People’s Diplomacy Can Stop War
 between Ethiopia and Eritrea (Part 2)

This Essay is dedicated to the hero and democrat Abdella Nasser

Introductory Remarks

The Pillars of People’s Diplomacy

Let us explore two aspects of people’s diplomacy in Eritrea. The internal aspect of people’s diplomacy is born from the desire of the Eritrean people to live together in unity and internal peace. The dynamics of this desire is expressed in the debate surrounding the draft constitution. The external aspect of people’s diplomacy emerges from the need to live in peace and cooperation with our neighbours. The internal aspect of people’s diplomacy can be resolved by establishing constitutional pluralism, while the external aspect focuses on partaking in a collective project of avoiding armed conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In a situation of extreme tension, where regular diplomatic channels have collapsed (as in the case of these two neighbours), the people may act, en masse in a demonstrative form or other forms of protest associated with social revolution - for the purpose of avoiding an impending catastrophe. When such a context obtains it can be said that the conditions for people’s diplomacy have attained relevance.

1. The Internal Aspect of People’s Diplomacy

1a. Unity of Vision and Vision of Unity

The Adi Strategy represents a unity of vision on all central issues that are important for retrieving Eritrean rights and Eritrean nationhood. At the centre of these rights are the land and cultural questions. At the same time, the Adi Strategy advocates a vision of unity that is represented in a constitution - ratified by an elected parliament. The Eritrean Congress Party appreciates the propagation of the principles that are etched in its program and the hearts of the Eritrean people: ‘Spread the Word but do not pilfer’, is our motto. We take issue with parties that plagiarize our program without making reference to it.

1b. Weaving a Unity of Vision

The Adi Strategy pointed out a fact that was not perceived by the post-federal generations for its significance to the task of weaving a unity of vision:

“Modern Eritrean political and constitutional history confirms that the struggle for liberation was based on a national commitment to build an independent, sovereign, and unitary Eritrea. Every child knows that the Moslem League and the Unionist Party had diametrically opposed views on the question of the self-determination of Eritrea: the League advocated independence, while the Unionists pressed for union with Ethiopia. Not many are, however, familiar with the fact that these competing political forces concurred on the question of the indivisibility of Eritrea and the Eritrean people. The struggle for liberation was a continuation of the credo that the people, the land, the sea, air, and the state of Eritrea are indivisible. The blunders of the dictatorship, and the weaknesses of the draft constitution, do not justify the parceling out of the territory, resources, and institutions, of our country: the solution to the demands of Biher, religion, and language lies in political and constitutional adjustments based on our history.”

1c. The Land Question as a Central Element of the Unity of Vision

On the land question the Adi Strategy holds that “Eritrean economics shall be based on the principle of private ownership. The revised constitution must include the following principles explicitly:

·        Land belongs to the Adis

·        Land shall be distributed among the inhabitants of the Adis for farming and residential purposes

·        The government’s role on the Land Question is limited to the correction of the injustices that haves been inflicted (by successive colonial powers and the PFDJ) upon large sectors of our population.”

1d. The Cultural Question as a Key Component of the Unity of Vision

The Adi Strategy states further: “Of the many weaknesses of the draft constitution the confusion between the rights of the individual citizen versus nationality is the most serious. Democratic constitutions are based on individual citizenship; whereas, communist constitutions, such as the Chinese constitution, are based on the collective principles such as class and nationality. In democratic constitutions minorities are protected both as individuals and as groups. The draft constitution combines these irreconcilable constitutional traditions: the provision that the languages of all the nationalities of Eritrea are equal is a collectivist approach to constitution-making. This aspect of the draft constitution gave impetus to the distortions of the national question and internal federalism.”

1e. The Draft Constitution as a Hurdle to the Vision of Unity

The Adi Strategy expounded,

“The draft constitution has been at the centre of the Eritrean democratic debate for two major reasons: the first reason is related to the question of participation in the process of constitution-making, while the second reason is associated with the inherent weaknesses of the constitution. There are certain national issues whose result is binding on us irrespective of our level of participation: a good illustration of this observation is the UN administered referendum that resulted in Eritrean independence and sovereignty. Not all the Eritrean liberation organisations participated in the referendum; nevertheless, all members of these liberation organisations welcomed the independence of the country for which they fought valiantly.

Here, we are faced with the situation where, on the one hand, the opposition forces were not in a position to participate in the constitution making process, while on the other, it may be argued that a majority of the Eritrean people participated in that very process. In both cases the dictatorship’s aim was the marginalisation of the opposition forces from mainstream Eritrean politics; the tactics of the PFDJ not withstanding, we remain entangled in this complex dilemma. Once again the indivisibility of the sovereignty of our people, and the continuity of the institutions of sovereignty, make it incumbent upon us not to reject the draft constitution off-hand. The above observation does not signify that the draft constitution should be accepted warts and all; in fact, its weaknesses are so glaring that the instrumentality of amendment alone may not suffice to redress the inflicted damage. Simply put: the draft constitution must be revised.”

1f. ‘Ratification’: a Hurdle to the Vision of Unity

On the question of ratification the Adi Strategy postulated: “The draft constitution was approved by the dictator’s assembly; to claim that it was ‘ratified’ amounts to accepting Issayas’s dictatorship as legitimate.” The Eritrean constitution was Issayas’ project and nobody else’s. He set the parameters and the objectives of the constitution as he also appointed the members of the commission. It may be added, that the posts that the members of the commission held were granted by Issayas. The commission for the drafting of the constitution did not include the instrumentalities of party and election laws; after all, the entire exercise was designed to adduce constitutional legitimacy on the person of the dictator. Asmara witnessed theatrical fan-fares surrounding the ‘ratification’ of the constitution; strangely enough, Issayas was weary of this game of make-believe: That is why the declaration of Election 2001 was, subsequently, accompanied by party and election laws. By this act the dictator admitted that the draft constitution was approved but not ratified; far more seriously, he also admitted (by his action) that a document without stipulations that regulate party building and democratic elections could not be considered a full-fledged constitution.

2. The External Aspect of Peoples Diplomacy

2a. People’s Diplomacy as a Fire Escape

Is there a strategic relationship between the Ethiopian and Eritrean states?  Judging by the history of conflict between these neighbours a claim of this magnitude can hardly be made. Is there a strategic relationship between the Ethiopian state and the Eritrean opposition? No. Such a relationship would assume that the Eritrean opposition has attained international recognition. Is there a strategic relationship between the Ethiopian ruling party and the Eritrean opposition? No. The relationship between a ruling party and opposition forces is often based upon good behaviour and utility. Is there a strategic relationship between the Ethiopian and Eritrean people? Yes! Even in a situation of war, we assert that there is a strategic relationship between these two fraternal peoples - despite temporary disturbances in their relationship. People’s diplomacy can contribute to the stabilization of political tremors as it can normalize abnormal relations. It can also be safely asserted that in circumstances where there is good will between these two neighbourly peoples the possibility of fostering strategic relation between their respective states may be available in the future.

2b. The Eritrean View of the Conflict

The Eritrean regime sees the conflict as a matter of accepting the decisions of the border commission, and marking the international border between the two neighbors on the ground.

2c. The Ethiopian View of the Conflict

The Ethiopian government sees the conflict as matter of sovereignty and requires that certain adjustments be made to the decisions of the border commission - via negotiations - in order to remove the causes of future tensions.

2d. International Arbitration versus Face- to-Face Negotiations

The boundary question took its present form because both Eritrea and Ethiopia decided to submit the border dispute to international arbitration. An alternative course could have been eyeball-to-eyeball negotiations between these two neighbors. An agreement reached via this diplomatic method could have been presented to the relevant UN bodies for international legitimation. This type of negotiation, if successful, is known to lead to a reasonably stable peace, while decisions reached by international bodies tend to lead to the argument: “you accepted the conditions of the game willingly, now you need to accept the results”.

The peace plan of the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Mr. Meles Zenawi, is to be commended because it rejects war in favor of negotiations, and accepts the decisions of the Border Commission - in principle - leading to mutual corrections of sticky issues.

The question is: with whom is the Five Point Plan to be negotiated? With Afewerki? Even if it is argued that the Eritrean dictator is willing to accept the Ethiopian offer, it is doubtful that the results would secure a peaceful future. Preliminary negotiations may be made with genuine representatives of Eritreans living outside Eritrea; after all, approximately half of the Eritrean people live abroad. The first step towards this objective may be to help establish a caretaker Eritrean government (in exile). Such a government supported by the Sana’a Forum and the IGAD may show surprising results. The questions that have not been addressed are: i) In view of the debacle of the Kidan, how should the opposition forces be re-organized? ii) What are the steps necessary for the establishment of an Eritrean caretaker government in exile? We hope that these themes would be taken up at a conference in the near future.

Herui Tedla Bairu

The Eritrean Congress Party (Strategy Adi)

2007-04-30/Stockholm