It was a Monday in Asmara: July 9, 2018. Streets had been paraded, coffee mugs delicately held and an agreement signed. A “Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship between Eritrea and Ethiopia“, no less. Not to be mistaken with the “Agreement On Peace, Friendship And Comprehensive Cooperation Between The Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia And The State Of Eritrea” signed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on September 16 of the same year. Well, fine, go ahead and mistake them: it is the same agreement; it is that the sugar-daddy (Saudi Arabia) wanted some recognition for paying for the wedding.
So, now that it has been two years, and the governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia had told us they can’t bother with formalities and processes and institutions because of the need to go on warp speed to make up for lost time, it is timely I think (isn’t it?) to ask “How’s that working out for you?” (Dr. Phil voice impersonation is optional.)
Roll the tape!
Conscious that the peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea share close bonds of geography, history, culture, language and religion as well as fundamental common interests;
This was the pre-cursor to what would follow: “We are one people!”, “We were separated by others!”, “We went to war for decades for no reason!” and other useless tropes. You won’t find such sentimental language in, for example, AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ERITREA (“ALGIERS AGREEMENT”). This “on geography, history, culture, language and religion” claptrap runs counter to our Ghedli Narrative: whenever Ethiopia’s occupying forces would say “we are one people”, we would say, “no, like all African countries, people on either side of our common border share history, culture, language… but that doesn’t mean the Peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea are one!”
Recognizing that over the past decades, they were denied the opportunity to build a bright future for their peoples on the basis of their common heritage;
Firstly, refer to above paragraph regarding the sophistry of the claim that Eritrea and Ethiopia have “common heritage.” There is no “common heritage” between the people of Omo in Ethiopia and the people of Sahel, Eritrea. As is the case in every African country whose border was artificially designed by colonial powers, cross-border people have common heritage. But this doesn’t mean the entire population of the States have common heritage. Constant assertion of this bogus claim undermines the State. Secondly, notice that the language about opportunity denied is framed in the passive tense “they were denied the opportunity” to absolve the actors of this denial of any accountability. But the pre-peace and post-peace government of Eritrea is the same: Government of Isaias Afwerki. And there is a huge overlap between the pre-peace and post-peace government of Ethiopia: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was part and parcel (the vice chairman of one of the 4 parties that made up the Ethiopian ruling party which, according to him, administered a terrorist state.) He was a member of the Executive Committee of the ruling party coalition. In fact, the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia was part of the recon team (communications) waging war on Eritreans in the Badme War. So who is to blame? Martians? The Trilateral Commission? The Luminaries?
Determined to close this very costly chapter, which also had a detrimental role in the Horn of Africa, and to make up for lost opportunities and create even bigger golden opportunities for their peoples;
More accurately: to absolve the Signers of the Peace Agreement from any accountability for this chapter; to deny that there was something called the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission which found the governments of Eritrea (presided by Isaias Afwerki) and Ethiopia (with Abiy Ahmed as an executive member of the ruling party coalition) had committed horrific crimes on the citizens of Eritrea and Ethiopia; on crimes that deserve justice, we will just “close this very costly chapter” because it could cost us–“us” being Isaias and Abiy and a long train of horrible people– something very valuable to us: our hold on power, our reputation, our legacy.
The governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea have reached the following joint agreement which reflects the desires and aspirations of their peoples:-
To my knowledge (corrections with evidence welcome), the Ethiopian parliament did not ratify this agreement; and Eritrea has no parliament to speak of and when the Cabinet of Ministers questioned the specifics of the agreement, Isaias Afwerki also shut down the Cabinet. So, a more accurate description is: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki have reached the following joint agreement.
1. The state of war between Ethiopia and Eritrea has come to an end. A new era of peace and friendship has been opened.
It has? Well this is news to Mr. Webster and he should know because he wrote a dictionary, which defines the meaning of peace. There is a relentless state of hostility between the ruling parties of Eritrea and Tigray and their rabid fans, and Tigray (last time everybody checked) is part and parcel of Ethiopia. The only difference now is that Ethiopia’s Central (“Federal”) Government switched sides and now supports Eritrea but the hostilities–and the winds of war, the threats of war, the pretense of the inevitability of war–continue, unabated. In short, the logic of war is firmly established in the heads of the supporters of President Isaias Afwerki and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (see also: Kassaye Chemeda) as it has been before the peace agreement. It is just that the Central Government switched sides. In most of the rest of the world, a politician colluding with foreign power to defeat a domestic opponent is considered treason but Ethiopian leaders have such a long history of doing that and that’s why everybody shrugs.
2. The two governments will endeavor to forge intimate political, economic, social, cultural and security cooperation that serves and advances the vital interests of their peoples;
And what exactly has this meant, so far, about this intimacy other than that Isaias/Abiy (and family) get to hold hands, put rings on each other’s fingers, stroll boulevards, wear weird customs and go to vacation in Ethiopia and Eritrea? How does this political intimacy manifest itself? Eritrea voted for Kenya to hold the African seat of the Security Council and Ethiopia voted for Djibouti. That intimate? The intimacy to destroy IGAD? The intimacy for Abiy Ahmed to block, stall, frustrate the path that his new friend Isaias Afwerki was on: the path to an international court to be tried for committing crimes against humanity in Eritrea?
The politico-economic ideology of Abiy is Prosperity Theology, consistent with his Protestant creed that “faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one’s material wealth.” He doesn’t much care for the Socialist Icons (Marx, Lenin, Mao) which is just fine, except that one of them is the personal god of Isaias Afwerki. While there are many leaders in business, sports and other fields who have used the Power of Positive Thinking in their field, there is no evidence that it can be used as an organizing principle in politics, particularly when espoused by someone who appears to have a superficial understanding of philosophy or lacks the courage to test his idea (Addition vs Multiplication) in the Ethiopian political marketplace:
Isaias ideology, to the extent he has one, is Maoism. There is Wikileaks report (Isaias Xedong) of how diligently Isaias consumes any biography of Mao and how passionate he is with his belief that Deng Xiaoping betrayed the principles of Maoism. In addition to Maoism, Isaias is also a believer of some weird version of Eugenics which goes like this: when the entire world powers united in denying Eritrea independence after World War II, it was because they feared the Power of Eritreans whose “brains, muscles and courage” were used by Italians to conquer Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. As if that is not weird (and historically-illiterate) enough, Isaias doubles down and tells you why Eritreans are such brainiacs, muscular and courageous–and it has to do with where they migrated from: (hint: he is not talking about all Eritreans):
Culturally, the two individuals (NOT the two countries) are perfectly in sync. Both are fervent believers in “One Ethiopia” and, of late, Isaias has been giving the dog-whistle that all “One Ethiopia” types love: that Eritrea, without Ethiopia, can never be a viable State. This, of course, was the entire debate of Eritrea-Ethiopia elite, beginning from the 1940s when Ibrahim Sultan and representatives of Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry were hashing out Eritrea’s viability for Statehood at the UN, and all the way to the 1980s. And now, after his 1991 failed-effort to confederate Eritrea with Ethiopia, after he froze, arrested, disappeared, exiled all his peers with an opposing view, Isaias has loudly proclaimed that Eritrea, without Ethiopia (or some colonizing power), is not viable. This is the sweetest melody to the “One Ethiopia” types who pine for the return of Daughter Eritrea to Mother Ethiopia:
3. Transport, trade and communications links between the two countries will resume; diplomatic ties and activities will restart;
This has been a phenomenal success, if you define “transport” as one facilitated by Ethiopian Airlines from Addis Abeba to Asmara (or Sawa.) Otherwise, there is no transport, trade or communication between the two countries. There is no cross-border transportation between Eritrea and Ethiopia’s border state of Tigray of Afar. The border remains closed. The “diplomatic ties” are, as they were during the Meles Era in peace time, diplomacy based on personal chemistry of Isaias Afwerki, Abiy Ahmed and their loyalists. It is not institutionalized and there is no Ministry-to-Ministry coordination and agreement of principles.
4. The decision on the boundary between the two countries will be implemented.
Just as Isaias Afwerki had said, during his honeymoon period with former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, that Eritrea-Ethiopia relations “transcend borders”, Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister has said that Eritrea-Ethiopia relations transcend borders. The border has been broken with the Love Bridge he said, to the applause of the sentimentalists. Back when Abiy Ahmed used to have public meetings and took questions from the Ethiopian public, he said in all their meetings, he and Isaias had never once spoken about Badme or demarcation. That is, there is zero constituency for demarcation in Ethiopia– a country with one of the largest internally displaced population due to controversial regional borders. But there is a huge one in Eritrea, but the Eritrean president dismissed (in one of his marathon Eri-TV interviews) that calls for demarcation and calls for cautiousness and demanding institutionalization are advocated by those who want to sows seeds of mistrust between the two countries:
So the issue of demarcation is, as it has always been, just a convenient political football that gets pulled (when they want to blame Weyane for inaction) or pushed (when they want to blame those who demand for it as doubt-casting cynics.) So, it goes without saying that not only is this issue an item 4 in the Agreement (next to last priority) but it is just a formality to appease those who actually think borders matter or that it should be a minimum requirement after decades of bloody war, no-peace-no-war, tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands exiled, and a country in tatters.
5. Both countries will jointly endeavor to ensure regional peace, development and cooperation.
They sure are on an “endeavor”. It is just because both individuals (not countries) believe that the formula for durable peace is to have a unitary state governed by historically dominant political parties and groups, and that decentralization of any sort is a destabilizer. Unfortunately for them (and us) the demand of people, specially those who come from countries who have diversity in language, culture, religion, the “Unitary State” model does not work, as it requires a totalitarian head of state (like Yogoslavia’s Marshal Tito) to keep it together.
In conclusion, the “peace agreement” remains, unsurprisingly, unimplemented. And it will remain unimplemented because the leaders of the two countries have been very busy solidifying their personal relationships without bothering to consider if their views actually represent the countries they happened to be heads of governments for. It remains, and will remain, unimplemented because they refused to learn from the histories of the two countries and peoples. It remains, and will remain, unimplemented because there is a long and un-glorious Ethiopian history of allying with a foreign power to defeat a domestic power (called treason in most countries.) It remains, and will remain, unimplemented because the politico-economic systems of both countries are diametrically opposed. There is a mind-melt between Isaias Afwerki and Abiy Ahmed (some bruh code), but it doesn’t (and can’t) translate into two countries having sustained, complementary, mutually enriching relationship.
And the proof is: Eritreans are still, by the tens of thousands, escaping their country to foreign lands, to escape a predatory government and a decayed economy. Ethiopia’s stability is getting worse, not better, because Abiy Ahmed has chosen a wrong role model in Isaias Afwerki.
And so, two years later, the Peace Agreement remains without peace dividend for anyone except the two individuals who signed the peace agreement: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki. But the Isaias-Abiy Bruh Agreement is blossoming. To the detriment of both nations.
We will revisit the subject in September, when we are commemorating the two year anniversary of the Jeddah Agreement and the results will be the same: no results, but plenty of finger pointing for catastrophic failure.
Leave A Reply