PEACE INTIATIVE: Decision v Package

3...It must be assumed that now that Ethiopia has accepted, in principle, the decision of the Boundary Commission, together with the other points contained in the five-point peace proposal, it will help the Eritrean people to understand Ethiopia's full commitment to peace...

5...Start Dialogue Immediately with the view to implementing the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission's decision in a manner consistent with the Promotion or Sustainable Peace and Brotherly Ties between the Two Peoples...” …The acceptance of the decision in principle, and then proceeding with implementation in a manner consistent with durable and sustainable peace and, in this connection, making adjustment as and when necessary in the course of implementation, is an internationally accepted demarcation practice.”…

The above are some extracts as words and supposedly “new scheme for sustainable peace and good neighborliness” issued by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia in addressing the Parliament of his country in the aftermath where the Boundary Commission ruled its decision.

It appears new, advanced and unmarked initiative coming towards the peace and normalization process of the two countries, when seen at a glimpse along with such elongated time of no war and no peace situation. It might as well attract the attention of many different people, countries, organizations and other concerned bodies. They might believe the attitude of the Ethiopian government has changed towards peace and demarcation process in line with the aspiration to witness the prevalence of peace in that region. The only tone, if changed, however, is the tendency which stated that the Ethiopian government has accepted the ruling though still stressing on the principle that the Boundary Commission’s decision is unjust and illegal.

It has been said so much on the legality or illegality of the Commission’s ruling. Yet, there are two odd points which draw my attention from the peace initiative set down by the Ethiopian Prime Minister. That is, accepting the ruling and declaring at one fell swoop its illegality. Tolerable enough, as it could be argued that Ethiopia has acknowledged the decision but it is only stating its observations and remarks on the decision. It is very sensible and diplomatic to put forward your annotations in any situation where it is decisively evidenced. In any ruling there is a likely victor as there is a possible loser. Hence, it is natural and likely to come about making some comments and even rejecting the decision in a situation where you put your confidence of not losing as it comes to the final finding and enlightened you lose. It does not make any sense at all, however, to recognize the decision while in unison disagreeing and demanding with the ruling just for the consideration of peace and unreserved cooperation.

Thus, it is practical to pose some questions, what kind of acceptance the Ethiopian government has provided? What does it mean accepting the decision in principle? Furthermore, is acceptance of the decision subject to any condition? Is it a real move by the government of the Prime Minister for peace and good neighborliness or to put Eritrean people and government in saddle? These are imperative issues which need a come back, whether civil or extreme, ahead of jumping to any conclusions.

Acknowledgment of the decision in principle

After deliberation and taking time for some years, the Prime Minister, affirmed that his government accepts the decision in principle. It is not, however, the decision that should be accepted in principle. It is the Algiers Agreement, in which both parties signed and decided to be bound prior to the meeting of the ruling, which should be accepted as a principle. This agreement proves that the parties affirmed, as a standard, their intention to recognize and implement no matter what the Commission’s outcome is. The establishment of this Boundary Commission was on the basis of such preceding agreement and principle of both Eritrea and Ethiopia. Hence, it is on the fundamentals of such principle that the decision must be recognized and implemented, not in any other subsidiary opinion. This principle has basically ended, at least for the past four or more years, the devastating war and cleared the phase which meant for peace of the people and the region.

If one is in no agreement with any decision specified, the ordinary procedure is to make a plea to the case without introducing any fresh substantiation. In this situation the two countries had earlier agreed to comprise the clause “final and binding” in the Algiers Agreement. This clause was included in order to keep the two governments together and later to stand for not to differ from the ruling once the Boundary Commission presented its final decision. To this effect, however, the government of Ethiopian is still not responding to this particular clause as if not necessarily advanced. It is not clear whether the Prime Minister is referring to this particular clause in pronouncing the government accepts the decision of the Commission? Using general terms and making no suggestions, thus, on this meticulous clause cannot be considered as an innocent oversight.

The conditions:

1. Dialogue immediately.

It is very constructive and civil to engage in discussions to resolve conflicts anytime. Recalling and believing on the agreement, both Eritrea and Ethiopia where committing themselves to the Boundary Commission until the time of the ruling date. There is no mention as whether any of the two governments complained during the assessment period and the way the case was handled. Ethiopia never called for any exchange of ideas to find a solution by mutual negotiations or any other means for peaceful settlement out of the Commission’s dominion during such time. May be the Prime Minister and his government were overconfident enough to be awarded with the disputed area. The act of complaining and the voice of discussion prior to demarcation were heard sometime after the ruling came public. It is this particular calling for a dialogue by the Ethiopian government, before implementation of the decision, which cut short the phase to demarcation process for almost two years now. Though it was too premature to act in such a way, yet, nothing changed.

It is true dialogue could help for good relations or so, but is it on the interest of both parties to make any dialogue while the Ethiopian government ruled out the decision of the Boundary Commission? What was the dialogue for, if the demarcation is going to be based on the decision accepted by Ethiopia? Now the Prime Minister is calling for immediate dialogue in view of implementation of the Commission’s decision. What is the innovative and guarantee which can rush Eritrea to enter into discussion? Let alone these initiative, the world is witnessing how the government of Ethiopia is not willing to realize its pledge to the Algiers agreement and to the decision of the Commission.

The decision of the Boundary Commission is meant to be respected not negotiated. Likewise, implementation of the decision should be more of practice and less discussion. It is only when difficulties are experienced in the process of carrying out the ruling on ground that discussion can be called as a next choice, yet, upon the Boundary Commission’s consultation. Thus, where Eritrea involves in the discussion prior to seeing the observance of the decision and before any initiative is taken by the Ethiopian government to fully accept and implement the decision, it can mean to a point accepting the Ethiopian assertion tacitly.

At any circumstance, discussion for sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the people can come only after defining what belongs to whom. This can be secured solely based on the Algiers Agreement followed by the decision of the Boundary Commission. Dialogue is a bilateral subject to be decided by both parties. One party cannot force the other to come into a discussion just because to carry out the interest needed.

2. Acceptance in connection with making adjustment.

The other difficulty in this new initiative is the acceptance of the decision by Ethiopia is not only subject to dialogue but it includes the making of adjustments in the process of implementing demarcation. Wow what a noble idea… In here, the idea of acceptance needs to be stated unambiguously. Making any amendment upon the Commission’s decision prior to its implementation is the same as rejecting it. On the other hand, what is “necessary adjustment?” It may not be of any significance to one party what seems necessary to the other party. Hence, the adjustment could fall not on what is necessary but in upholding ones interest. How difficult could it be to realize that it is this interest which took these countries to raise arms instead of minds?

Past all the human and material destruction, and following the Algiers Agreement to settle the conflict by the decision of the Boundary Commission, still the government of Ethiopia is voicing out its own interest only. The ruling of the Commission, however, was of benefit to the interest of both countries chiefly as it is meant for peace. The decision was intended to be accepted with all its advantages and disadvantages by both governments as it was agreed to be final and binding. What is now the Prime Minister indicating by presenting this new proposal? Yet, if the parties disagree in this situation, what can be the next solution? Going back to the decision, or again to wait for another couple of years and come up with similar novel initiative? It is absurd.

The only fresh words are “acceptance” and “sustainable peace and good neighborliness” in this initiative. It was not long to remember that Ethiopia has already rejected in part the decision of the Boundary Commission for its own reasons. Still it is unclear from such package what the innovative proposal is on the lookout for. Peace, attention, make an impression, demonstrate Eritrea as flawed… Now again, the acceptance is still conditioned in a very political way adding enjoyable words, nonetheless, without any variation from the previous theory of rejection.

The Motive

They say, ‘you can’t wake a person who slept consciously.’ It is not far from reality to say this goes to the Prime Minister and his government. It is not in the interest of the public of the region to go round and round the decision. Again it is not in the interest of the two governments as it could no more draw the attention of the international community to facilitate for there is no room to do so. This might be what the Ethiopian government would like to bring into play as an occasion and as a means to extend the mischief gone on for the past years. If this is only about what interests Ethiopia, yes as they have claimed at the outbreak of the war in 1998, zwesede ywsed, whatever it takes.

The Eritrean people are not blindly accusing the Ethiopian government, exclusively based on the propaganda of the government of Eritrea, particularly for not implementing the decision. It is because of the difficulties which have been created by the Ethiopian government time and again. The Ethiopian government may call the distinct initiatives and suggestions issued as major efforts plus flexibility for peace on its side. But a peace scheme needs to promote both sides interest. It should not be a safe haven for one and a burden to the other. It should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The Prime Minister did not want to acknowledge the decision simply not because he is against peace but he knows its political effect. But how can one stay wide awake without any sleep in fear of a dream. It is impossible. The ground-breaking theory suggested along with the other contents of the package in the Prime minister’s predictable proposal is the “give and take.” What to offer and what to acquire...

Why does not the Ethiopian government state all the subject matter of the dialogue wanted, their offer as well as their demand clearly? The dialogue may be to make demands which are related or distinct with the issue of demarcation. The issue of port, Badma area, any other political, economic and social issues and interests at large … What is going to be the limitation of the discussion