 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 May 2000 Issue No. 483 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 May 2000 Issue No. 483
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Ethiopia unbound
Sinegiorgis
In a rejoinder to the article "Charging on Empty" (Al-Ahram Weekly Issue No. 482, dated 18-24 May), Ethiopia's Ambassador to Egypt Kongit Sinegiorgis hotly disputed the charge of "low morale" and "lack of professionalism" in the Ethiopian army, claiming the assertion was part of the "malicious propaganda campaign" churned by the Eritrean regime.
Sinegiorgis stressed that the myth of Eritrean military invincibility has been shattered by recent Ethiopian triumphs on the war front. "To begin with, Ethiopia is not fighting for glory or for any other reason," Sinegiorgis wrote. "The genesis of the conflict is the unprovoked aggression by the Eritrean regime and the occupation of Ethiopian territories by force. This fact was established by United States-Rwanda recommendations and by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) two years ago."
"The allegation by Mr Yemane Gebreab, the political advisor to the Eritrean president, that Ethiopia declared war on Eritrea in 1998, is, to say the least, a gross distortion of facts," Sinegiorgis continues. "If [Gebreab] is referring to the declaration by the Ethiopian parliament in the wake of the Eritrean aggression, obviously -- since Eritrea has neither a parliament nor a constitution -- it must be difficult for him to understand the modus operandi of democratic countries."
Sinegiorgis also made a point of clarifying the nature of the historical relationship between the two ruling parties in Addis Ababa and Asmara -- the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, respectively. "It is important to put things in their proper perspective. True, the two movements were allies against a common enemy -- the military dictatorship [of former Ethiopian ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam] -- but it is incontrovertible that the victory of Ethiopia was achieved by the supreme sacrifice of the Ethiopian people. What is incontestable, however, is the fact that the Ethiopian government was the one who facilitated the independence of Eritrea."
The OAU peace plan under consideration at the Algiers talks earlier this month is divided into three documents: the "framework agreement," the "modalities" for the implementation of that agreement and the less-substantive "technical arrangements." Sinegiorgis denied claims that Ethiopia rejected the plan under the pretext of modifying the technical arrangements, retorting "[This is] a diatribe disseminated by the Eritrean regime. It is an open secret that it was Eritrea that refused to discuss the substance of the technical arrangements and that was why the Algiers talks were not successful."
"In the last two years, the Eritreans have been known to say anything depending on the prevailing situation," Sinegiorgis stated. "How can an aggressor exercise its self-defence? This is an insult to the intelligence of the international community. As for the willingness of Ethiopia to negotiate, I must say the memory of observers is short. Ethiopia, from day one, has said and continues to say that as long as Eritrea withdraws from the territories it has occupied by force, Ethiopia is ready to negotiate on any matter, at any time and anywhere. Unfortunately, for two years, what we have been saying has fallen on deaf ears and we have had no partner for peace."
Why has Ethiopia attacked Eritrea at this particular moment?
The military confrontation began when Eritrea launched an unprovoked aggression against Ethiopia on 6 and 12 May 1998, and occupied parts of Ethiopia's territory. Of course, there were some interruptions in the military activities, but Ethiopia did not abandon its right of self-defence. While the war that was imposed on us has endured for the last two years, the effort to find a peaceful solution to the conflict has also continued unabated.
The [OAU-sponsored] talks in Algiers on 29 April to 5 May, were to enable the two parties to reach an agreement on the technical arrangements [of the proposed peace plan], elaborating on the details for the implementation of the [so-called] framework agreement, that is, the modalities. These basic documents were adopted by the OAU summits in Ouagadougou and Algiers and accepted by the two parties. It must be stressed that both Ethiopia and Eritrea have agreed on the purpose of the Algiers talks.
Contrary to the accusation levelled against my government, the responsibility for the collapse of the talks falls squarely on the shoulders of the Eritrean regime. The talks were scheduled to take place on 25 March, but Eritrea only accepted to attend the last talks after the urging of the United States government. Even then, not only did the Eritrean delegation arrive late, but [they] also came with the clear intention to scuttle the negotiations. The Eritrean foreign minister surprised the participants by refusing to discuss substantive matters on the consolidated technical arrangements. True to its behaviour in derailing the endeavours for peaceful solutions, the Eritrean delegation insisted on discussing procedural matters which were not at all on the agenda of the OAU.
The obstructionist policy of the Eritrean regime has been a source of frustration not only to the Ethiopian government, but also to the facilitators. The veracity of what I am telling you can be clarified in the communiqué issued by the current chairman of the OAU on 5 May. Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that the Algiers talks collapsed because of Eritrea's intransigence.
How does Ethiopia respond to the international reaction, and, in particular, the United States' proposal to impose a United Nations arms embargo on Ethiopia and Eritrea?
I am afraid I have difficulty in comprehending the international reaction to the prevailing situation. Two years ago when Ethiopia brought the blatant aggression and occupation of its territory by the Eritrean regime to the attention of the international community, the aggression was not considered by the Security Council -- or by the international community in general -- as a threat to the peace and security of the Horn of Africa.
It is an undeniable fact that for two years Ethiopia has been asking indefatigably for the respect of the UN and OAU Charter, as well as international law, by reversing the aggression and by insisting on the establishment of the status quo ante. Unfortunately, those who are in a position to influence the Eritrean regime did not see it fit to apply pressure on Eritrea to withdraw its armed forces from the territories it occupied by force.
Now that Ethiopia is exercising its right of self-defence to repulse the aggressor from the sovereign territory of Ethiopia, the Security Council suddenly decided to act under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and determined that the situation constitutes a threat to regional peace and security. The adoption of the infamous resolution imposing an arms embargo is clearly intended to harm Ethiopia.
It is indeed abominable that twice in 50 years aggression was committed against Ethiopia and twice, an arms embargo was imposed both on the aggressor and the victim. When fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1936, the League of Nations, to which Ethiopia was a member, decided to impose arms embargo both on Italy and Ethiopia -- knowing full well that Italy was an arms producing country. Again, being fully cognisant that it was Eritrea who was the aggressor, the Security Council was repeating the same injustice on the people of Ethiopia when it adopted resolution 1298 on 17 May, imposing an arms embargo on both Ethiopia and Eritrea.
In the light of the above, the people and government of Ethiopia condemn in the strongest terms the unjust and unfair resolution of the Security Council. Come what may, the Ethiopian people will defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Now that Ethiopian forces are deep inside Eritrea, will Ethiopia accept a cease-fire?
Military strategies and tactics can take various forms; this does not mean that Ethiopia's objectives have changed -- that is, the withdrawal of all Eritrean forces from all Ethiopian territories occupied by force. Ethiopia has never refused to accept a cease-fire. However, one must not be naive and insist on a cease-fire, while the invading army of Eritrea is well entrenched inside Ethiopian territory.
Ethiopia has always insisted that a formal cease-fire would be signed if Eritrea fully committed itself to the withdrawal of its forces from all occupied Ethiopian territories. It follows that in order to accept a cease-fire, it is necessary to finalise the technical arrangements for the implementation of the framework agreement and the modalities. In Algiers, Eritrea refused to discuss substantive matters on the basis of the technical arrangements and trampled the efforts of the facilitators to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.
How does Ethiopia respond to charges that precious resources are wasted on the war effort instead of development and famine relief?
It is a matter of record that since its assumption of power in 1991, the government of Ethiopia made the development of the country its priority task. One of its immediate actions was to build food reserves (a food bank), which had reached over 300,000 tons since 1994. The reserve was to be utilised whenever emergency situations occur, like drought, in any part of the country. Even though we have been appealing for assistance, the government has been distributing massive food aid to the needy during the present drought. When it became obvious through our early warning system that the rains would fail for the third consecutive year, the government renewed its appeal to the international community.
Regarding the main thrust of your question, however, I would immediately like to state that the record of the Ethiopian government testifies to the contrary. With the exception of those who are inimical to Ethiopia, observers, including donor countries, were highly appreciative of my government's determination and tremendous effort to alleviate poverty, ensure self-sufficiency in food production and achieve overall development in a relatively short period of time. In so far as wasting precious resources for military purposes, it must be recalled that the government of Ethiopia demobilised what was known as the largest army in sub-Saharan Africa [from over half a million] to 50,000 and reduced its defence budget to 2 per cent of the GDP. In fact, it was the reduction of the military machine as a whole that encouraged the expansionist Eritrean regime to occupy Ethiopian territories.
Unfortunately, the menace posed in our sub-region by our bellicose neighbour has created a huge obstacle to the realisation of our dream. You will agree with me that for development one needs peace; if one's peace is endangered, one cannot develop one's country. The respect of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the pursuit of economic development are challenges that have to be tackled with equal vigour.
On the other hand, it is obvious to all that the Eritrean leaders still maintain a war mentality, as exemplified by their disproportionate military build-up and forced conscription. The first to be attacked was Yemen, then Djibouti, followed by the Sudan, and finally Ethiopia -- thus almost completing the circle of its neighbours. This goes to show that all [Eritrea's] concentration is on destabilising our sub-region. The question of developing Eritrea is not on the agenda of its leaders.
In the face of a blatant aggression on its sovereignty and territorial integrity, any country in the world would take the appropriate measures to repulse an aggressor. Ethiopia is not an exception. This war was imposed on us and we had no choice but to defend our sovereignty. We do not wish to divert our meagre resources for defence purposes for any length of time. As Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said, the aggression committed by Eritrea must be reversed quickly so that Ethiopia can continue fully its development endeavours.
How is Ethiopia attempting to resolve its ethnic tensions?
Ethiopia is a mosaic composed of more than 80 ethnic groups with over 70 languages and dialects. It is precisely to respect the right of each ethnic group that [Article 39 of] our constitution gives every nationality the right to self-determination, including the right to secession. It could be the only constitution that gives such a choice.
This is the best example of how far the Ethiopian government has gone to solve the [ethnic tensions], if any. In Ethiopia diversity has always been a source of strength, and this has been amply demonstrated throughout our history including the present aggression of Eritrea. It is obvious that the Eritrean leaders failed to read accurately the prevailing harmonious situation in Ethiopia. Therefore, to talk about ethnic tensions in Ethiopia is totally incorrect.
Does Ethiopia intend to move its forces toward the Eritrean capital Asmara? Certainly not. We have no business in Asmara. Our defence forces are moving east, that is, Zalambessa and other occupied territories. As my government has stated over and over again, we have one, and only one, objective -- the liberation of our territories still occupied by Eritrea. We have no designs on Eritrean territory. One must not be oblivious of the fact that Ethiopia facilitated the independence of Eritrea and Ethiopia was the first country that recognised Eritrea as an independent state.
Interviewed by Gamal Nkrumah *
