“Asmara, 22 September 2005 - The Minister of Finance, Mr. Berhane Abrehe has said the United Nations would be held equally responsible for any renewed armed conflict and its consequences if it fails to reverse Ethiopia's illegal acts of occupation. The minister's statement came during his address at the 60th UN General Assembly.”
“UN is equally responsible as Ethiopia is for any renewed armed conflict and its consequences if its fails to reverse the occupation: Minister Berhane”
By Staff, Sep 22, 2005 Shabait - National News
When the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia broke out in 1998, PIA used some colorful phrases and analysis that supposedly described the ‘Woyane’ mentality. It is ironic that the same PIA phrases and analysis are now used to analyze PIA and PFDJ.
Some of these phrases and analysis that are coming back to hound us include,
- Is the recent escalation of Eritrean war rhetoric by PIA, Mr. Yemane Ghebreab, Min. Berhane, a real possibility or just ‘tirhu gerewegna’?
- After the first Ethiopian air attack on Asmara International Airport / Airforce base, PIA told us that stressed mind [i.e. Woyane’s] seeks to compound one mistake by making an even bigger mistake. Now this question has made a full circle and the same question is being asked about PIA and PFDJ.
The inquiring mind wants to know, for whose benefit is this Eritrean threat of the use of force being made?
- Is the war rhetoric for the benefit of the international community? The international community, esp. the West, has fully analyzed the level of Eritrean government’s state of stressed mind and what it is capable of carrying out, i.e. that these are most probably idle threats – or ‘tirhu gerewegna’, because Eritrea doesn’t have the resources to wage such a military campaign. I will explain below.
- Is the war rhetoric for the benefit of , or as a threat to, the Ethiopian government? How the Ethiopian government views this latest threat is anybody’s guess. First, we all analyze the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict as if PIA and PM Meles are mortal enemies. But are they? Probably, as Major General Timothy Ghormley, who is the commander of the Combined Task Force Horn of Africa for U.S. Central Command, on September 21, 2005 DoD briefing commented,
“Both Prime Minister Meles and President Isaias are Tigrean, so neither are willing to really take too serious of a look at trying to solve that issue at this particular time.”
We can’t discount the fact that PIA is escalating the threat at a time PM Meles is facing his own internal instabilities. PIA’s timely threats are probably designed to help PM Meles to use the escalation of war of words over the border issue to help PM Meles divert Ethiopian attention towards conflict.
If the enmity between these two leaders is real as we are led to believe, then PM Meles is probably calling PIA’s threats as ‘tirhu gerewegna’ – an ironic phrase making a full circle.
- Is the war rhetoric for the benefit of ordinary Eritreans? Whereas the governments of the international community and the Ethiopian government are able to analyze PIA’s war of words, those who will be most affected by these threats of war, i.e. the Eritrean people, will be thrown into state of confusion and anxiety because most will take the threat at face value. The idle threats are designed to divert Eritrean public attention away from the quickly deteriorating domestic political, economic, and social situations to the only trump card PIA believes he must play to hold on to his tenuous power.
Why PFDJ will not use force to claim territories awarded to Eritrea.
1. Which areas to occupy, to claim, or to reclaim will have its own consequences.
a. Will the Eritrean government attempt to occupy by force all the areas it deems to have been awarded to it? This will require full mobilization of the Eritrean forces. Does the Eritrean government have the financial and other resources not only to occupy but to defend these areas once under its control?
b. Or, will the Eritrean government attempt to occupy a symbolic area, say Badme, to show to the ‘Woyanes’ and the world that it is serious about its claim?
As we had witnessed in 1999, after the Ethiopians captured Badme at the end of February 1999, the Eritrean government attempted to reclaim it in May 1999 without success and much losses. The village of Badme can’t be defended by occupying the village only. Possibly, the Eritrean army may have to capture the highest point in that area – the Gemhalo mountain, which is located in Ethiopia. That would be an invasion of a sovereign nation, with its own severe consequences.
2. Eritrean government will have to request UNMEE to leave,
a. This will take at least three months to undertake,
b. Unlike the conflict in 1998 when both sides claimed the other side started the conflict, the government that requests UNMEE to leave will be blamed for sparking the conflict, and that the Eritrean government will be directly and legally responsible for the next round of conflicts,
c. In the meantime [during UNMEE’s withdrawal period], esp. governments of the Western World, will put more than symbolic pressure on the PFDJ government.
d. The Western World, and especially the USA, will not allow the total destabilization of the Horn of Africa. The US government has vested interested in maintaining peace in Sudan (both the South and Darfur), and across the border, the Meles regime is perceived an ally to maintain peace in Ethiopia and as important in Somalia. The moment Eritrea asks UNMEE to leave, there will be tough warning sent to PIA and company.
e. An embargo against Eritrea doesn’t need to be all comprehensive. A fuel embargo by the West against Eritrea will automatically shutdown the PFDJ regime. The Eritrean regime can’t find out in a middle of its campaign that the flow of fuel has stopped.
3. Sparking another conflict may land PIA and entourage in International Criminal Court (ICC),
Although Eritrea has not ratified the treaty establishing ICC, and although non-members are not subject to ICC under normal circumstances, the Security Council can refer crimes committed in non-member countries to ICC. For instance, Sudan has not ratified the treaty and yet the Security Council has referred the Darfur case to ICC, which has accepted to conduct investigation and persecution if necessary.
Whereas the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) is a civil tribunal that hears disputes between countries, the ICC is a criminal tribunal that will prosecute individuals.
The ICC will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, all defined in the court's treaty. The ICC will help ensure that these serious crimes, which have long been recognized by the international community, no longer go unpunished because of the unwillingness or inability of individual countries to prosecute them.
4. The Eritrean army might be led by incompetent and self-serving military leaders – acting more like the ‘Dergue army’ than ‘hizbawi hailitat’.
Gen. Oukbe Abraha recommended that army officers not be allowed to run army businesses. Army officers’ owned businesses created conflict of interest and brought into question whether these army officers would be truly committed to defending a country, or their personal wealth. These kinds of legitimate questions landed Gen. Oukbe in jail. But the question remains, can ‘Millionaire’ army officers lead our armed forces into victory in conflicts? Would these army officers lead their troops into battle? PIA is fully aware of this handicap.
5. The PFDJ regime has empty treasury,
a. PFDJ’s Eritrea hasn’t managed to develop hard currency earning export activities. Engaging in conflict requires significant amount of hard currency for hardware and logistics. If we examine fuel prices alone, oil cost around $ 23 USD per barrel in 2000. These days oil costs around $ 67 USD per barrel. Fuel is needed to run trucks to transport army, food, water, and ammunitions. Fuel is needed to run tanks and generators. An attacking army is the one engaging in mobility, thus requires significantly more fuel than the one defending a position. PFDJ can’t afford a conflict.
b. Eritreans bought ‘bonds’ to the tune of over $ 100 Million to defend their country. It is highly unlikely that Eritreans would be willing to finance a military campaign to claim land awarded to it.
c. Any kind of conflict, or even increasing level of real tension will stem the flow of the ever dwindling Eritrean tourists to Eritrea, yet cutting off hard currency to the regime.
6. PIA will ensure his legacy as villain or butcher,
PIA is itching for a conflict that will allow him to escape from the political pressure cooker. As long as he is able to goad others to bring the fight to him, he hopes to salvage his reputation by playing the ‘threat to sovereignty’ game. If pressure leads him to throw the first punch, PIA will ensure his legacy as villain or butcher. Thus, PIA will threaten, will puff, will roll up his sleeves, will punch in the air, but nothing will come out of it.
The irony is that it may just be EDA that will deliver PIA’s salvation by endorsing the ill-thought out ‘armed campaign’.
The border issue can only be resolved through peaceful and legal means. The threat or use of force will not speed up the border implementation any faster than its current pace. As much as Eritrea wants this border to be demarcated for its own internal reasons, Ethiopia will not be able to proceed without jeopardizing its own internal politics. Especially, considering the tense situation between the Ethiopian government and the opposition over the election results, one can’t probably expect the border issue to be resolved anytime soon.
But PIA is probably playing his game. He might figure that it is time to put PM Meles between a rock and hard place – the squeeze game from the north while PM Meles is simultaneously occupied with the Ethiopian opposition.
And yet again, despite all the analysis in the world, a stressed out regime is capable of doing anything. But we must operate under the most likely scenario, that PIA will not carry out his threats. It is a diversionary tactics designed to delay the inevitable day of reckoning. If he carries out his threat, he will only speed up his own demise.
Next article: EDA just passed a political resolution that takes Eritrean opposition struggle down a very dangerous path. For whose benefit, is it possible, and many other questions will be addressed.
Berhan Hagos
September 30, 2000
