Going over the Eritrea-Djibouti Peace Agreement with a fine-tooth comb

An English rendition of an incisive Amharic article written by Meles A

Translation by: Dilwenberu Nega

Daniel Gebrai is an Addis Ababa born and bred Eritrean. No sooner had Eritrea declared her independence from Ethiopia than Daniel rushed to Asmara with hopes and dreams. However, he never thought that what he was about to encounter once he settled down in an the independent State of Eritrea was going to shatter his hopes and dreams into smithereens. He soon found himself frog-marched to Eritrea’s infamous military training centre for conscripts at Sawa. When Eritrea’s unprovoked aggression against Ethiopia turned into a full-scale war, Daniel was detailed along the battle-field where he was captured by Ethiopian troops. After spending brief periods at POW Reception Centres in Maikental (Tigrai) and in Dedessa, Daniel was made to return to Eritrea. Yet again, Daniel found the rigours of life in Eritrea wholly unbearable. On one occasion, strolling along Asmara’s “Neber District” – Amharic for “Used to be District” (so named because the area had quickly turned into Eritrean deportees’ favourite hang-out where gaggles of former Eritrean businessmen often reminisced about what they “used to” own while in Ethiopia: garage, villa and factory), security forces arm-locked Daniel and whisked him off to join Eritrea’s “Warsa Yikaelo” – a youth brigade recruited predominantly from among those born during the period of Eritrea’s struggle for liberation. However, harsher living and working condition soon prompted Daniel to contemplate fleeing to neighbouring Ethiopia. While out on a reconnaissance mission, Daniel and like-minded friends of him, eloped into Ethiopian territory and sought refuge. Today, though Daniel resides in a Refugee Camp in Mai Ayni, Tigrai, he is content by the fact that he is able to pay visits to the homes of his former friends around St Mary’s Church in Arat kilo – his birth place and an area where he grew up and spent much of his adulthood.

These ‘punishments of life’ found in chaotic Eritrea, far from being isolated cases, are, in fact, the lot of hundreds of thousands of mainly young Eritreans. Eritrea’s strict observance of its draconian “shoot-to-kill” policy which applies indiscriminately to all caught attempting to enter to safe and sound Ethiopia, as well as the practice of throwing those caught fleeing to the Sudan to rot in Eritrea’s ubiquitous prisons, notorious for their dreadful living conditions, have both failed to halt the Eritrean exodus to near and far places. Nor, for that matter, has EriTV’s interminable portrayal of life in Ethiopia as infernal, succeeded in deterring Eritreans from seeking refuge in Ethiopia. According to official statistics, the number of Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia now stands at 51000, out of which 4000 are soldiers. Mind you, this figure does not include the tens of thousands of other Eritreans who go to incredible lengths to flee to other parts of the world. According to one of the most influential sociologist of the 20^th century, Robert K. Merton, people who live in societies under totalitarian rule are exposed to lack of happiness, life insecurity and haunted by constant feeling of grieve. Consequently, they consider fleeing to a place of refuge as a one and only option left for them. The Government of Eritrea’s wrongful policies have exposed its people to great misery, and the nation, itself, is today separated from the family of civilised and law abiding nations. Today, 36% of Eritrea’s youth suffers from war-related mental illness. Eritrea, itself, has turned into a colossal prison. President Isais places blame for all of Eritrea’s woes on America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and, yes, you guessed it right, good old Ethiopia. The unadulterated truth, however, is that it is none other than the Isais-led Government which is the alpha and omega of Eritrea’s political and socio-economic predicaments.

I don’t like it when all is quiet

Eritrea is a tiny country with a very weak economy and a Government that has failed to transform the quality of life of its people. Yet, however, like a fighting bull, Eritrea enjoys transgressing willy-nilly into the paled turfs of its neighbours. Eritrea had caused havoc to reign in the region by mounting aggressions on all its neighbours, and when that plan goes awry, it resorts to arming opposition groups from neighbouring countries. Today, Asmara is hub to rebel groups from Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad etc. The Government of Eritrea’s actions of recruiting, training and funding foreign opposition groups is not confined to the region. Siere Lanka’s influential daily, “Colombo Times”, once reported that Eritrea had been arming the Tamil Tigers rebel group. Former Lecturer at Asmara University, Mohammed Kiyar Umer, once noted that the Eritrean Government has now become Horn of Africa’s anarchical force. New York Times’ correspondent Jeffrey Gettleman, on his part, emphasized that because Eritrea suffers from chronic warmongering, it now has become a war profiteer nation. Jeffrey claims that President Isaias does not like it when everything in the region turns quiet.

Many keep asking how Eritrea can afford to give support in cash and in kind to foreign rebel groups at a time when its economy is strangulated, when its export sector is virtually non-existent, save its export of chaos and instability, and at a time when the Government continues pressing its already poor farmers to sell their produce at extortionate price only to the state. These, indeed, are the burning questions of our time. One source of income is, of course, the 2% levy imposed on all Eritrean employees – similar to what we, Ethiopians, had to go through during Derg’s “Call of the Motherland Campaign.” The second source of income comes from the booty of its interventionist incursions. Wherever there is commotion and instability, the Eritrean Government springs out of nowhere to cream off ‘dividends.’ Its involvement in the Democratic Congo’s civil war resulted in Eritrea milking away enormous amount of diamond and gold. It is an open secret that the then Eritrean Ambassador to Brussels – and believe it or not to Kinshasa (adios geographia!) - Ande Berhan G. Michael was engaged in the unethical act of stacking the Embassy’s diplomatic pouch with diamonds and gold before dispatching it to Asmara. According to Uganda’s daily, “New Vision,” the Eritrean Government, trading as “Eritrean National Insurance Corporation,” has recruited its intelligence staff and are engaged in exploitative trade in the area. The Indian Ocean Newsletter, on its part, accused the Eritrean Government of debasing its status to a Commission Agent. Furthermore, last year’s statement by the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) accused the |Government of Eritrea of being a proactive proxy to Al Shabab and Hizbul Izlam in Somalia.

The Eritrean Government also plays the role of a courier to a number of nations. Qatar, Libya and Iran use Asmara as conduit to channel all forms of support to foreign opposition groups, for whose loyal and obedient services the State of Eritrea is generously rewarded. In its report to the United Nations, the body monitoring Eritrea’s compliance with UN sanctions, it cited irrevocable evidence to suggests that Eritrea played a pivotal role in delivering support sent to Al Shabab in Somalia. Eritrea’s blatant use of ships and other assets belonging to Tamil Tigers, who had made Asmara their final stronghold in the face of mounting Sierra Lankan Government advance, spurred the Sierra Lankan Government to lodge a protest to the UN at Eritrea’s blatant interference in its internal affairs. The Eritrean Government, while declaring its contempt to the Sierra Lankan protest, nevertheless, refused Sierra Lankan request to open an Embassy in Asmara.

In another development, the recent much hyped Qatari-brokered Peace Agreement between Eritrea and Djibouti, has already encountered big challenges, with Eritrea resorting to its usual ploy of grouping a farrago of Djibouti opposition groups and carrying out sporadic attacks against Djibouti. Yet again, this is proof, if proof were ever wanted, that President Isaias never learns from past mistakes. This Eritrean wayward performance cannot be viewed as being confined to the Government of the State of Eritrea; it is rather, a manifestation of President Isaias’ mercurial temperament. For after all in Eritrea the Government and the opposition are two sides of the same coin or both are personified in the person of the President. Dan Kennel, an expert on Eritrean affairs, once quoted President Isaias as saying: “When I am faced with a challenge, I become adamantine, and I am, by nature, emotive.”

Goliath and David

Currently African conflicts are 3 dimensional. In a paper he presented to Nairobi University’s School of International Studies, a certain Kenyan Officer, Major Emana Ninabuta, cited rivalry for power, the race for natural resources and colonial boundaries-related issues as being the troika of conflicts in the continent. Eritrea, under the pretext of carrying out lines of demarcation, had committed acts of aggressions against Yemen and Ethiopia. While the issue of colonial borders can effectively be addressed in round-table talks, resorting to a frontal armed attack, however, is symptomatic of warmongering. In his “Conflict and Intervention” paper, William Zartman, Professor Emeritus at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University noted: “Though a nation, if it wants, can go to war with another nation as a result of border related issues, it would be beneficial if it were to avoid the temptation of going to war over this very issue.” Eritrea, no doubt, is ill disposed to pay heed to Zartman-like prudent advices. For how else can one explain Eritrea’s phasal aggression on Yemen, Ethiopia and Djibouti over the same border issue?

Djibouti and Eritrea share 110km common border. Over and beyond geographical proximity the two countries enjoy close people-to-people relations. Yet all these shared values meant nothing to President Isais his wayward behaviour had thrice brought the two sides on the precipice of an all out war. In 1995 tensions between Eritrea and Djibouti flared up when Eritrea bombed and then controlled Ras Dumera. Many believed, then, Eritrea inclusion in her map of this part of Djibouti, to be the root cause. Anyway, no other Eritrea-Djibouti confrontation has drawn such wide-spread interest as the one that keeps on unravelling under our eyes.

We all are aware, are we not, that seldom have Eritrea-Djibouti relations enjoyed respite from grave incidents which placed the two states at daggers drawn. It is an open secret that President Isais continues to harbour grudge and resentment against Djibouti for allying with Ethiopia during the Ethio-Eritrean war. Though the then President Hassan Gouled Aptidon of Djibouti had attempted to broker a peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, President Isais had turned down the peaceful overture on the grounds that as far as Eritrea was concerned President Hassan Ghouled did not constitute a neutral arbiter. In an interview with Addis Ababa’s “Efoita” magazine, President Ghouled Aptidon recalled pitifully how at a peace conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina-Faso, and President Isais treated him in a style and manner unbecoming of a Head of State. Soon after this incident, Eritrea recalled her Ambassador to Djibouti. The other action which exacerbated the already confrontational stand of the two states was Djibouti’s refusal to allow entry to the then Secretary General of IGAD, Eritrean Ato Tekeste Gebrai. However, no single issue has been as divisive to the two countries as Djibouti’s willingness for Ethiopia to have access to the Port of Djibouti, for such an arrangement had denied Eritrea of what it continually salivates for: revenue from use of the Port of Assab.

Eritrea had tried hard to woo the United States to open a military base in Eritrea. It had recruited the American lobby firm, Greenberg, at the cost of 50.000 USD per month to the Eritrean exchequer, to woo America’s military strategies to opt in favour of Eritrea, rather than Djibouti. According to Horn of Africa analysts, America was ill disposed to acquiesce to Eritrea’s offer because of two reasons: First, America would not place any trust on President Isaias’ mercurial temperament. Secondly, America knew very well that toying with the idea of closer ties with inconsequential Asmara, could lead to the loss for America of influential Ethiopia. The loss of America’s presence on its soil has, therefore, robbed Eritrea investment opportunities as well as the chance of ring-fencing her peace and security. Although Eritrea and Djibouti did manage to reconcile in 1999, they had not been able to bask in the basics of peaceful co-existence for more than a decade. Two years ago Eritrea mounted an unprovoked aggression on Djibouti, and it was alleged that Eritrean soldiers had occupied the commanding heights of Ras Dumera and its lake. According to Djiboutian, Eritreans first entered Djiboutian territory under the pretext of getting truck loads of sand for road construction, and later refused to leave. This accusation, of course, was flatly denied by Eritrea.

A number of political analysts of the Horn share the view that Ras Dumera must not be viewed as cause for Eritrea’s aggression against Djibouti, but rather the prevailing conditions in Somalia are the more plausible reason. Eritrea feels that she had been stabbed in the back by the fact that Djibouti, along with other nations, had managed to strike a deal between the Transitional Government of Somalia and the dominant wing of Al Shabab led by Sheik Sheriff. This is because the ripple effects of the end of a state of instability in Somalia would have a debilitating effect on terrorist networks from Asmara to Mogadishu.

In a related development, the Government of Eritrea had repeatedly expressed its desire to attack Djibouti in the belief that it would paralyse the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway which serves as Ethiopia’s economic artery. However, because the Ethiopian Government refused to give in to Eritrea’s provocative actions, but had instead kept ploughing ahead with its development program to ground-out abject poverty, Eritrea’s sinister designs failed to materialise. To compare Eritrea with Djibouti militarily, would be like comparing Goliath with David. In its 2004 Report, London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies puts the number of Eritrean soldiers at 200.000 and that of Djibouti at 11.000. Other sources, however, put the number for Eritrea at 300.000. In terms of armaments, aircrafts and naval warship, there is no way that Djibouti could match Eritrea’s might, let alone out flank Eritrea.

Following her unprovoked aggression against and seizure of Djiboutian territory, the Eritrean Government resorted to what it still is good at – turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to calls by IGAD, African Union, Arab League and the United Nations for the restoration of the status quo ante. It instead continued to cover the unadulterated truth by churning out statement after statement denying that its troops had crossed over the Eritrean-Djibouti border, and blaming Eritrea’s enemies for the dissemination of a fabricated story. An article entitled “Eritrea’s stand vis-à-vis its relations with Djibouti,” and posted on Ethio-Journal website carried a letter Eritrea addressed to the United Nation’s Security Council categorically denying that there exists no border issue between the two countries. And now, out of the blue it announced that following a peace deal brokered by Qatar it had withdrawn its troops from Djiboutian territory. By agreeing to pay compensation to Djibouti, Eritrea had in effect acknowledged that it had committed an unprovoked aggression against Djibouti. It even did not wait for the outcome of a Compensation Commission, like it did with Ethiopia. What you notice here, then, is that in the real world of the President of Eritrea, there exists no such value as principle. As far as the Government of Eritrea is concerned, therefore, mendacious behaviour is most welcome as long as removes the day’s obstacle.

There are those who view Eritrea’s decision to strike a deal with Djibouti as a response to UN Security Council Resolution No 1907 which placed travel ban on Eritrean civilian and military officials, and financial embargo on all Eritrean companies with links to the ruling party. The impact of the UN embargo has effectively reduced Eritrea into a pariah state. As the UN embargo on Eritrea was a punitive action against Eritrea’s continued occupation of sovereign Djiboutian territory, against Eritrea’s support to terrorist groups in Somalia and against Eritrea turning a source of instability in the Horn of Africa, the Government is closing the Djibouti dossier by creating an enabling environment for the speedy removal of the UN embargo.

The main features of the 7-point plan Agreement reached by Eritrea and Djibouti in Gordofa include: withdrawal of Eritrean troops, the stationing of a Qatari Peace-keeping Force until a final decision on the claim for the territory is made, the exchange of list of POWs and of those missing and for border delineation work to be carried out by a company, namely, Global Company. The content of the Agreement, however, raises justifiable questions. Nobody knows for sure whether the owner of this company is the Amir of Qatar. How can a border demarcation agreement brought about by a commercial company be regarded as valid and binding? Why is it that they decided to avoid going through the conventional route for such purposes: the International Court of Justice at The Hague? Why is it that the Eritrean Government refrained from making public the alleged signing of the Peace Agreement to its own people? Why is it that none of Eritrea’s media outlets has made any mention about the Agreement? This, in particular spurs us to raise further pertinent question. Why did Al Jezzera, deemed it proper to give full coverage on the far less important news item of talks with Darfur rebels and eschew all together the Eritrea-Djibouti Agreement?

Many commentators of the Horn of Africa agree that the essence of time has everything to do behind the Djibouti Government’s desire to opt for a short-cut approach. Going for the long haul was deemed time consuming, and would not appeal to Djibouti’s desire for quick fix solution. This explains why President Guelleh of Djibouti sought the good offices of the Government of the State of Qatar to broker peace with Eritrea. In addition, you have Eritrea indulging in its usual preoccupation of aiding and abetting Djibouti’s rebel group, “Ferud,” and mounting attacks against Djiboutian targets in northern Djibouti. A former business partner of Djibouti’s first lady, Kadra Mohamed, multi-millionaire, Abdurrahman Bore, has been hand picked by Isaias to cobble together a coalition of anti-President Gulleh rebel forces. Abdurrahman Bore has now made Asmara his favourite hang out. Furthermore, given the fact that President Gulleh is about to amend the constitution to enable him run for a third term of office, it is understandable that he wants to get this conflict with Eritrea over and done with as speedily as possible. Above all, however, it is Qatari’s proactive diplomacy which had played a pivotal role both in terms of bringing the two sides together, and in terms of resetting its foreign relations button with Eritrea so that other states’ policy of removing Eritrea’s ostracism is effectively implemented.

Pecuniary diplomacy

Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, played an indispensable role in brokering agreement between Eritrea and Djibouti. Glance at the history of Qatari foreign policy and you will quickly find why this is so. Qatar is renowned for its efforts at bringing warring factions to round-table talks. In 2007 it managed to strike a deal among embattled Lebanese politicians. It had brokered peace: between the Yemeni Government and Houthi rebels, between the Government of the Sudan and Darfur rebels and between Chad and the Sudan. It had also succeeded in securing the release of Bulgarian doctors sentenced to prison terms in Libya for alleged conspiracy of infecting Libyan children with the HIV/AIDS virus. According to Political Science Researcher, Paul Rockwar, in the confrontational world of Middle-East politics, the State of Qatar has succeeded in putting in place an invisible thin line of diplomacy that strecthes from America to Israel to Syria to Iran and even to Hizbullah. Today Qatar’s capital has become the “Camp David of the Middle East.”

Though the main aim and goal of Qatar’s Foreign policy stipulates the implementation of the goal of the Gulf States Cooperation Council as well as to work toward conflict resolution throughout the world, the reality is that all depends on the gracious whim of its Emir, His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Emir. In Qatar the Emir himself is the fulcrum of the nation’s foreign affairs, as well as its bilateral/multi-lateral relations.

Though Qatar’s population is said to be 1.6 million, the number of indigenous Qataris is no more than half a million. As all the needs – as well as worldly dream - of Quataris have been properly met, Qatar is awash with petro-gas dollar that it can afford to spend impulsively. Such a robust financial profile has today allowed Qatar to out flank Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the area of international diplomacy. Political commentator, Allen Hendrickson, says that Qatar promotes a public diplomacy strategy whose core values includes the enhancing of the profiles of small and medium counties with undependable military capacity. Moreover, it offers pecuniary reward to woo warring factions to enter into a negotiated settlement. It is widely believed that Qatar’s “Check-book Diplomacy” rewarded 44million USD to Lebanon’s politicians, and 60 million USD to 30 rebels from Darfur. What about Eritrea and Djibouti? While this is an issue that would unravel itself in the fullness of time, the fact that the two leaders have, so far, accepted the Qatari’s peaceful overtures does not, and cannot, reflect a done and dusted state of affairs.

Visiting Assistant Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Doha, Mark Farha, says that Qatar is eager to be viewed by the international community as a role model in public education, in media and in sport. Al Jezzera, then, is an arm of its public diplomacy campaign. Qatar did not even find it difficult to have her influence felt in the western world. It has added London’s most prestigious department store, Harrods, to its bulging international portfolios by buying it off from Egyptian billionaire, Mohammed Al Fayed. It has a sizeable share in London’s Tower due to be inaugurated in 2011. It has earmarked 70 billion USD for the realization of its robust public diplomacy. Mind you Qatar has already let its interest to host FIFA 2020 be known to the world. That’s money talks Qatari-style for you!

Can you choose your neighbour?

In its short history as an independent state, Eritrea has found itself wallowing in a vicious cycle of political turmoil, shrinkage of the economy and diplomatic ostracism. Over the last 15 years, Eritrea has always been the aggressor, and not the victim of aggression. Djibouti is the victim of Eritrea’s last aggression. Although UN Security Council Resolution No 1862 – prior to the passing of Security Council resolution No1907 – called Eritrea to withdraw her troops from Djiboutian territory, Eritrea refused to comply. And when UN imposed an embargo, Eritrea was witnessed leaving no stone unturned to hoodwink its citizens at home and abroad with the preposterous notion that the embargo was an attack on its sovereignty.

The whole world is now aware that through the Qatari-brokered peace process Eritrea has implicitly accepted that it had mounted an aggression against Djibouti, and the whole world supports the Agreement between the two states. African Union Commissioner, Jean Ping, expressed his wish that the Doha Agreement will have a favourable impact on efforts to solve bilateral conflicts. Many say that Ping was referring to the ongoing rift, not to say state of belligerency, which exists between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea. I believe no sane person or responsible government would be unhappy, if Ethiopia and Eritrea jointly arrive at a peaceful solution. I also believe that the peaceful resolution of the Eritrea-Djibouti conflict constitutes a plus and not a minus to the national interest of Ethiopia. However, as I tried to indicate on above paragraphs, we must not lose sight of the fact that there remain a number of relevant questions of transparency which the Agreement has intentionally or unintentionally avoided to include. Furthermore, because the State of Eritrea has demonstrated utter contempt to the United Nations and to the Algiers Agreement by expelling troops belonging to the United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and occupying the buffer zone, it is imperative that the international community get squarely behind the continuation of the UN embargo. In order for peace and stability to prevail in the Horn of Africa, including in Djibouti, it is imperative for Eritrea to reset its foreign policy button. Pennsylvania University’s researcher, Kidane Megisteab, argues that Eritrea’s foreign policy has never been properly researched, and is, therefore, on the wrong track. That is why we need to be chary over the recently signed Agreement between Eritrea and Djibouti. Signing an Agreement is one thing, implementing it quite another. On the other hand, according to Sally Hilly, researcher at London’s influential Chatham House, the epicentre of Eritrea’s foreign policy is Ethiopia. As a direct result of this misconceived policy of Eritrea, neighbouring states have been unable to remove the fear of instability from their respective countries. While it is possible to choose friends, then, it is impossible for nations to choose their neighbours. That is why it behoves us right to continue to plough ahead on the path of peace and development.