There are reasons to believe that Prime Minister Abiy’s address to the Ethiopian parliamentarians on the Red Sea is a rationale for war. The address went above and beyond the concerns of a land-locked nation demanding its rights guaranteed by United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS); it insisted on re-litigating an issue considered permanently closed in 1993: who owns the Eritrean Red Sea? Using historical images and arguments, the Prime Minister insisted that Ethiopians should no longer consider the issue a taboo: there are “historical” reasons to argue for it, he suggested. There are “economical” reasons to argue for it, he insisted. Economical not just as in “it would be nice to have”, but essential, nay existential, that we must have “it”, and then made his basis for having “it”: the population size of Ethiopia now [2nd in #Africa] and the population in the future [145 million in 2030; 205 million in 2050.]
This, as my friend Professor Samuel Tsegai reminded us, was the position of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) before World War II: Lebensraum or “living space”: we are too many and too great to be confined so. While the Prime Minister’s address suggested that this is something Ethiopia can try to negotiate for generations, just like Emperor Haile Selasse’s dream of the nation accomplishing GERD took generations–the only line in his address that got an applause from the audience–he, nonetheless, in the same breath, also suggested a couple of times that if “it” is not addressed satisfactorily, “it” might translate into war because that’s what happens with something a country considers an existential crisis: living space.
The “it” in all of the above is not sea access but sea (with an adjacent land) ownership. And while many Red Sea neighbors were mentioned, the images that accompanied the speech (General Ras Alula and Haile Selasse I) and the list of ports Ethiopia could buy—with shares in telecom, Ethiopian Airlines, Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)—clearly suggest the target is Eritrea. Within a week of his address, Ethiopian media (state and private) have been saturated with his talk and their analysis. Worryingly, there are reports of Eritrean and Ethiopian troop deployments in the usual locations in Eritrea-Ethiopia wars: Bure, Musa Ali.
There are also reports that the Prime Minister has initiated a diplomatic offensive alleging that #Eritrea is an obstacle to the Pretoria Agreement (between Ethiopia and TPLF ending their two year war) which called on Eritrean soldiers, among others, to withdraw from the area. But they refuse to, occupying sovereign Ethiopian lands, is the Prime Minister’s complaint. Since Eritrea was (foolishly) present in the war at the invitation of the Prime Minister [although that is now also disputed] and since it was publicly and profusely thanked for it [not disputed], this can either be because the Eritrean government gave a deaf ear to his repeated requests that they withdraw, or it is a surprise complaint, as was Meles Zenawi’s dramatic ተወርረናል (“we have been invaded!”), the rationale to invade Somalia and get regional, continental, global cover for it in 2006.
Either way, there are immediate measures Eritrea must take to avert war or, at the very least, not be blamed for it if it starts. We must learn some lessons from the international court rulings of the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC on border demarcation) and Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC on claims and damages) following the 1998-2000 War, which were full of “but he started it first” arguments. I have no expectation that Eritrea’s ruling party, PFDJ, will do any of the following (because, often, it’s not a rational actor), but this is what I think it must do:
1. Narrative: The Eritrean Government can expect that all correspondence between President Isaias Afwerki and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, all meeting minutes, all phone conversations via “secure lines” will come out. It’s not good enough that the Eritrean president give long interviews in Tigrinya or share Tigrinya-written letters—as he did in 1998, sharing letters between Comrade Meles and Comrade Isaias– to give context. Eritrea must join the narrative-formation to a global audience. In English. The “we chose to be quiet” mantra never worked as well as the Eritrean government thinks it does.
Make Eritrea’s case the way the Prime Minister made Ethiopia’s case: calmly and logically, shunning all superlatives. The world already has Tehran Times and Pyongyang Times. You may think beginning every story with World War II and the Cold War is necessary. It is not: begin and end in 1993. Restate Eritrea’s position on port use for those who want to use it or lease it.
2. Confirm Redeployment to Eritrean borders: Whether we should ever have been there bleeding for Ethiopia to “stabilize it” or not is a subject historians will debate. Either way, the government must tell us the price paid for it. If we are in Ethiopian territories: we must verifiably withdraw. There is a body authorized to do this in the Framework Agreement and its modalities that Ethiopia and Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) signed to end their war in Pretoria and Nairobi respectively. If that body drags its feet at the request of the Prime Minister, then there are plenty of documentary producers, journalists who would be willing to do it. How? Thanks to the internationally recognized “virtual demarcation” at the UN’s Cartographic Unit following Ethiopia’s frustration of the implementation of the EEBC ruling, you can stand anywhere and have the reporter document the coordinates to indicate you are in Eritrea proper.
3. Activate Demarcation: As stated above, the Eritrea-Ethiopia border was “virtually demarcated” but never delineated on the ground due to Ethiopia’s (TPLF, in power until overthrown by the current Prime Minister) foot-dragging. The opportunity to demarcate between 2018-23 was deferred so as not pressure a new, unstable gov of Ethiopia, that of the Prime Minister Abi, particularly since TPLF still governed the Tigray region of Ethiopia, where most of the formerly-contested territories are. PFDJ’s strategy appears to have been “Better to get rid of TPLF; ensure it is no longer in charge of Tigray, then revisit the subject within the priority of the elusive “regional integration.”
Abiy’s version of regional integration appears to be that of Ethiopia as primus inter pares (first among equals) befitting its ideology of EXCEPTIONALISM–never colonized, huge, Africa’s capital– with the neighboring states serving as satellites and fiefdoms with slavish chieftains with ceremonial roles acknowledging such arrangement as the natural order of things. One can refer to Prime Minister Abi’s former confidant now opponent (who isn’t?), the former ESAT President/CEO Abebe Gellaw’s belated disclosure of Abi’s confessions regarding Eritrea. Abebe Gellaw claims that Abiy’s goal is to integrate the whole region and Eritrea’s president has already signed up with the understanding that he will have the largely ceremonial position of Ethiopia’s president.
Activate demarcation means conduct an official request to Ethiopia to demarcate the border (don’t worry about funding it: it will be our GERD). It means the Eritrean government should also stop its useless feud with EU and USA on the assumption that China and Russia will come to its defense in case of war. They won’t. They most likely already picked sides. To demarcate is to delegitimize any future claims on Eritrea. It was delayed in 1991-1997 to “stabilize Ethiopia”, then under new management by former rebels TPLF. It was delayed in 2018-2023 to “stabilize Ethiopia” to support Prime Minister Abi. It must be activated to stabilize Eritrea.
4. Be Mindful of Legal Loopholes: In 1998, the fact that Eritrea never made claims on Badme (the flashpoint of the Eritrea-Ethiopia war of 1998-2000) for 7 years (5/1991 – 5/1998) and allowed TPLF to administer it was given serious consideration by the arbitrators who decided its fate. What can be used against Eritrea now from the 2018-19 period when our government officials appeared to have lost their minds and said and did things that are on the record? Let’s look at the record:
- “There is not much to what you have said, our humble leader.” – Eritrea’s Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, July 2018
In his foreign trips, Eritrea’s Foreign Minister’s role is to literally read letters composed by Isaias Afwerki. So that was President Isaias Afwerki saying it to troll TPLF?
- “I have been authorized by President Isaias Afwerki to be Eritrea’s Foreign Minister.” – Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abi Ahmed
Yes, it was in Amharic and, yes, the context was a lot of overcompensation for 20 years of a state of war. But Kenya’s President Kenyatta, who doesn’t speak Amharic, repeated it back in English to Abiy when they were both at the Asmara airport tarmac in March 2019.
- “We are one people, two countries. Anybody who says otherwise, doesn’t know history.” – Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki
Some smart historians could probably argue “we are one people” in a Pan-Horn-of-African way to argue that all the boundaries are, after all, colonial inventions. Unless their politicians are, simultaneously, saying these colonial boundaries are sacrosanct and untouchable, which is the position of the African Union since the 1960s.
- “You are to lead us on all matters. Seriously, I am not kidding or flattering here.” – Eritrea’s President resident Isaias Afwerki
This is problematic. It is a president of a State bestowing something he doesn’t own, Eritrea’s sovereign powers, to someone who is not sovereign. If we had a constitution, and a parliament, it would be an impeachable offense.
Cumulatively, in the hands of good lawyers, all of the above may become an argument, particularly if there are a series of actions that indicate it wasn’t idle talk but the execution of the “intimate” relationship envisioned in their Peace & Friendship Agreement of Summer 2018. Senior Eritrean government officials repeatedly and publicly, on camera, indicated their definition of sovereignty is different from the-commonly understood definition of the word. They must publicly correct it, instead of rationalizing it or pretending it never happened. It’s recorded, for posterity. They must speak; otherwise Abiy owns the narrative.
The Eritrean government must acknowledge that it miscalculated badly (as many of us did) in relying on Abi as a peace and development partner. It turns out that he is one in a long series of Ethiopians who do not respect Eritrea’s sovereignty. This misjudging of characters, and then pretending that you knew all along, or you are a victim of betrayal is just ego and vanity. There is no self-correcting mechanism in Eritrea–there is no parliament, no opposition, no media–so when we correct a mistake, it’s always very costly. But there is no reason to make it lethal.
Whatever is coming our way will require Eritrean unity. Sadly for Eritrea, the PFDJ’s interpretation of unity, like that of sovereignty, is different from the common understanding of the words. Rather than admit its horrific mistakes; free the unjustly imprisoned; ask for forgiveness for its massive crimes against the people of Eritrea; throw itself at the mercy of the people for its 32 years of abuse; and outline a succession plan that reassures us of Eritrea’s future, and the sovereignty of the People, it demands we ask forgiveness of it for daring to suggest we are citizens, not subjects.
Thus, its idea of “unity” is not to expand its base from, say, 40% of the population to 80%; no, it insists that the 40% double their efforts. All in the face of an enemy flexing his muscles using the size of his captive population. (When one thinks back that, at one time, he said nobody should die in a war except for the sake of Asab, I hope you will understand that am not using the word “enemy” lightly.) The #PFDJ is likely to say this is nothing new and flip pages of the 1980s for what to do next, but this is, in many ways, vastly different. Firstly, the new rulers of Ethiopia have given up any pretense that their interest is Eritrea: they are laser-focused on a Land By The Sea. There are many in the international community who will be sympathetic: aligning with Ethiopia as the Guardian of the Red Sea is much more stable than a country with no constitution or a succession plan. Secondly, the world order and technology is vastly different. It will require all of Eritrea to fight the new enemy, but PFDJ is incapable of making the necessary (existential) reforms needed to mobilize the country.
A people-to-people initiative, a genuine peace movement, is long overdue for Eritrea (all of Eritrea) and Ethiopia (all of Ethiopia.) Eritrea has only had 7 years that were neither a hot war or an uneasy peace. There are Eritreans in Eritrea and Ethiopians in Ethiopia who have lived in the state of war for half their lives, watched their children live it and fear their grandchildren will. Don’t they have a voice at all to say, in unison, NO WAR?
