Ethiopian paper castigates govt over border row with Eritrea
ADDIS ABABA, Jan 21, 2005 (The Reporter) — Hopes for peace and the spectre of war are equally prevailing since Ethiopia presented its new five-point peace initiative [to resolve the border impasse with Eritrea].
European governments immediately expressed their support for the initiative following its approval by parliament. This engendered in some quarters the belief that it put pressure on Eritrea to accept the initiative and opened the door to peace. But when it was realized that European support does not equate with US support [and] several questions began to be asked. And the hope that the Eritrean government will be pressured into accepting the initiative began to dissipate into the thin air.
The hope was completely dashed when the Eritrean government announced that it rejected the initiative. [Eritrean President] Isayas Afewerki’s recent accusation that Ethiopia is preparing for war does not bode well for prospects of peace. However, it is not only statements being issued by the Eritrean government that are frustrating the hopes for peace. Both countries are strengthening their military presence around border areas. This may be justified on the ground that it is part of defensive rather than offensive preparations. But conflict can arise as a result of the slightest reason or error.
Ethiopia and Eritrea currently find themselves in such a situation. Prior to the tabling of the new peace initiative, the chances for both peace and war were said to be running neck and neck. The scenario afterwards is similar, if not more tense.
We do not marvel why the Eritrean government does not stand for peace, for its very nature does not permit it to do so. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the likes of sha’biyyah [Eritrean government] are mortally afraid of peace more than war. It would not be surprising if sha’biyyah launches another war of aggression since it has not been duly punished for its act either by the international community or Ethiopia itself. The latter, in fact, exposed itself to condemnation for the creation of a negative impression by the former.
Given the presently deteriorating situation in Eritrea, the government there is prone to beat the drums of war as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from its weakness for strengthening its hold on power. Therefore, the Eritrean government is one of, if not the major, agent for the present fear of an outbreak of war between the two countries.
What about the Ethiopian government? It, too, is responsible for the prevalence of the current atmosphere as it had failed to ensure that the war comes to an appropriate end. But bygones be bygones. We should concentrate our attention on the present.
Presently, the government seems to be intent on demonstrating that it has tabled a peace plan rather than taking stock of the public’s feeling concerning its project. It may have a meaning for and be acceptable in academic circles to state that one “accepts” something “in principle”. But declaring that “Ethiopia accepts the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision in principle, but there will be “give and take when it is implemented” while leading a populace that is on the brink of war may turn out to be an irresponsible approach that should be avoided.
It is not clear to the public what the government wants to say or do. A citizen who is above the government’s propaganda campaign, to show the public supports its peace initiative and carefully examines this objectively, will ask himself whether the plan has public backing. The government should either accept the decision wholly by dropping the qualifier “in principle” or totally reject it for being illegal and unfair.
If sha’biyyah launches another war against Ethiopia, will the public sacrifice itself for a territory that tomorrow may be handed over to Eritrea? Or should it do so in the belief that the land is its and it is defending the country’s sovereignty? Will the war be a legitimate self-defence or will it be an insensible one where we pay dearly for a land that is not ours?
We are not raising all these questions to justify any kind or cause of war. War is not an option! We have had enough of it! Everyone should do what they can so that we do not go into another round of war.
We do not believe that the Eritrean government will develop a sense of responsibility and refrain from instigating war. Nor do we think that the Eritrean people will exert pressure on their government to prevent it from launching war against Ethiopia, because though they may have the desire, they do not yet possess the capacity and state of preparedness.
The Ethiopian government, however, should do its duty. Trying to bring about peace through equivocal declarations cannot bear fruit. Therefore, it must adopt a clear and participatory position that the public can embrace. As we said before, there is no alternative to peace. But there should be clarity and conviction in the manner that it is brought about so that war is ruled out as an option.
Material provided by the BBC Monitoring Service.