US mediation intends to maintain minority regime in Ethiopia
Incarceration of CUD Leaders for Border Demarcation
Is it “A Pound Of Flesh?” Or Peace Brokerage?
By Yared Tibebu*
Jan 11, 2006 — The United States Department of States Spokesman, Sean McCormack, on his January 9th daily briefings, discussed the travel plan of Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer’s scheduled visit to Ethiopia and Eritrea. He reiterated the aim of the planned visit is to “reenergize progress towards finding a lasting solution to the border conflict …allow a reenergized international engagement to make progress toward resolving this impasse”. It is also believed that the Assistant Secretary is accompanied by the Director of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, by retired General Carlton Fulford. After four years of “total” neglect of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border conflict, the United States once again gives its attention to the issue. Why now? And what is at stake for the democratic aspiration of the Ethiopian people?
At the heart of this round of diplomatic initiative lies the problem of identifying the source of the conflict as a “border conflict”. The Eritrean Ethiopian conflict did not emanate from a border issue and cannot be settled by border demarcation. It is a conflict that resulted from the incapacity of the minority regime in Ethiopia, in its bid to monopolize all resources of the country under its insatiable and hungry appetite, resorted to alienating all political forces starting with the Oromo Liberation Front, next the Eritreans, and now in its well-orchestrated liquidation campaign of Gurages and Amharas. Unless and otherwise this minority regime is reduced to its size to representing the Tigrai region, and unless the independent leaders of the other regions of Ethiopia sit on a negotiating table, and sort out issues of strategic importance, even if the United States succeeds in forcing the two ruling-parties to sign bilateral peace deals, it will go back to square one before the ink of the agreement dries up.
Even though it is hard to talk about the democratic credentials of the Eritrean government, it is clear that it is a nationalist government. And as a nationalist government it has the national interest of Eritrea at heart. It has the mandate and authority to speak on behalf of its people and to sign bilateral and international agreements. But, on the contrary, on the Ethiopian side, there is a government that is defeated on the ballot, a minority government that represents only 7% of the Ethiopian population, which represents the Tigrai region. The TPLF regime has time and again showed that it has no national sentiment, and always on the watch to denigrate the Ethiopian flag, to disassociate itself from pan-Ethiopian sentiments and cultural heritages. Hence Ethiopia will have no representation on these talks, as the duly elected leaders are in prison on trumped up charges of genocide and treason.
Eritrea should understand that any agreement with the sworn enemy of the Ethiopian people, at a time when its duly elected leaders languish in prison will be seen as betrayal, and unacceptable. If the Eritrean leadership is looking for a lasting solution of the regional problem, it has to unflinchingly stand for a total solution of the problems of the region and not engage in bilateral talks with the Meles regime. The renewed diplomatic interest of the United States to mediate peace between the Meles regime and the Eritrean government is for one and only one reason. The United States wants to save its undemocratic client regime, to extend the life of a dying power. It is not in Eritrea’s interest to lend support to such a deal, and save a regime that has “bussed” Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, and engaged in ethnic cleansing. It is clear that the “Butcher of Addis” has become the “Merchant of Venice” and is crying “a pound of flesh” in the corridors of international diplomacy, trying to barter incarceration and liquidation of CUD leaders for border demarcation. Ethiopians are vehemently opposed to such crass tactics by both the Meles regime and its western allies. It should be clear to all that, undermining the democratic aspiration of the Ethiopian people, incarcerating their duly elected leaders, and trying to save a heavily wounded beast by signing bilateral agreements behind their backs, will destabilize the region, and the interest of the West will also be undermined because of this short-sighted policy.
One democratic avenue that will save the day and usher a lasting peace in the region is to call a conference of ALL the Ethiopian opposition forces including the incarcerated CUD leaders, the OLF, and the ruling party. Once an agreement is reached to stabilize the situation and duly respond to the democratic aspiration of the Ethiopian people, the Eritrean problem will be resolved through a body that has the democratic mandate to peacefully and amicably resolve the outstanding issues in the interest of both peoples.
Ethiopia, as a nation of 76 million must not be land-locked just 50 miles away from an international water, and this should be understood by a far-sighted Eritrean leadership. But this interest of Ethiopia should not be ground for war and instability. It must be an issue to be settled amicably between the two peoples. The Ethiopian opposition should not give ground to the western allies of the minority regime in Ethiopia, to support it on the basis of “stability of the region”. They should make it plain and simple and tell it as it is, that Ethiopia’s interest of access to the Red Sea should not be equated with war-mongering and instability, and that democratic Ethiopia has no qualms with living in peace and sister-hood with all its neighbors including Eritrea.
In conclusion, it is important to heed the call of Mamo Qilo, where he instructed the opposition back in June, 2005:
“If I were asked to coin a phrase for the opposition it would be: “It is delinking Article 39 and the Assab question from the opposition’s short term agenda, Stupid!” The opposition needs to assure the national and international public it would not revise the constitution in the next five years. It should assure the national and international public that changing or amending the constitution will only be considered, if at all, after the political situation has stabilized and after an open and all inclusive national debate is undertaken. Delinking such hot potato items from the opposition’s agenda for the next five years would be a strike of genius that seems to be eluding the opposition. Anyone who has lived in a democratic culture would know that political parties do not always adhere to their campaign platform. Here is where flexibility would allow the wheel to turn without necessarily derailing the train off of its track.”
* Yared Tibebu is an Ethiopian based in the USA, he can be reached at [email protected]