|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another look at Ethiopia’s peace initiative By Bilal Mohammed binmoshe@yahoo.com Standing in front of the main gate of the Addis Ababa University, I was given a pink and green leaflet by a strange person with a warm smile. Since I was in a hurry to meet a friend, I didn’t read the leaflets until I met my friend and settled in a car parked in a hotel compound around Olympia. I took a sip of Macchiato after I finished reading one of the leaflets. It is a call for opposition against the peace initiative proposed by the Ethiopian government. My friend too had finished reading the other leaflet. Then I saw him throw it away on the car’s dashboard. He claimed that opposing for the sake of opposition has got nothing to do with the resolution. We need to go to the details of the matter. Then, a number of questions came to my mind: Should I oppose? Why the opposition? What, when and how to oppose? I stretched my hand for another sip of Macchiato but it was dead cold. Each question was double pronged. For example, what is there to oppose? The peace initiative or its way of presentation? Some of the claims I read or heard in parliament sessions, on ETV discussions, public debates, newspapers and leaflets focus on the way the proposal is presented and the consent of the people, and not on the consequences of refusing or accepting the decision, going to war or not. Let’s consider the possible reasons for opposing the proposal. Is it for the sake of opposing or to resolving the problem? Of course, opposing for the sake opposition has got nothing to do with making a constructive reaction. For opposition parties, it may be some kind of chance before the beginning of the election that might help them to beat the ruling party and make them at least look strong challengers. For some, it is a kind of xenophobia that made them prejudiced against not going beyond speculating a ‘hidden agenda’ behind the peace proposal. Then, there is the question of timing. When is the best time to oppose the peace initiative? Now it is time to respect the agreement as it is in the domain of international law, to which Ethiopia adheres. On the other hand, the situation seems to be at a climax of tensions and needs careful scrutiny to avoid unforeseen problems. There are different views seen from here: matured and moderate recommendations, rough observations and misunderstanding of the matter, and patriotic inclinations. There is an assumption of going to war with absolute certainty of winning the war like before, without considering Eritrea’s 4 years of engagement in building a strong army by shifting the whole economy and closing the university to recruit soldiers for the army. It is also associated with economic issues because the international donor community is at stake. Anyway, we can’t prevent the war only by ourselves and we can’t be able to say ‘let’s go to war’. It is like choosing the lesser of the two evils. So why oppose without recommending what else could be done? Other things being the same, and despite our government’s arrogance, I think we need to see beyond our sense of patriotism and national pride. Conflicts in international relations directly or indirectly derive from the intense competition for natural resource. Is it beyond the capacity of the powerful nations and organizations to resolve these sensitive survival issues? No. But they only focused on oil supplies. There is absolute conviction in Washington to diversify their sources of oil, and Africa is going to look attractive in the coming years as a potential supplier of oil. Look at Nigeria. Or Libya, which has been in the news for slightly different reason but clearly related. Angola had been brought in to the AGOA, the preferential trade deals, and given access to US markets apparently for similar motives. And, the recent phenomena in Sudan, too. Finally, the whole of the East African coast. In a related turn of events, Ethiopia has begun major oil explorations. Added to that, the US’s interest to get reliable sources of oil leads to conflicts over scarce resources in the region. To escape from conflicts or to resolve already existing conflicts, a country should either be strong or should have strong alliances. What we have to understand is that there is a shift of alliance. But I don’t think Eritrea became a beneficiary because it won the diplomatic game. Rather, it didn’t refuse the proposal or assignment of starting a fire in the region, which has a double benefit for them: fulfilling their duty and in return receive their pets, and prolonging of the life of the ruling party, EPLF, without an economic crisis that could fuel unwanted public unrest. Now the situation can probably get out of control. In the first place, the Ethiopian government should have considered the long-term consequences of the Algiers Peace Accords. It also accepted the resolution without considering other alternatives. Who is behind this decision, which gives plots of lands to Eritrea? Well, the Ethiopian government may claim that those lands don’t belong to Ethiopia. But on what ground did the Ethiopian government decide to give land to Eritrea? It is clear the decision was not taken to benefit Eritrea or to culminate the situation. It is also clear that there was a long term outside interest in the Horn of Africa that was tried in Somalia and failed of course. As Ethiopia could be an alternative supplier of oil, we have to know that we are always in under threat. The question for us should not only be how to win wars but also how to escape traps. Not everyone wants peace to prevail in Africa. It is our recent experience that relative peace and development in Africa resulted in the coming of new outside power players in the regional. Chinese companies are winning the biggest bids in African countries including the building infrastructures for the big Sudanese oil project. This endangers the US’s new strategy for oil supply. I think that is why the Western media exaggerate the Darfur conflict in order to have internationally acceptable reasons to interfere and enter in to the region. The world powers do not get in to war if there are poor countries that are willing to go to an expensive war for a cheap reason. Moreover, these poor countries are good markets of weapons. They can also be agents of war that can facilitate a subway for the long hands of the US through the United Nations. Thus, the situation requires thorough investigation and discussion to find a way out—to escape from the trap. East African countries have to strive for the resolution of the Darfur conflict. We should not let anyone to interfere in our agendas and then have a foothold in the region. We should not allow any kind of power play by outside forces in the region so that we can avoid endless conflicts and unnecessary wars.
|
