethiopia and the Boundary Commission. Although I respect and appreciate the concern leading to such suggestions, I must point out that the conflict has gone beyond such cooperative solution because of the fact that the conflict is orchestrated evermore due to the involvement of third party meddlers. At this point, the conflict has become a one-sided affair against the people of Ethiopia due to the treasonous Algiers Agreement of 2000 and the corrupt Boundary Commission�s outrageous decision of 2002. Before anything else, the Agreement and the decision must be rescinded or declared null and void, and thereafter there is a clear chance that meaningful negotiation can take place. The conflict is of such depth involving profound international law issues that peace could be achieved only through extensively negotiated agreement that must take into account historical accounts, demographical movements, developmental aspirations, and security needs of the parties. Hasty processes will lead to more problems than solutions. There are a couple of Ethiopian proverbs that illustrates my point. �Yeqotun awerdbela, yebibtwan talech.� �Sirotu yetateqoot, sirotoo yefetal.� First thing first: let us secure the boundary issue first and then deal with such futuristic ideas of economic cooperation and �confederation� later. 

No item of government-to-government type economic relationship should be entertained in our minds let alone hold discussions on such issues before settling the political and sovereignty issues between �Eritrea� and Ethiopia. We have gone through one such process until 1998 when the change in economic policy lead to the aggression by the Government of Afeworki to attack Ethiopia openly with warplanes. It is open secret how the �Eritrean� government abused its privileges of using Ethiopian currency, and used all kinds of banking fraud to enrich itself at great cost to Ethiopia. It has been even accused of counterfeiting of Ethiopian currency. In other words, the blurring or defusing of important issues such as questions of sovereignty, citizenship rights, et cetera by introducing secondary problems into the discussion will not help solve the conflict. Issues such as economic cooperation, confederation, or federation could only be considered after a clear resolution of the problems of the Boundary Commission, the United Nations Security Council, and the conflict itself with the people of both communities. Such blurring of differences will only lead to much more difficult problems to resolve later. It is important to start any relationship with clear description of the nature and basis of the relationship, and the extent and depth of the relationship. 

However, on humanitarian basis, the Ethiopian government on its own may make some provision to �Eritreans� who want to come and live in Ethiopia as Ethiopians or as residents, in the same manner the United States in the past had welcomed Cubans to live in the United States after leaving Cuba. Such humanitarian gesture may be simply done in recognition of our historical ties and ultimate destiny as one people and nation. O

Tecola W. Hagos
December 8, 2004


APPENDIX: Relevant Articles from the Ethiopian Penal Code of 1957 as Amended

[1] Art. 261. � High Treason.
Whosoever enjoying Ethiopian nationality, either by birth or by naturalization, or being officially entrusted with the protection of Ethiopian national interests:
(a) takes up arms or engages in hostile acts against Ethiopia; or
(b) has dealings with or keeps up a secret correspondence with a power at war with Ethiopia, or with a person or persons acting on behalf of such power, for the purpose of ensuring or promoting the enemy�s success in any manner whatsoever; or
(c) delivers to the enemy to the enemy, whether directly or indirectly, an object, armament, plan document or resources of any kind used for the national defense, or aids the enemy by rendering services or delivering supplies to him, 
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to life, or, in case of exceptional gravity, with death.

[2] Article 262 (Treasonable Offences Committed by [Ethiopian] Diplomats)
(1) Whosoever enjoying Ethiopian nationality, either by birth or by naturalization, or being officially entrusted with the protection of Ethiopian national interests:
(a) discloses, delivers, communicates or makes accessible to the public, to a foreign State, political party, organization or agent, a secret, a document, negotiations or a decision which the interests of [Ethiopia] demand shall not be divulged; or
(b) while acting as a representative of [Ethiopia] or while entrusted with the conduct on its behalf of negotiations with a foreign power, manifestly sacrifices the interests he is called upon to defend to those of the other power; or
(c) destroys, suppresses, purloins, causes to disappear or falsifies documents, papers or means of proof relating to the security, independence or vital interests of [Ethiopia], 
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years.

(2) In cases of exceptional gravity directly endangering the existence or independence of [Ethiopia], the Court may impose rigorous imprisonment for life, or death.

(3) Where the offender has acted negligently, the punishment is simple imprisonment for not less than six months, which may be increased to five years in cases of exceptional gravity. 

[3] Art. 263. � Economic Treason.
(1) Whosoever enjoying Ethiopian nationality, either by birth or by naturalization, or being officially entrusted with the protection of Ethiopian national interests:
(a) discloses, delivers, communicates or makes accessible to the public or aboard economic negotiations, decisions, facts or documents kept secret in the higher interests of [Ethiopia] or in the those of national defense; or
(b) discloses or delivers objects, means or other things of such a nature entrusted to him; or 
(c) participates in or subscribes to a loan floated by a country in a state of war with [Ethiopia], Is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding twenty years.

(2) Where the offender has acted negligently, the punishment is simple imprisonment for not less than three months. 

[4] Art. 264. � Collaboration.
Whosoever enjoying Ethiopian nationality, either by birth or by naturalization, or being officially entrusted with the protection of Ethiopian national interests, in time of war or of occupation of the territory of [Ethiopia], helps the enemy with advice or by deed, thereby intentionally favoring the enemy, in particular:
(a) by exercising on his behalf civil or administrative functions in the judicial, police or prisons services, or in custody, transport or other services; or
(b) by denouncing or handling over to him patriots or fugitives seeking to escape from his restraint; or
(c) by entering any propaganda, publishing or press service designed to promote the interests of any enemy or occupying power; or
(d) by engaging, directly or through an intermediary, in dealings involving economic collaboration with such enemy or power, 
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding twenty years or, in cases of exceptional gravity, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with death. 
_________________________________