EU Presidency’s Ethio-Eritrea Declaration validates Ethiopian Stance 

 

Mulugeta Alemu

31 December 2007

 

Perhaps alarmed by the Tsorena incident on 26 December 2007, Slovenia, the current chair of the EU presidency, issued a press release on 28 December 2007. This brief statement says so many things at once. First, the EU is committed to ‘sustainable’ peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Second, the two countries should refrain from using force or threat of force as a means of solving their disputes. Third, both parties should fulfil their obligations under the Algiers Agreement, and the decisions and statements of the Security Council. Ethiopia has an awful lot of reasons to be pleased with this pronouncement.

 

The government of Ethiopia has been assiduously stating that the search for sustainable peace between the two countries should be a priority. For a while, some short-sightedly attempted to put unwarranted pressure on Ethiopia to unconditionally accept the decision of the boundary commission. Though Ethiopia has reiterated its position in accepting the demarcation decision, the government in Asmara is unfazed.  In what appears to be a deliberate choice of word by the EU, ‘sustainable peace’ is re-introduced in its diplomatic lexicon. This is probably an indicative of its realistic shift towards a nuanced and pragmatic stance on the matter.

 

The Ethiopian government has also been reiterating time and again that it will not be the one to use force in sorting out its difference with the Eritrean government. Thus, the presidential declaration is in line with Ethiopia’s stated policy. Eritrea’s deliberate portrayal of the Tsorena incident as an Ethiopian aggression failed to illicit any reaction to speak of. Ironically the unintended consequence of the incident was that it has given an indication of the state of affairs in Asmara. The Eritrean regime found itself between the rock and the hard place. If it categorises the incident as a major attack, it may well be that a proper reaction is expected from it, which it is not in any position to undertake. Crying foul on an Ethiopian attack also has a risk of portraying a weak Eritrea. What did the Eritrean government do? It settled for an almost comical narrative on ‘small-scale attack.’ One wonders why the Eritrean government was put in pressure to be engaged in an unusual job of selecting its words. Wouldn’t it be better and much suited to the tradition of Asmara to say that it has failed a major attack from the South? Isn’t it ironic that Eritrea also cited UNMEE as a referee, after it has derided the later for such a long time?

 

The most out of the ordinary aspect of the declaration is the fact that it leaves out any reference to either the boundary commission or to its decision. The statement simply calls the two countries to respect their obligations under the Algiers agreement, and the decisions of the Security Council. Just before the extinction of the boundary Commission, Ethiopia was telling the tribunal’s imminent jurists that given Eritrea’s blatant breaches of the Algiers agreement, the issue has reached such a proportion that it was effectively outside of their jurisdiction. It is a remarkably positive development that the EU, as a major guarantor of the peace agreement has carefully listened to Ethiopia’s rational stance.