“Putting the Cart Before the Horse”
A Belated Critical Account to Getachew’s Article Titled “Towards a Policy of Engagement with Eritrea”

Adal Isaw    adalisaw@yahoo.com

October 10, 2010

In his article titled “Towards a Policy of Engagement with Eritrea” on Aiga Forum, Getachew Mequanent (Ph.D.) argues for a change in Ethiopia’s foreign policy towards Eritrea for the following three reasons:

I. “The Ethiopian government policy towards Eritrea has been influenced by the behaviour of the government in Asmara...”

II. “...the [Ethiopian] government has openly supported warring Eritrean opposition groups that are vying to overthrow the regime in Asmara. The risk associated with this policy is that it may not prevent the total collapse of the Eritrean state...”

III.“The downfall of Issayas could result in... the emergence of powerful military lords who will fight to protect their economic and power turf...a horrific situation more like that of Somalia. Al-Qaida could enter lowland Eritrea and Ethiopia will be faced with another security threat from the North.”

This said article is a composition of ordinary remarks for what is a nauseating foreign policy concern that pervades the body politics of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Yemen, the international community and others’. Subjectively based and without a substantive data and a detailed objective analysis to support any of the arguments raised, Getachew assumes in great length to draw a grandiose presumption about ‘Ethiopia’s risky policy’ towards Eritrea.

I. The Ethiopian government policy towards Eritrea has not been influenced by the behavior of the one-man government in Asmara; in fact quite to the contrary. To elaborate on this pertinent point, it is a must we should first and foremost look into political views that are shaping the behavior of the one-man government of Eritrea. For example, a peculiarly propagated political view continues to shape the behavior of the one-man government in Asmara, and, there is no doubt that this peculiarly propagated political view has given life to the status quo--the current international relation between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The one-man government of Eritrea equates the deeds of the governments of King Haileselassie, Mengistu Hailemariam and the current government of Ethiopia with one of the most notorious and allegedly genocidal episodes of France’s 130-year rule in Algeria. Governments of Ethiopia have never mimicked France’s by any stretch of the imagination or by way of any empirical data. Ethiopia’s governments contrary to what France’s did to Algerians have paid much more than they needed to appease, accommodate and soothe their Eritrean cousins. Nevertheless, the propaganda of demonizing Ethiopia with sharp and harsh political brush by the one-man regime in Asmara continues to this date.

Although it is a laughable presumption, demonizing Ethiopia as barbaric colonizer of Eritrea has been the front and center political propaganda of the endeavor to secede Eritrea from Ethiopia. This front and center political propaganda is still the mind-set of the one-man government of Eritrea and many of its cohorts. This very mind-set in turn dictates the nature of the relationship that the one-man government of Eritrea forges with Ethiopia, and, there is a reason as to why it is so.

For an Eritrean identity to exist, the kind the one-man government of Eritrea coins, the difference between what is Eritrean and what is not should also exist. Moreover, if the new Eritrean identity is to exist, all of its tangible similarities with another identity that pose the greatest threat to the integrity and viability of the new Eritrean identity should be demonized. This is precisely the reason why, that for more than half a century and counting, Ethiopia and Ethiopians have been demonized by Isayas Afewerki and company—to purposely disfigure and annihilate from existence—the life of any similarity that may exist between Eritreans and Ethiopians. Therefore, to suggest a cakewalk diplomacy with the one-man government of Eritrea amid a web of convoluted reasoning for hate, much like what Getachew is suggesting, is at best naive and at worst not knowing what should come first. It is like “putting the cart before the horse.”

Furthermore, the reaction by the current Ethiopian government and Ethiopians against this web of convoluted reasoning for hate has been apathy, utter disbelief and now an open hand to help the needy from among our cousins. This is in direct contrast to what Getachew is alleging in his article. That is; neither the policy of the Ethiopian government nor the reaction of the Ethiopian people is shaped by the behavior of the one-man government in Asmara.

The Ethiopian government did not rush to unleash its killing machines merely because the one-man government in Asmara crossed Ethiopia’s borders. Contrary to Getachew’s claim of being influenced by Asmara’s behavior and instead of falling for a knee-jerk reaction, the Ethiopian government pleaded and literally begged to resolve Eritrea’s aggression peacefully. The Ethiopian government accepted the US/Rwanda four points peace plan that called for the withdrawal of both forces to pre-June 1998 positions. The one-man government in Asmara in contrast firmly rejected the four points peace plan. Thereafter and through out the life of Ethiopia’s contentious relation with the one-man government of Eritrea, the Ethiopian government policy towards Eritrea has never been influenced by the behavior of the government in Asmara. Had it been the case, the Ethiopian government would have mimicked Asmara pound per pound and found itself on the verge of being labeled a terror-abetting state much like the one-man government of Eritrea.

II. The difference between the government of Ethiopia and the one-man government of Eritrea is immense. The Ethiopian government is a democratically elected peoples’ government and the one-man government of Eritrea is obviously not. The Ethiopian government is a proven quantity of law-abiding democratic government and the one-man government of Eritrea is a dictatorial rogue state. Rationally then, Getachew should have stood in defense of a law-abiding democratic government that works for the betterment of its people and many others in a region that we call the Horn of Africa. Instead, he argues in favor of keeping a rogue dictatorial one-man government in Asmara for fear what its demise brings forth. To support his fear, Getachew alleges that “...the [Ethiopian] government has openly supported warring Eritrean opposition groups that are vying to overthrow the regime in Asmara.” Getachew makes this allegation the bases of his fear, and as a result, he is eager to prevent the demise of the one-man regime of Eritrea in Asmara. In doing so, Getachew only equates the demise of Isayas Afewerki with security concerns of Ethiopia but not with any other conceivable changes for the better.

Furthermore, fearful of a singular pessimistic outcome, Getachew overlooks the legitimate struggle of the Eritrean people to mischaracterize Ethiopia’s familial support as transgression. In fact, he modestly prosecutes his own country asserting that “...many Ethiopian ruling party and government officials still remain clinging to the past. Some may even have an interest in re-taking Assab when the situation permits...[and]... all this is counterproductive in 21st century diplomacy. Eritrea is a sovereign country with a UN membership. A country like Ethiopia that hosts regional and international organizations on its soil must respect international laws.” Getachew seems to be ahead of the international body in The Hague. And in the mist of it all, he fails to see that a narrowly tailored familial support for a legitimate cause is not a political gesture unique to the Ethiopian government nor is it a transgression of international law.

III. Sooner or later, nothing will prevent the demise of the one-man government in Asmara. The one-man government will inevitably fall and there is no evidence to suggest that “[t]he downfall of Issayas could result in... the emergence of powerful military lords who will fight to protect their economic and power turf...like that of Somalia.” Equally, there is no evidence to suggest that Al-Qaida may introduce itself to lowland Eritrea if the one-man government in Asmara is to crumble tomorrow morning. Analyzing a possible outcome in post-Isayas Eritrea should not be a guesswork since it strictly requires research of the detailed kind with veritable data or evidence. However, Getachew’s piece speculates the worst in Eritrea based on pure runaway assumptions rather than on researched veritable facts.

To conclude, here is a summary review of Getachew's article. Getachew fails from the get-go to explain the main reason(s) that gave life to the status quo--the current international relation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. He literally ignores the peace-depriving role that the one-man regime of Eritrea has played so far and leapfrogs to suggest remedies for all the troubles that the one-man regime is responsible for. Getachew asks the Ethiopian government to adopt cessation of hostilities while leaving the hostile party out of the picture; he asks for resumption of trade knowing quite well how life-saving it is to the belligerent one-man regime in Asmara; he asks for peace and reconciliation not knowing quite well what should come first--the end of a convoluted web of hate that the one-man regime harbors; Getachew casually asks for discussion on border demarcation, knowing quite well how complex an enterprise border demarcation is in post-colonial Africa; and to tap it of with something unfathomable, Getachew asks the Ethiopian government to cooperate with terror-abetting one-man government of Eritrea, knowing quite well that the source of almost all security concerns of the Horn and beyond is Isayas Afewerki and company.

If peace has to prevail in Eritrea and beyond, the one-man government has to change or a change in government by the choice of the Eritrean people has to take place. To keep a peace-depriving and terror-abetting one-man government for fear of anarchy is conversely tantamount to get rid of a peoples’ government for fear of democracy. And needless to say it’s a logical deduction on its head that puts the cart before the horse.