I.
Introduction
It
is often said derogatively that hindsight is 20/20.
I submit that hindsight is the best remedy to our political
crises. Both futuristic
and conservative thinkers may benefit from the wisdom that comes by
hindsight. I have
looked at the torturous road I have covered in my life, especially
the last thirty years. I have discovered that I have made very many
mistakes in my life, even though at times I was absolutely certain
on the rightness of my actions. Often good intentions took the
better of me. Good intention alone cannot take us far in our
journey; we need to be wise and cleaver in our choice of traveling
companions and in the forking road that we choose to take. For
Ethiopians, the road ahead is no less difficult or no less free of
obstacles and treacherous political quick sand.
In our struggle for survival and for a democratic and wealthy
society, we need the concerted effort of all Ethiopians and not
those of a few Ethiopians from a particular ethnic background.
Is
it proper for people who have made their homes in the United States
or in the nations in Europe to entertain the idea of disfranchising
some segment of the Ethiopian population and to heap all their
grievances accumulated for centuries on this or that ethnic group?
We benefit from relatively peaceful and plentiful lives we live in
the West, but yet turn around and advocate for vengeance,
retribution, throwing out people from their homes, suppressing and
violating the human rights of targeted individuals and groups. We
all understand that the political process in Ethiopia as far as we
know has been undemocratic and often unjust. Is it not possible that
we all might have had a hand in all the debacles we are now faced
with? We have done enough blaming , and now is the time to role up
our sleeves and start working to benefit all of us through well
articulated, inclusive, compassionate nation building.
We
can start by demanding the release of all political detainees and
prisoners such as the leaders of the opposition. Let us make it our
call for responsible dissention against the government policy that
has caused much division in the people of Ethiopia. I am going even
further in my views by asking all Ethiopians to demand the release
of now forgotten prisoners such as Tamrat Lyne and Seye Abraha as
well, who have suffered enough injustice for so long.
There are very many unaccounted for Ethiopian political
detainees who must be freed without delay.
II.
Hebret/EUDF Position on the Border Conflict?
On
Saturday December 24, 2005, what appears to be an editorial of
Hebret Radio Station in Washington DC was read with its
characteristics terseness on a number of current issues including
the Ethiopia-Eritrea border conflict. What I found most
objectionable in the editorial is the statement of appeasement of
what seems to be the position of the Opposition, specifically that
of Hebret/EUDF. The Editorial clearly stated that the Ethiopian
State should not risk war with Eritrea and must give up what is
after all �an insignificant piece of real estate� referring to
Badme. Is this the type of statement Ethiopian�s would tolerate?
Is it wise for a political organization that is aspiring for
political leadership to make such a statement preempting the
legitimate rights of Ethiopia at a time when such issue is yet to be
resolved? CUD must make clear its position on this important issue.
I
consider such statement as unpatriotic, immature, or utilitarian to
the point of being treasonous. Of course as a discussion point any
issue is worth rising in order to explore all possibilities, but an
editorial is something else. The usual argument espoused by such
individuals and organizations is that �a piece of land� is not
worth the lives of so many soldiers being sacrificed in a senseless
fratricide war. Such an approach is a very simplistic and cheap
populist morality that may appeal to our sense of self-preservation
more than our sense of duty and standing for our rights. Every
Ethiopian has both a constitutional and filial duty to defend the
motherland from aggression of every type. The Eritrean government
after all is equally at risk of loss of lives and destruction of
property as is the case with the Ethiopian side.
The
idea of appeasing an aggressor is not new to Ethiopian leaders. In
the last one hundred fifty years, Ethiopian leaders such as Menilik,
Haile Selassie, Mengistu, and now Meles have made different degrees
of compromises conceding to prejudicial agreements or outright
ceding of Ethiopian territories. In this regard, the worst
international policies by Ethiopian leaders involve the conditional
signing off Eritrea to the Italians after winning the Battle of
Adowa in 1896, and the signing of the Algiers Agreement of 2000
after winning the war with Eritrea in 2000. It is an open secret
that some members of the Opposition are playing tootsie with the
Government of Isaias Afeworki to the point of allegedly being
trained and supplied with weapon to fight the current Ethiopian
government. The face of treason is gaining respectability in the
Diaspora Ethiopian community. In order to attack Meles Zenawi, is it
necessary to sleep with an aggressive government that has declared
repeatedly to destroy Ethiopia from within? It is not a pleasant
prospect for any nation to be squeezed into ceding its territories
to an aggressor. The fact of the matter is that we end up losing
more than what we would have lost if we had instead forcefully stood
up for our rights each time we try to appease a bully whether
foreign or locally breed.
Some
people are now engaged in a campaign to destroy �Tygreans� and
have them thrown ought of the rest of the country. And the
disgraceful interview of Professor
Tilahun Yilma is being reposted in Websites. I am willing to
accept that it is not Tilahun Yilma who is responsible for such
reposting, but he has not made any disclaimer as far as I know.
Thus, I see him now, no different from Hitler or Mussolini. If
Tilahun Yilma and other fascist-Nazis do not stop this ethnic based
agitation against Tygreans, the majority of whom have nothing to do
with the current Government of Meles Zenawi, they will end up seeing
the inside of the International Criminal Court.
I see some connection between such fascist agitators and the
new breed of appeasers who are advocating ceding Ethiopian
territory. It is to be remembered that Professor Messay Kebede had
espoused similar views in articles a couple of years ago and I had
responded in a lengthy article critical of such positions in October
of 2004. In my
response, I stated two main objections to ceding Ethiopian
territories to anyone as quoted below:
�1)
There will be no end to such collapsing of Ethiopian boundary and
territory all the way to Addis Ababa from all angles once we submit
to demands of that nature and cede what is so far legally and
historically part of our Country. For Example, there is nothing to
prevent one of the Afar �liberation� fronts/movements from
putting similar demand, as the �Eritreans,� for the independence
of Afar and demand all the land to the very heart of Ethiopia, to
Ankobar and to the very foot of the Western Rift Valley mountain
ranges. The Somalis could claim all of the land all the way to Debre
Zeit. The Oromo movement could swallow up most of the Southern half
of Ethiopia. Kenya could claim all of the Southern border regions of
the Rift Valley Lakes. Sudan and Egypt would want all the land with
Lake Tana and the whole of the Blue Nile River and River Basin. In
other words, it is ridiculous to cede Ethiopian Territory to every
bully who demands some Ethiopian territory, for we will be reduced
to hoisting our flag from the top of a couple of buildings in Addis
Ababa saved from the rest of ceded �Finfine.��
�(2)
The very idea of submitting to a demand made by a hostile party
whether that party identifies itself as a liberation movement,
front, government et cetera is antithetical to the evidence of the
history of the building of nations all over the world. In Ethiopia,
political rebellion is not something new. In fact, I may even claim
that it is a way of life, and our ancestors have withstood such
turmoil and yet maintained the integrity of the Empire. However,
what seems to be new these days in Ethiopia is this phenomenon of
some �elites� who seem to think that nation building and
maintaining a nation in freedom and independence is like a walk in a
park. They argue against the use of force even in self- defence;
they uphold the extreme forms of self-determination [Wilsonian and
Marxist] without considering the contextual underpinning why the
idea was introduced; and they promote ethnic based autonomy et
cetera. In short, their prescription is the way of the �saint,�
which prescription is admirable, indeed, if we [human beings] all
were living in a monastery. If one wants a nation, one has to fight
for it. The precedent we are setting if we cede Ethiopian territory
to anybody, would simply encourage more instability because we are
sending the wrong message that says, �You can achieve political
goals against Ethiopia through threat, intimidation, backed by raw
power,� in bold letters. This type of defeatist approach denies
the legitimate rights of the people thus affected by ceding
Ethiopian territories the protection owed them by both the Ethiopian
Government and their fellow Ethiopians.�
There
is also a very juvenile argument in circulation in the Ethiopian
Diaspora community that holds by ceding Badme Ethiopia will be able
to make some arrangement with the Eritrean Government to have access
to Asseb and on to the Red Sea. This is the most asinine idea that
anyone could ever have! Nothing less than absolute and unencumbered
sovereignty over the Afar costal territory could insure the
continued access to the Red Sea and all of its privileges and rights
as a Sovereign State of Ethiopia. Ethiopia is a huge country with a
huge population. It has a right to develop and maintain its own navy
and maritime commerce. There is no two way about that. There is no
agreement that is so ironclad that may not be breached later by the
Eritrean Government once it has acquired �Sovereign� rights and
power over territories ceded to it as is being pushed by some
Ethiopians as announced in the Editorial of Hebret Radio and some
�prominent� individuals who claim to be supporters of the
Opposition. It is
absolutely absurd to transfer and cede full ownership and sovereign
power over a territory such as Badme and Afar coastal territories in
exchange for some form of �leasing� right of the port of Assab.
In fact, such arrangement will act as the conduit for exploitation,
blackmailing, spying, corruption, and ultimate destruction of
Ethiopia. Already Meles Zenawi is talking about �normalization,�
an absurd notion that can only be found in the recess of a mind of a
person who had already committed treason against the State of
Ethiopia and Ethiopians.
I
have stated repeatedly in articles that the first item in the list
of priorities is the preservation of Ethiopia�s territorial
integrity and sovereignty. A weak nation invites predators.
Appeasement has no value whatsoever in the modern world. The
effort to miscast such primordial and legitimate right to defend
once nation from any form of aggression as warmongering is totally
absurd. I suspect that such extreme form of nihilistic unpatriotic
posturing is based on political immaturity and lack of understanding
that there is not going to be peace in the area based on such form
of betrayal of Ethiopians and ceding their homes to an aggressive
government. We already are suffering from one horrendous betrayal
from a hundred years ago, that is now trying to kill us by choking
us with no sea outlet. There is no need to add to that disastrous
situation by ceding more Ethiopian territory to anybody.
If ceding Ethiopian territory would have benefited the neighboring
people/families in Eritrea, I would have no problem to
accommodate the needs of such communities. The problem is not
�Eritreans� per se, but our historic enemies working against us
hiding behind Eritrea and its new independence status fuelling
conflict and hate between people who are most identical and related
to in history and culture.
III.
The Invalidity of the Algiers Agreement of 2000 and the Decision of
the Border Commission of 2002
On
January 22, 2004 I posted an article in this Website wherein I
succinctly stated ten points for the invalidation of both the
Algiers Agreement of 2000 and the subsequent decision of the Border
Commission of 2002. Over a period of three years, I have researched
the legal issues involved at more depth than before and have
incorporated herein under additional reasons to support my earlier
views. It is important to mention that there were about fifteen
cases dealing with border disputes that were either submitted or
decided in the last three years. All but three or four were
submitted to the ICJ. In
fact, such high number of border disputes being submitted to the ICJ
should not surprise us because it is the most competent forum for
such adjudication dealing with complex issues in border disputes and
the determination of unavoidable issue of human rights. It is a
grave mistake for the Ethiopian Government to submit its border
conflict to an arbitration forum. All such existing and future
conflicts on issues of border delimitation and demarcations should
be submitted to the ICJ (or as a last resort the Security Council of
the United Nations).
The
recent Claims Arbitration Commission�s pronouncement that the
Eritrean Government was indeed the aggressor and instigator of the
conflict of 1999-2000 is absolutely correct. By such decision, I am
vindicated for my persistent argument for the rejection of both the
Algiers Agreement and the decision of the Border Commission. The
Claims Commission on 19 December 2005 declared in Paragraph 16 the
following: �Consequently,
the Commission holds that Eritrea violated Article 2, paragraph 4,
of the Charter of the United Nations by resorting to armed force to
attack and occupy Badme, then under peaceful administration by
Ethiopia, as well as other territory in the Tahtay Adiabo and Laelay
Adiabo Weredas of Ethiopia, in an attack that began on May 12, 1998,
and is liable to compensate Ethiopia, for the damages caused by that
violation of international law.�
It
is also obvious that even within the illegally formed and
constituted Border Arbitration Commission, the border dispute should
not have been resolved so quickly, and should have been adjourned
until the finding of which party was the aggressor in the war
between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The finding of facts in establishing
the party who was the aggressor is far less dependant on
interpretations, but rather on the readings of historical documents,
opinions of experts et cetera. Thus, the Claims Commission�s
findings of who was the aggressor has a high degree of moral
certainty than the findings of the Border Commission. It is now
established that the Government of Eritrea was the aggressor in the
conflict that lead into full-fledged war of self-defense by the
Ethiopian Government fully justified under the United Nations
Charter. However, the rejection of the Algiers Agreement may be a
two-edged sword cutting out the very basis of the Arbitration on
questions of aggression and compensations that is favorable to
Ethiopia. This may be the classic situation of the dilemma of eating
a cake and having it too. Moreover,
one also may argue that a bird in hand is better than two out in the
bush.
As
far as I am concerned, it is far more important to present the
legitimate rights of Ethiopia to the Afar coastal territory and the
territorial waters of the Red Sea for proper resolution by a
competent body either the ICJ (or as a last resort the United
Nations Security Council) than trying to enforce the two Arbitration
decisions that gave Ethiopia conflicting solutions. I prefer that
both decisions by the Arbitration tribunals be rescinded, with the
improvisation or understanding that such arbitration decisions may
be used as evidentiary material the extent of which the ICJ (or as a
last resort the Security Council) at its discretion may consider as
probative in establishing both questions of facts of aggression and
questions of compensation and delimitation and demarcation of
borders based on historical, legal, demographic et cetera
considerations. It is necessary to have a change of government and
new control of the whole border and conflict case by new
professionals untainted by past incompetence, timidity, and
sycophantic behavior before we proceed to carry out any steps in
that direction. Eritrea is a country with limited resources. The
damage amount to be awarded to Ethiopia that the Eritrean Government
has to pay if properly assessed would be in billions of dollars.
This very fact may be a good incentive for equitable resolution of
the status of the Afar coastal territories and the territorial
waters in the Red Sea. I would not count on that because
Ethiopia�s historic enemies with their ill begotten petrodollars
will be salvaging the situation in order to continue their
destruction of Ethiopia.
It
is only fair to mention here that Professor James Paul has done a
superb job in his handling of the issue of aggression in the
Arbitration (Claims) proceeding. The Claims Commission must be
commended too for the subtle and wise distinction they made between
a violation of
Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations by
resorting to armed force and the case of legitimate self-defense
under Article 51 of the Charter. However, I do have great
reservation to the meagerness of the claim itself as instituted by
the Government of Meles Zenawi. It is grossly inadequate. I am not
sure either how far the current government would capitalize on such
favorable decision the Arbitration Commission (Claims). The
indication so far seems that it is going to be minimal. I have
stated repeatedly that the greatest obstacle to peace, democratic
political development, and general economic growth et cetera is
Meles Zenawi, the individual, and his tiny group of insiders around
him. The TPLF and the other members of the EPRDF are simply
instrumentalities, and could be rehabilitated to good use once Meles
and his tiny insider group are removed from power.
The
following fifteen items are my reasons for voiding and invalidating
both the Algiers Agreement of 2000 and the Arbitration
Commissions� decisions:
-
1.
The Government of Meles Zenawi in 1993 was neither a legitimate
nor representative government of Ethiopia, and thus cannot bind
Ethiopia to any international treaty or agreement nor encumbers
future generations of Ethiopians with any international
obligations. The independence of Eritrea was achieved through
complacency of the leadership of the EPRDF that is still in
power and through force, and neither method is legitimate under
international law and practices. Thus, any agreement entered by
the two leaders or their agents at that time and subsequent to
that time is invalid with no legal consequences on Ethiopia and
Ethiopians
-
2.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) and President Isaias
Afeworki (Eritrea) are leaders of liberation fronts who had a
long standing understanding/agreement while they were in the
bush, i.e., before they took over the Government of Ethiopia in
1991. The independence of Eritrea was a result of such prior
agreed upon scheme during the years the two leaders and their
organizations launched a guerrilla war against the legitimate
governments of Ethiopia. The same bush-agreement was later used
as the basis of the Algiers Agreement. There was no disclosure
to the Ethiopian people of such prior understanding or
agreement. Thus, there has never been at-arms-length negotiated
agreement at Algiers. The Algiers Agreement is a result of
collusion thus fraudulent. It does not bind Ethiopian and
Ethiopians to any obligation.
-
3.
The Algiers Agreement resurrected long defunct, dead,
terminated, invalidated treaty and annex (1900, 1902) and
questionable international legal instrument (1908) from a
hundred years ago. There is no precedent in the history of
international bilateral or multilateral treaties where such long
defunct, dead, terminated, invalidated treaties to have ever
been resurrected to a new life for the sole purpose to benefit
one party to a dispute. Thus, the validity of the Algiers
Agreement is a highly prejudicial and bad precedent that should
be rejected outright.
-
4.
The Border Arbitration Commission did not specifically cite the
principle of uti possidetis in
its decision. However, its use of the international instruments
in order to establish legal rights amounts to the same thing. At any rate, the principle of uti possidetis in its evolved form through two decisions of the
ICJ favors Ethiopia if it has claimed properly the Afar Coastal
territories as its legitimate historic territory. The concept of
�effectivites� the ICJ introduced in order to fine tune the uti possidetis
principle would recognize that Ethiopia is the parent nation
that has exercised such control on the area and is also the
natural extension of its territory and demography. The majority
of Afars ar to be found within the larger region within
Ethiopia. Thus, there is no reason or principle of international
law that would deliberatively dived a people into such discreet
areas with diminished human and political rights.
-
5.
In the Qatar v. Bahrain (2001)
case Judge S.O. Kooijmans in his individual concurring opinion
introduced the principle of �superior claim� a principle
that should have played a central role dealing with issues
involving such an ancient state of Ethiopia.
Had the Arbitration Commission considered properly the
principle of �superior claim� it would have found out that
Ethiopia had far superior claim that is more significant than
any claim based on colonial treaty, and would have disqualified
itself (Commission) for lack of capacity.
Judge S.O. Kooijmans wrote, �Much more appropriate for
the present case seems to be the Permanent Court's finding in
the Eastern Greenland case that "it is impossible to
read the records of the decisions in cases on territorial
sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal
has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual
exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State
could not make out a superior claim" (P.C.I.J.
Reports, Series A/B, No. 53, p. 46; emphasis added). The
correct conclusion in my opinion is that one can be �satisfied
with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign
rights� by Bahrain, since the other State, Qatar, �could not
make out a superior claim.�� [See the Decision
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and
Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), 16 March, 2001,]
-
6.
Special difference and accommodation should have been accorded
the State of Ethiopia in its dispute with the new state of
�Eritrea.� The wrong approach of the Border Commission has
been to treat the exercise of state and sovereign power of an
independent state like Ethiopia on equal footing with that of a
colonial (Italy) or trust (British) administration, practices
that is being succeeded to by the government of �Eritrea.�
The ICJ in a recent case has made it absolutely clear that such
approach is wrong. �The Chamber observes that the
concept of the intention and will to act as sovereign, as
mentioned in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland
(Denmark v. Norway) case (1933,
P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, pp. 45-46), is a concept of
international law and cannot be transplanted purely and simply
to colonial law. The Chamber�s sole task in applying the
principle of uti possidetis juris is to ascertain whether
it was the colony of Dahomey or that of Niger which effectively
exercised authority over the areas which the Parties now
claim as sovereign States.� See (Niger v. Benin) In other
words, all other sovereign attributes of the independent state
of Ethiopia dealing with a colonial or trust administration has
to be seen in favor of Ethiopia for Ethiopia has the superior
claim to any of the claims based on colonial matrix. [Frontier
Dispute (Benin v. Niger), 12 July 2005.]
-
7.
The Algiers Agreement preemptively benefits one party and
negates the rights of the second party without the benefit of
negotiation or presentations because it is based on the Colonial
treaties and annex that favored the colonial power ambition and
does not reflect the reality on the ground. It is absolutely
clear, even to a child; the only party benefiting from the
resurrection of long dead and defunct treaties is done with a
single beneficiary in mind--the interest and claims of
�Eritrea,� as a successor nation to Italy�s colonial
administration, and Isaias Afeworki. Such succession itself is
questionable, and the approach of preemptively awarding all the
benefits derived from a treaty against a second party is against
public policy and against long established international law and
practices.
-
8.
The Algiers Agreement authorized a subordinate organ, the
Boundary Commission, with power and authority that far exceeds
its own: violations of the principle of Jus
Cogens.
-
9.
The Boundary Commission established under the Algiers Agreement
is invalid since it is based on an illegal and invalid
agreement, the Algiers Agreement.
-
10.
The Boundary Commission decision shows inconsistency in its
treatment of issues it claims to be within its discretion where
it claims it was not deciding ex
aequo et bono. The technical assistance provided by the
United Nations on the determination of sites from maps is
unscientific, confused, and irresponsible to be of any use in
any demarcation or delimitation of a boundary between
�Eritrea� and Ethiopia.
-
11.
The Boundary Commission based all of its decision without ever
visiting a single area under dispute. It is unrealistic and
unjust to decide a very important and complex problem in dispute
without considering the unreliability of hearsay and basing a
decision on the basis of old maps and statements by
individual�s self serving dairies or travel logs, individuals
who were not familiar with local languages, understanding of
villagizations, nomadic life of pasturing and watering
traditions et cetera.
-
12.
The Boundary Commission was unduly influenced by the
international political structure of the United Nations Security
Council. The replacement of the bipolar power structure of the
Cold War era has given way to a single-power dictation of
international relations by the United States. Ethiopia as a weak
nation is treated as a dispensable pawn on a political
chessboard. Ethiopians should reject such degradation and being
subjected to decisions by political expediency rather than
principles of law.
-
13.
The Chairman of the Boundary Commission, Elihu Lauterpacht must
be disqualified for breach of professional ethics (conflict of
interest). As a result, the decision of the Boundary Commission
is tainted and must be declared null and void. The Chairman of
the Commission was retained as a lawyer by the United States in
its case against Mexico. The United States is an interested
party that has repeatedly expressed its preference of the
�Eritrean� claims; at the same time Lauterpacht was working
as Chairman of the Commission he was also being paid by the
United States Government. If this is not a conflict of interest,
show me what is? [See ICJ case Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States
of America). And Article 23 of the 1899 basic document
that created the Permanent Court of Arbitration [Convention for
the Pacific Settlement of International Dispute] holds that
�each Signatory Power shall select four persons...of known
competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of
Arbitrators.�]
-
14.
Ultimately, the United Nations Charter entrusts to the Security
Council the power and duty to deal with any situation that may
plunge any region or the world into armed conflicts in several
Articles. [See Articles 24, 33-34, 39-44, (52-54)]. Land locking
Ethiopia under circumstances perceived by millions of Ethiopians
as an injustice is not going to be a peaceful situation at all.
Sooner than later, the region will be immersed in wars and
conflicts and unimaginable suffering.
Already in the 1999-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea
due to border and other frictions had resulted in the death of
no less than a hundred thousand soldiers, with enormous
economic setback to both Ethiopia and Eritrea.
In light of such injustice and the destabilization of the
region, the Security Council is duty bound to throw out the
decision of the Border Arbitration Commission�s decision of
2002, and replace it with its own decision by returning
Ethiopian Afar Coastal territories back to Ethiopian
Sovereignty. This would solve largely the looming disaster in
the area if things were left the way they are at this moment.
-
15.
The best possible breakthrough achievement would be for Ethiopia
and Eritrea to go back to the drawing board and form a unitary
single state. On the Eritrean side, the future is not that
bright with the growing Islamic fundamentalism engulfing the
region, and the Muslim population in Eritrea having grown by
some estimation close to seventy percent of the total population
of Eritrea. Considering the natural growth for political
autonomy and the desire to be part of the long delayed
membership in the Arab league, and with a rich and powerful
Sudan salivating to incorporate all of Barka/Bogos and part of
Kunama and the Ben Amirs, I do not see much of peaceful prospect
for Eritrea. The assassination attempt on the life of Isaias
Afeworki reported in the media a few weeks ago is a harbinger of
worse things to come�an indication of the coming turmoil. It
is wise for leaders of the Christian highlands of Eritrea to
reevaluate their precarious situation. The only country in the
region that has a far better record of centuries of tolerance
and peaceful coexistence between Christians and Moslems than any
other country in the region is Ethiopia. Thus, it is in the best
interest of all to maintain the independence, territorial
integrity, and sovereignty of Ethiopia.
IV.
New Development
In
an interview on Ande Ethiopia Radio, on December 25, 2005, the
military commander of South Eastern Ethiopia made a statement, which
I considered to be a political avalanche. The essence of his
statement was that the Ethiopian Forces are neutral in the political
skirmish underway in Ethiopia; however, the military will not stand
by idle if any political group including the political party in
power does not observe the Constitution.
This may be a great political development to the extent that
if the military is disciplined enough that it may not aspire to take
political power for itself, as was the case in all military
takeovers that had ravaged Africa since the 1960s. There is
precedent for us to be hopeful about our political future when we
consider the situation following the death of Kemal Ataturk
(1881-1938) of Turkey. The Turkish military high command took the
unusual step of non-entanglement in civilian political power;
whereby the Turkish military ever since had played the role of
midwife in bringing forth nine civilian governments to date
safeguarding the Constitution of Turkey�a role played with great
discipline and political savvy.
We
are living under the long cast shadow of the Military Regime of
Mengistu Hailemariam, which regime was overrun by a liberation force
[EPRDF] that was less formal in structure but no different in
essence than the military regime it displaced. Because the
leadership of the EPRDF simply changed their assorted military ware
for suits and ties and shirts and stepped into the role of civilian
political administrators and political leaders, no real democratic
political change took place. For show and manipulation of the power
structure, there was the theatrics of going through the process of
drafting and adopting of a new constitution, and an election
pursuant to that constitution. However, all that was simply some
form of political game played out for public consumption and had
very minimal impact in instituting a new political culture of
tolerance, respect of human rights, and democratic political process
in the Ethiopian society.
I
consider the statement of the Ethiopian Commander interviewed by
Ande Ethiopia both as positive development and as a warning for
vigilance so that there would be no repeat of another Mengistu Haile
Mariam. In essence, what the Commander is telling us is that his
role as a military commander is some kind of a watchdog, while
immature civilian political leaders and their supporters are in some
form of political brawl. I
am hopeful that the Commander and his generals have learned a very
important lesson from our thirty years of tumultuous political
history. I hope also that that line of command within every branch
of the Ethiopian military is professionally structured and observed
that there will be no chance that junior officers and the like would
stage the type of takeover Mengistu and his supporters achieved
during the closing days of the aging Emperor.
The
military as an institution is a force to recon with, for continuous
public disorder will bring about military takeover of the political
process. All of us must be aware at all times that our rebellion,
civil disobedience, demonstrations, rumor of armed struggle et
cetera would simply accelerate the military organization to the
forefront of our political processes. This type of struggle may
result in the unsavory entanglement of the military organization in
the civilian political structure. From there, it is a short distance
before reaching a situation that the civilian political structure is
being replaced by military administration. We will live to regret
our reckless disregard of some important political culture that we
already have gained through our struggle of several decades.
Conclusion
It
is often pointed out by political observers that history should not
be used as some form of a straightjacket rigidly channeling our
course of action, but may be used as a reminder and referential
material in order that our decisions for our future may be wise.
[See for example my Book Reviews of Jeffrey Sachs and George Ayittey]
In our struggle to survive, we may have taken the wrong turn and are
heading to a dead end. There are subtle changes taking place in our
world that may not be seen or felt as political processes in our
individual societies and communities. Although it may be too early
to say any prediction on such grand scale, it seems to me that there
is in Africa an overall negative evolution against the survival of
the people of Africa already at work. The endless famine, armed
conflict, pestilence et cetera in the region are clear indicators
that Africa�s candle is lit on both sides and burning out much too
quickly. Is this negative course reversible? Certainly, it is within
our ability to stop the political hemorrhage and fix the economic
debacle as well. I am neither the only one nor the first person to
bring to our attention the danger Africans are faced with. Several
distinguished professionals, politicians, and academicians have
spoken and written about the enormity of the problem and that is why
we have now all kinds of funding in place coming from government and
private sources.
When
we see our conflict and our political and economic turmoil in the
right context, we also see how ridiculous and destructive our
conflicts are. Faced with such possible danger of extinction, the
conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the political oppression
within each community, and the waste of resources and labor to
further such conflicts and oppression makes us all look ignorant and
worthless people. Looking at our political and economic condition,
some observers may think that we are not worth saving or caring
about, that the world is better off the sooner we disappear from the
face of the Earth.
We
ought to question rightfully the wisdom and the moral content of
Eritrea�s secession, and the viability of the many liberation
movements within Ethiopia. Would it have been far more politically,
economically, and ethically sound to have maintained our unity as a
nation and build our economy, culture, and individual autonomy
rather than fight with each other like cats and dogs? Take a second
look at the country that we all flocked to in order to escape
political persecution or famine�the United States of America�and
learn a great lesson from its multi racial and multi cultural
society where different groups of people have achieved a degree of
coexistence and prospered to varying degrees, which has made it the
envy of the rest of us. In fact, the difference between groups in
the United States is far more pronounced than so-called differences
between groups in Ethiopian and Eritrean people who are related by
history and extended family structures.
The
Ethiopian community in the Diaspora is overwhelmed by deformed
presentation of the political situation in Ethiopia and the future
of Ethiopia by few agitators controlling the most heard Radio
Stations and Websites. Such outspoken individuals who seem to speak
on behalf of the Opposition are seeding hate and destruction. It is
up to the Opposition to issue again and again �Press Releases�
explaining their official position on very many issues that are
being polarized in discussion groups and Radio commentaries and
editorials. Within Ethiopia, we are struggling against an oppressive
government, and as a reaction, we have now the most divisive
political agitation going on within the country supported and
fuelled by an overwhelmingly outspoken group of Ethiopians in the
Diaspora. We need to be proactive and not be controlled by agendas
developed by either Meles Zenawi or divisive groups from elsewhere.
What seems to be lacking is the sense of danger facing us all if we
continue our destructive course of action. Our dissention lacks
wisdom and pragmatism, and our governing leaders lack humility and
wisdom. As the Argonauts of mythology, we too find ourselves in
between our own clashing political Symplegades. God, help us all!
END
Tecola
W. Hagos
December
30, 2005
|
