NOT AGAIN

By Haimanot Alemu

(a private citizen)

I put pen to paper as an ordinary citizen because of the indignation I feel as a result of the recent invasion of Ethiopian territory by the Eritrean regime and the response, or lack of it, of the international community. I felt the same kind of indignation when the troops of Siad Barre penetrated 700 kilometers into Ethiopian territory during the Ogaden war. We were then refused arms we had paid for because of the Dergue's human rights record. A frustrated Ethiopian government turned to the Russians for help and the rest, as they say, was

history. What is happening today regarding the invasion in the northern part of Ethiopia takes us back to a time in our history sixty-two years ago.It was 1936 Fascist Italy had invaded Ethiopia with modern tanks and cannons against old rifles, shields and spears, with complete disregard for existing international bans against innocent civilians. It was bad enough for ordinary Ethiopians to experiencing the strange metallic flying birds in the sky; the fire that rained from these strange birds was terror of unparalleled magnitude.

Ethiopia's Emperor Haile Selassie, a diminutive figure in traditional garb, did not cut much of an impressive figure at the League of Nations against Mussolini's might. The Emperor pleaded in vain with the League members in what has become a famous speech, considered prophetic by some, since it was about a relatively small incident in a small corner of Africa that foreshadowed the bigger doom just ahead.

The measure proposed to the League was the imposition of an oil embargo against Italy, similar to the UN embargoes of today, imposed to temper troublemakers of the international community. The proposal was rejected and Haile Selassie was booed off the stage in Geneva. The preferred choice of the superpowers then was to appease Fascist Italy. Instead, an arms embargo was imposed on both sides - a sarcastic slap in the face of justice. That historic failure become one of the causes for the League's demise and the outbreak of the Second World War.

Today it seems, a similar scenario is unfolding with the little dictator to our north. A former friend turned foe invades our territory with flagrant violations of international law. Once again, the international community seems poised at a historic juncture and is asked once again to condemn the blatant aggression and respond with firmness. If this unruly behavior is left unchecked, it is the fear of many experts that it will result in instability in the region and a dangerous precedent with ramifications for the whole continent. Are those who claim to stand for international law and collective security  once again betraying us? Not again.

The little dictator to our north is of course no Mussolini, but his  atrocities are similar in nature. The mustard gas has been replaced with cluster bombs but the victims are the same - innocent civilians, children in schoolrooms, and their mothers who had come to save their children form the massacre. And this from our former friends in the Eritrean government, who had waged battles with us to topple a ruthless dictator and to whom we stretched out our arms in friendship so that we could together reconstruct our war-torn economies. All things considered, Ethiopia's support to Eritrea was downright exemplary. Once again, we have been betrayed by those we considered our friends and whose right to self-determination we so nobly supported.

Now to add insult to injury, some in the west, who seem to have succumbed to the Eritrean government's deliberate misinformation campaign, are trying to give credence to the idea of negotiation before a withdrawal from Ethiopia's territories. One cannot help drawing a parallel here. If the territories that were occupied by an invading neighboring force were a part of Britain or the United States, this argument would never have been raised. But double standards always prevail, when it comes to small and poor developing countries don't they? Here is what we ordinary Ethiopian citizens feel about this ludicrous idea of negotiation before withdrawal by the Eritrean government's invading forces.

The whole idea of negotiation before withdrawal is, first and foremost, a biased idea held by those who consider sovereignty and territorial integrity as a luxury reserved for the rich and powerful of the world. As I have tried to indicate earlier, let me put it again inn perspective. Would the United States government agree to such a proposal if Mexico occupied parts of the state of New Mexico or Canada occupied parts of Minnesota? Or are small, poor countries put on a different scale from those big, prosperous ones? Is sovereignty a luxury reserved for the very few or a universal right of all independent states?

This ludicrous idea of negotiation before the status quo ante is re-established also smells of racism when a small, black African country is not given the same considerations, with regards to international laws and conventions, as any big developed industrialized country in the rest of our world. No doubt the campaign

of misinformation of the Eritrean government has done its work, since they were well prepared in advance for their invasion and the necessary PR that needs to be done in conjunction. Invade Ethiopian territory and then cry wolf to the international community. Kick out all NGOs from Eritrea, since they could be sources of information regarding the situation, and restrict access to journalists and human rights groups who would dig for the truth.

Those who are able to enter Eritrea and report seem to have been carefully selected to assure partiality. I am reminded of some of the BBC reports out of Eritrea, which concluded with a statement from the Eritrean President about Eritrea's desire for peace. The David and Goliath strategy the Eritrean government utilized in the public relations arena seems to have worked for them, at least for now. They are the invaders and yet they scream to the international community that 'big' Ethiopia is going to swallow 'small' Eritrea, the new fledgling independent country struggling to reconstruct her war-torn economy.

The question regarding the conflict concerns also the relationship between two sovereign states. This relationship between States is governed by international law. As we ordinary citizens understand it, when one state invades and occupies the territory of another sovereign state, the instruments of international law that govern such relations between states is invoked and international organizations we have established - like the UN or OAU - are brought in to apply pressure or take steps to ensure civilized behavior. Diplomatic and legal means,

including the use of force, are applied to bring the matter to some sane and reasonable solutions. We have seen this being applied in solving the conflict between Eritrea and Yemen regarding the Hannish Islands. We have also seen the international community act with resolve during Desert Storm, a multi-national operation to rescue Kuwait from the jaws of Saddam Hussein. We thought, maybe naively, that those very principles, for which we all stand in the international community, apply equally to big and small in the face of aggression. Or don't they?

And we know from the Mussolini experience that appeasing dictators does not work. What happens if the aggressor is appeased, by turning a  blind eye to the invasion and brutality, would that solve the problem? How much is enough? I am reminded of the classic play by Bertolt Brecht entitled "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui" about a small hoodlum in Chicago of the 1930s, who went around offering business owners protection against the violence he unleashes himself. Those who did not buy his protection soon saw their shops burned to the ground.

Everyone in the community thought the little gangster seemed so harmless and resistible. Soon no one in the community could exist without buying protection from the little gangster that everyone underestimated but who later became the terror of the city. It was a play written by Brecht to symbolically show the resistible rise of the little corporal in the German army whose actions led to a World War that claimed fifty million lives and brought about the Holocaust that sent millions of innocent Jews to the concentration camps. The message was clear then and it is now - nothing can be gotten from appeasing a ruthless dictator. His type of aggression and violence merely breeds more violence and flagrant aggression.

The other matter of no less import regards the responsibilities bear to their citizens, the very citizens who put them in power. Any government has the responsibility to respond when harm comes to its citizens, particular harm that is committed in aggression. It is what all democratic governments swear to uphold - the laws of the land and the welfare of its peoples. This is a sacred responsibility which governments elected to office must uphold. The Ethiopian government has the responsibility to uphold the interest of its citizens in those territories that are now occupied. Because of this wanton aggression, people's lives have been turned upside down, their homes have been burned to the ground and thousands of them dislocated and forced to flee the land they called theirs. Their lives are not pawns to be thrown on the negotiation table by any government, especially theirs.

The most important reason of all for not negotiating before withdrawal is the lives of these ordinary citizens who lived in Badme, Sheraro, Adi-Awala and Adi Hageray. The lives of over ninety thousand people  whose lives have been turned into a living hell because of the Eritrean government's wanton aggression. Over 150,000 displaced from occupied territories alone, half of them out of reach of any kind of assistance. These people were far away from the centers of power and diplomacy. Far away from the hustle and bustle of big cities. But these were ordinary citizens, men and women, children and older farmers who continued to live their modest lives in a perpetual struggle to earn a living and support their families. Don't these people have any rights, are they not human beings endowed with everything that their creator has given them? When we are asked to put their lives on the table for these lofty negotiations of the politicians, do we have the right to do so? Who has the right to negotiate away their birthrights to the land they call home? Who is the one to say that these ordinary people who call Badme home do not have the right to tell their government, or any other power, that their lives are not up for negotiation.

In the end, I feel confident that the international community will come to its senses and realize the truth about the border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. They know in their hearts that the frustrated Eritrean government is the aggressor. So far, the response from the international community has been disgraceful - a slap in the face of justice. The peoples of both Ethiopia and Eritrea cry out for peace because they both realize the horrors and ugliness of war. Both peoples also know the sacred blood-bond between us that is an important part of both our identities. We are living in a world that is becoming more democratized and where dictatorships are finding less and less space to exist where they are tolerated for a long period. This commitment to peace and democracy is being tested now in a small corner of our continent. I hope that we are not forced to learn the lessons in 1998 that we, a community of nations, failed to learn from that fateful day at the League of Nations in 1936.