As far as democracy and civic responsibility is
concerned, the Diaspora petition on the Ethiopia-Sudan border issue is a
legitimate action, although the petition document could have used a language
that is more diplomatic. However, the petition has been taken up by
“nothing-to-do” Diaspora opposition groups and this perhaps making it appear if
it had been prepared for political consumption in the first place. I tend to
think that an independent group prepared the petition. Nonetheless, if Diaspora
opposition groups are thinking about political leverage out of this petition,
perhaps they shouldn’t waste their time and resources. Gondar ain’t your
mama’s fool no more.
There is one thing that we can all agree on. This is
that the Ethiopia-Sudan border areas have remained in a state of turmoil for
decades: refugees movements; flow in and out of contra band goods; movements of
armed groups; a network of thieves stretching as far as Bahir Dar (to steal and
transport cattle to Sudan); cutting trees (mainly by Sudanese); and so on. The
main victims are nomads, called ruthanas, who graze their cattle along
the undefended border. Continuously harassed by armed groups, these nomads
would retreated deep into the Sudanese heartland. It was therefore essential
that governmental bodies continue to work on border security, economic
development and, more importantly, address Sudan’s land claim.
Turning to the Sudanese land claim (the source of
current controversy), to my knowledge, the contested areas lie behind (the
Sudanese side) of the so-called Gwen line or the border presumably demarcated
by a British colonial officer, with both Sudanese and Ethiopians claiming
ownership. In my own version of things, the Sudanese want to stick to the Gwen
line, while the Ethiopians say that they “don’t know” where the Gwen line is
and they aren’t even sure if it is correct. Legal experts always find it
difficult to deal with international border issues, in large part because they
were created during colonialism and have no logic. It becomes more difficult in
our situation here where we have so far found no credible source to verify what
was negotiated except information from the Sudanese media indicating that Sudanese
farmers would get their land back. We need to find out the basis on which this
decision was made before rushing to accuse the EPRDF government of giving up
land to Sudan. No government gives up its territory unless there are
circumstances beyond its control, such as a lack of capacity to defend it.
In terms of strategic thinking, it is important to
recognize the importance of peaceful co-existence between the peoples of
Ethiopia and Sudan. Previously these neighbouring countries pursued destructive
foreign policies towards each other, by hosting and encouraging proxy wars from
their soils. Today they seriously talk about commercial and cultural relations.
Ethiopian farmers are benefiting from new market opportunities in Sudan, which
also helps to earn hard currency needed to pay for imports. Aggressive
diplomacy and war mongering jeopardizes this relationship. I believe it was the then German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl who reassured his neighbouring countries, after the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, that Germany would not seek to regain territories lost during the
Second World War. Why would the Germans want to get in conflict with their
neighbours while market forces drew European nations ever together, resulting
in the creation of a common European citizenship? Smart diplomacy! Yet, again,
should the Sudanese try to take advantage of their good relations with Ethiopia
(and their newly acquired oil power) to pursue an agenda of aggressive land
claims, then they should be told not to push their luck too much.
The other issue is openness and transparency. The
Ethiopian government has not kept Ethiopians informed, compared to the Sudanese
government, as we saw in the Sudanese media. Is the story about the burning of
farms and arrest of Ethiopians farmers true? Did Ethiopian federal and regional
authorities keep silent knowing that this has happened? If these stories are
true, then we all will be thrown into a suspicion that there is something
fishy, something that is not right in the handling of this border issue. We
want the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry to fully explain what exactly has happened
in Gondar-Sudan border areas.
Finally, those Diaspora petitioners could move
forward with this issue by reaching out and dialoguing with Sudanese and
Ethiopian decision-makers. Otherwise their effort will end up achieving nothing
more than the arousal of political interest in the Diaspora, temporarily.
Getachew Mequanent
Ottawa, Canada
May 2008