| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe East Asia/Pacific South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| June 2, 2000 Horn Of Africa: 'Hunger And Weapons' Fuel Ethiopian-Eritrean Border War |
The renewal of Ethiopia and Eritrea's two-year-old border war sparked editorial reaction in Africa and well beyond its shores, with many scolding the combatants' leaders for pursuing personal "ambition" at the expense of their people's welfare and criticizing those who supply arms to Africa for helping to fuel the conflict. Many deplored the humanitarian "catastrophe"--the drought, famine, and war--that is being visited upon the region's inhabitants. Most, however, focused on the OAU-sponsored peace negotiations currently under way in Algiers and wondered whether Ethiopia will be allowed to use the military gains from its recent 19-day offensive to dictate the terms of peace. Primarily at stake is the sparsely populated, but highly contested Badme region. Some feared, however, that landlocked Ethiopia may also be eyeing, Assab--one of its two main supply ports which are both in Eritrea--as part of the spoils of war. "Ethiopia is entitled to a sea outlet and, although Assab belongs to Eritrea, Ethiopia must establish its right of access to that port," Addis Ababa's influential independent, Amharic weekly Reporter declared. These were regional views:
AFRICA: Ethiopia's government-owned and independent papers contended that Ethiopia is the "victim" of Eritrea's "aggression" and that the major powers, by condemning hostilities but refusing to intervene, have indicated that "they expect the Horn of Africa to survive in a security vacuum." Elsewhere on the continent, pundits called on Ethiopia and Eritrea to adhere to a cease-fire, submit to OAU mediation and end the "absurd war" which is "unworthy of an Africa that is preparing to face the challenges of the third millennium."
MIDDLE EAST: Government-run dailies in the region spread the blame equally among the combatants, Africa's arms suppliers, and the Perm-5. A Cairo paper criticized the UNSC arms embargo as coming "too late" to affect hostilities and condemned the "reluctance" of "rich countries which usurped Africa's wealth to participate in peacekeeping on the continent."
EUROPE: Observers said that the "'meaningless' war--as Holbrooke defined it" caught both the Americans and the Europeans "by surprise," but judged that after "tragedies" in Somalia and the Balkans, no one is likely "to put his foot back in the Horn of Africa." Here again, the UN arms embargo was lambasted as "an empty gesture," with many noting that "key UN members"--Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Israel and China were most frequently cited--are Africa's principal arms merchants. German and Italian editorials explored ways to permanently end the flow of arms to Africa and to prevent aid for development from being used to finance conflict.
ASIA: An Indonesian paper lamented that the victors over Ethiopia's former Marxist regime had failed "to build on mutual cooperation." A Bangladeshi paper said that the onset of another refugee crisis, plus the drought and famine in much of Ethiopia, "should be compelling enough reasons for Addis Ababa to talk to the vanquished."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE: An Argentine writer saw the UN becoming more "determined" not to acknowledge territorial changes that are brought about by force, but judged sadly that "wars are getting a lot more difficult to end."
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 37 reports from 13 countries, May 17-June 2. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
ETHIOPIA: "The Horn Needs It Too"
The independent English-language weekly Reporter editorialized (5/31), "'For the sake of global security,' the multinational forces demolished Iraq back in 1991 and drove Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait. 'For the sake of global security,' Western powers are still weakening Iraq with embargoes and 'no-fly' zones. 'For the sake of global security,' American forces led NATO into Yugoslavia and virtually reduced that country to ashes. Fortunately or unfortunately, however, conflicts like the Ethiopia-Eritrea war do not quickly catch the attention of the world powers and entice their involvement, obviously because such conflicts do not have much of a repercussion on the interests of these powers, nevertheless, security is as essential to the people living in this region as it is to those living in the Middle East, Europe or North America. Who, then, should act for the sake of security in the Horn of Africa? As we can see now, the Eritrean advance into Ethiopian territory back in May 1998 has culminated in one of the worst security situations in the Horn of Africa. Along with the economic impact of the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, hostilities between the two countries have led to enormous difficulties in relations between and among Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia....
"The world powers, however, are reacting to this, on the one hand, by condemning conflict, by demanding the 'immediate cessation of hostilities' and by imposing arms embargoes and air-strike moratoriums on both Ethiopia and Eritrea. On the other hand, however, they have refused to act as they had done in Iraq or Yugoslavia. They do not want to act, and neither do they want anyone else to act for the sake of security. In other words, they expect the Horn of Africa to survive in a security vacuum. Despite the moratoriums and embargoes, however, fighting continued between Ethiopia and Eritrea--precisely because, a mere plea for an end to fighting is no substitute for the much needed regional security. At this point, what the world powers should note is that, while no one else is willing to preserve security in the Horn of Africa, it is up to those actors in the Horn of Africa to take up the task, because the Horn needs security too."
"We Will Tighten The Screw On The EPLF And Ensure Our Interests"
The influential independent Amharic-language weekly Reporter had this editorial (5/29): "The defeat of Eritrea should entail heavy prices for the EPLF. This war dragged us into a bloody war which cost us heavily in human and material resources. As the victor, Ethiopia should impose severe sanctions on the aggressor in future peace arrangements. For one thing, Ethiopia should keep control of strategic points within Eritrea vital for Ethiopia's future security, such as the Forto Heights opposite Zalambessa.... Another piece of territory that should never be returned to Eritrea is the Afar area..... Ethiopia is entitled to a sea outlet and, although Assab belongs to Eritrea, Ethiopia must establish its right of access to that port. There were other issues ignored in the interest of peace--such as the aspirations of Eritrean Afars and the legitimate democratic demands of the people of Eritrea--which Ethiopia would do well to heed hereafter. Although we are not in a position to impose the kind of military sanctions used by the U.S. against Saddam Hussein to keep the peace, Ethiopia should still enforce conditions to prevent the strengthening of the Eritrean army.... The Eritreans must suffer because the conflict was resolved militarily and ended in their defeat. Ethiopia was forced to go to war and pay heavy sacrifices to regain peace. Now, Ethiopia is fully entitled to secure guarantees for its permanent peace and for its other vital interests."
"UN: Party To Partisan Politics"
The government-controlled, English-language daily Ethiopian Herald opined (5/21), "Increasingly active on the scenario are also outsiders with little or no conception of the real causes and effect of the war.... The most prominent outside political players, now shamelessly dragged along by the U.S. and the UK, are engaged in a misinformation campaign against Ethiopian government policy. Their tool? The supposedly peace-crusading UN. As permanent and most influential members of the Security Council, they have been advocating a unsuccessful comprehensive arms embargo on Ethiopia. This act of perfidy came as little short of puzzling to most people who saw little useful purpose to be served by taking any such action. Nor is the high-flown proposal limited to sanctioning arms sales to Ethiopia; it suggests as well that 'all states prevent the entry into or transit through their territories' of senior Ethiopian government officials. This brings power arrogance to new heights. It shows clearly how far some permanent Security Council members are prepared to go to make their presence felt and in complete disregard of international response. There are still signs of political sanity within the UN itself, however. Russia has rejected both the arms embargo and travel restrictions. France has not come out openly to say so but seems to share Russia's view that putting to practice such measures only aggravates the crisis. If only more UN members, particularly those on the Security Council, had enough courage to express their reservations accordingly. Only that way would the world body, sliding into impotence since quite some time, be capable of regaining its proper status and discharging its unique task and responsibility."
"Ethiopia's Cause Is Just"
The government-controlled, English-language Ethiopian Herald opined (5/19): "It...is amazing to learn that the some member states of the UN, particularly the USA and the UK, who profess to be champions and advocates of rights and freedom, and yet who dismally failed to condemn Eritrea's aggression, proved to be at the forefront to undeservedly punish Ethiopia--the victim of aggression, for the sole reason of asserting its right to self-defence. On the face of it, the excuses for this and for failing to denounce Eritrea's aggression and to recognize Ethiopia's inalienable right to self-defence seem to be the belief that the conflict was capable of being resolved peacefully. But the question is, if such peace talks have failed purely because of Eritrea's intransigence and if Ethiopia, as a result, resorts to its right of self-defence as enshrined in the UN Charter--the charter which was also endorsed by the United States and the UK themselves--why and what grounds, be they moral, political or in principle, are they to target Ethiopia?.... If Ethiopia is to be punished for exercising its right to self-defence as enshrined in the OAU Charter, so be it. But our country and people will endure no matter the challenges."
CAMEROON: "Meles Zenawi Says The War Is Over"
The government-run bilingual daily Cameroon Tribune (6/2) carried an article by foreign news analyst Ibrahim Karche: "Ethiopian troops will retire only after an agreement has been signed. The beginning of indirect negotiations in Algiers between Ethiopia and Eritrea has not resulted in a cease fire. In Algiers, each country is calling on the other to be the first to pull out of the occupied territories.... For the United States, the issue is simple: Washington assures that Eritrean forces have withdrawn from all the positions that it occupied before the beginning of the conflict and calls on Ethiopia to stop its offensive.... While discussions are going on in Algiers, fighting continues on the front where violent artillery duels are raging about one hundred kilometers south of Asmara... What importance should be given to the statement made by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi who told foreign diplomats that the war is over?"
"Ethiopian Attitude Very Aggressive"
Ibrahim Karche wrote in the government-run Cameroon Tribune (5/29): "At a time when (observers) are talking of a move toward peace, the Ethiopian army is taking advantage of the diplomatic progress to improve its position..... It wants to maintain enormous pressure (on Eritrea) in order to be able to negotiate from a position of superiority.... Ethiopians are seeking to take advantage of the current situation to neutralize as many units of the Eritrean army as they can.... Seen from Asmara, the Ethiopian attitude is very aggressive. The Ethiopians want to humiliate the Eritrean enemy...in order to bring about the capitulation of President Isaias Afewerki."
"The Horn Of Africa's Horror Show"
Editor-in-chief Edmond Kamgua wrote (5/29) in the Douala-based opposition, French-language La Nouvelle Expression, "Allied not long ago against the regime of dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam which they succeeded in overthrowing, Meles Zenawi, head of the Ethiopian government and Isaias Afewerki, head of the state of Eritrea, are fighting each other in a senseless war. A war that is totally absurd when we consider the fact that the two leaders fought together to free Ethiopia from the (bloody) regime of the Red Negus (Mengistu), as well as they working hand in hand for the freedom of Eritrea that became a state on May 24, 1993. The border conflict between these two countries of the Horn of Africa has dramatic political, economic and social consequences that can be seen through shocking economic indicators. While the two countries are spending enormous amounts of money to buy combat aircraft and other expensive military equipment, tens of thousands of soldiers are dying in a cruel war, millions of (civilians) are stricken by hunger, both in Ethiopia and Eritrea. The greatest part of the countries' budgets are being devoted to war.... All the other important sectors are forgotten.... The ambitions of the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea are opposed to the deepest aspirations of their respective peoples. People who still have to confront their most basic needs--food, clothing, education--ought not to be faced with the atrocities of war. The victors over Mengistu Haile Mariam have been producing a horror show since May 1998 which is unworthy of an Africa that is preparing to face the challenges of the third millennium."
"Ethiopia-Eritrea: When The Poor Go To War"
Columnist Canute Tangwa commented (5/26) in the Buea-based opposition, English-language weekly Post, "The story of Ethiopia and Eritrea is seemingly a tall tale of two countries fighting over scorched earth. Far from it. It is a reflection of cosmetic political and military alliances for expediency. The war in the Horn of Africa brings to focus the myth of nation-state, colonial trespasses, the inability of the Lion of Judah (Haile Selassie) and the Red Negus (Mengistu Haile Mariam) to give soul to desperate people and the geostrategic interests of neighboring states.... The recent fighting violates the OAU peace plan that is endorsed by the United Nations and the major world powers."
ZAMBIA: "Well And Good"
The government-owned Zambia Daily Mail held (5/20), "The renewed hostilities in the Horn of Africa where Ethiopia and Eritrea are embroiled in conflict has once again brought to the fore one of Africa's biggest failings, and the chief cause of chronic suffering by its people.... The two neighbouring states have yet again elected to settle their border dispute on the battlefield instead of using established diplomatic channels through the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to resolve the matter peacefully.... It is ironic that the OAU could even be meeting in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, where the organisation has its headquarters, in search for an African solution to the conflict. Fortunately, both countries say they are ready to sign a peace
accord. It is about time they put word into deed."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "Egypt's Fate To Be Recourse For The African People"
Pro-government Al Akhbar held (5/25): "After the failure of the UNSC and international community to stop the fights between Ethiopia and Eritrea...the Eritrean president urged President Mubarak's help.... Egypt has a great role in settling many African issues and activating the OAU initiative.... The border dispute between the two parties turned into an ethnic, retaliatory war where each party seeks to punish the other.... It is a human catastrophe. Amid the passiveness and silence of superpowers, Egypt had to help stop the fighting. This is Egypt's fate to be the recourse for the African people."
"Two Bald Men Fighting Over A Comb"
Salama Ahmed Salama, columnist, pro-government Al Ahram (5/21): "The Eritrean-Ethiopian war was described as a fight between two bald men over a comb, which none will use. The two countries are suffering from poverty, famine and backwardness, but they are ready to spend millions to buy weapons and sacrifice hundreds of lives for a barren border area.... What mostly raises doubts in all the disputes in Africa is where do the armies get their weapons? Undoubtedly, Israel, Eastern and some Western European counties make huge weapons deals with the African market, regardless if these nations annihilate each other. That is why the UNSC members thought of the arms embargo too late and reluctantly made the decision. The rich countries, which usurped Africa's wealth, are not ready to participate in peacekeeping.... UN Secretary General Annan complained about the United States' reluctance in this respect. Even when the United States is ready to send planes to transfer the troops,
the bill is too high for the UN to afford."
"Assigning Blame For 'Foolish' Ethiopia-Eritrean War"
Columnist Ahmed Taha El-Naqr argued in pro-government Al-Akhbar (5/18): "There are almost 16 million people facing starvation in the African Horn because of drought. Most of them are in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and are concentrated in the desert areas currently witnessing the fights between the two armies. If the two governments chose to give those starved people bombs instead of bread, is it logical to ask foreigners to help or accuse them of slackness? This is a foolish war, as described by an American official.... Although the past rebels and the current rulers in Addis Ababa and Asmara are fully responsible for this destruction and bloodshed...we cannot acquit the superpowers of the responsibility, especially those controlling the UNSC. They have the power to impose an arms embargo through or outside UNSC. They knew that both parties have been accumulating weapons since the cease-fire last year and preparing for war.... Western military analysts revealed that Ethiopia has bought recently a number of Russian jet fighters...and there was news about Eritrea's purchases, mainly from Israel.... If the Ethiopian army has been able to achieve some victories...no one can call this a victory, especially since the fuel in this losing battle are the poor and starved."
SYRIA: "Innocents Pay The Price"
Saleh Saleh, a commentator in government-owned Al-Baath, wrote (5/24): "The international silence, mainly from the United States, is noteworthy in Ethiopia's aggression against Eritrea. It is unusual for the United States to allow such a situation in a strategic zone, like the Horn of Africa, unless U.S. silence indicates its approval of the war.... Washington is close to both parties.... To end this war, U.S. intervention is necessary."
ITALY: "Sudden Announcement From Addis: For Us The War With Eritrea Is Over"
Gian Micalessin reported from Asmara in leading conservative, opposition Il Giornale (6/1): "The announcement arrived suddenly in Addis Ababa.... It is very likely that a key factor, which led to this announcement, is the renewed vigor with which Eritrean conducted their counter-offensive in these latest weeks.... Addis Ababa realized the difficulties of maintaining logistical support to its divisions in the Eritrean territory. But the Ethiopians also found themselves in difficulty at the diplomatic level...since they were in the embarrassing role of the aggressor. Not by chance, yesterday, both Washington and the UN sent an urgent request to the Ethiopian leadership to put an end to hostilities. It remains now to be seen what the immediate consequences of the announcement will be."
"Negotiations Begin In Algiers, But Ethiopian Warplanes Bomb Asmara"
A report in pro-DS (leading government party) daily L'Unita' held (5/30): "The Algiers talks begin under the worst omen as the war in the Horn of Africa gets dangerously closer to Asmara and the ports on the Red Sea. Yet there are some signals that prompt optimism. The White House special envoy, Anthony Lake, said upon his arrival in Algiers that he believes 'the negotiations will result in a comprehensive peace agreement.'"
"The Catastrophe In The 'Horn'"
Alberto Negri opined in leading business Il Sole 24 Ore (5/25): "So far, everyone has failed in the Horn of Africa.... For sure, nobody wants to repeat the same mistakes as in Somalia. But we are already on the 'right' road. Not only the Americans, who sent Holbrooke to mediate, were taken by surprise in the Horn of Africa. Europe and the international community, as well, made significant false moves in the region.... This 'meaningless' war--as Holbrooke defined it--is full of 'good reasons', like many other African wars, and now risks becoming a conflict of international dimensions...involving, one way or another, the international community, if only for a 'humanitarian intervention' which, after years of tragedies in the Balkans, would very much like not to put his foot back in the Horn of Africa. Therefore, the only way out is rain.... Ready to forget again, if possible, this 'meaningless' war."
"An Inevitable Burden"
Fiamma Nirenstein maintained in centrist, influential La Stampa (5/22): "Nothing like this, the coincidence of both the Ethiopian and Sierra Leone crises, has ever required a U-turn...while facing the problem of the world going adrift.... Very soon the flow of (African) problems will mount, the damage can no longer be handled. Shall we bear the burden? Shall we pay more money, intervene more, be militarily tougher, and be more selective? (Yes) and let the burdens be."
"Famine And Rearmament Operation"
Domenico Quirico in centrist, influential La Stampa (5/21) speculated, "A war twice as criminal because it is also financed by international aid against famine. In fact...Addis Ababa's (Ethiopia) plan was...the perfect plan: It has beefed up its war economy with 900,000 tons of food aid, thus saving the funds to pay a ponderous supply of weapons.... 'Made-in-Russia' weapons have swept away the poor Eritrean trenches.... And furthermore, the cannons and tanks that are slaughtering the people of Eritrea belong to the share of armaments that should have been destroyed, according to the agreement over the reduction of conventional weapons
in Europe. A real good deal, Mr. Putin!"
"Congo, 300 Civilians Killed By Rebels In Their Last Massacre"
Giampaolo Cadalanu concluded his story in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (5/21) by noting: "In order to stop conflicts in the region, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke would like to deploy the UN peacekeeping forces in the Kisangani, and South Africa...will probably provide the UN 'Blue Helmets.'"
"Africa Can Still Rise Up Again"
A front-page editorial by Eric Salerno in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (5/20) maintained: "The reason for the conflict doesn't come exclusively from territorial disputes. When people start dying from hunger (as is happening in the Horn of Africa once again)...leaders try to divert their people's attention, and play on their national pride. Maybe it is still possible to rescue Ethiopia and Eritrea from themselves. It is certainly not enough to impose a useless embargo on the selling of weapons--as voted by the United Nations--(but) a more energetic mediation is essential." Salerno concluded by suggesting a series of provisions: "The weapons embargo must be extended to the entire continent.... Heavy economic aid as debt cancellation can only be granted to those regimes that are not corrupt...and are willing to accept...non-African experts. UN peacekeeping forces must be decided by those governments that are able to guarantee their balance and are in a position to stop the conflicts."
"UN Threats Fail To Halt Addis Ababa's Offensive"
A report from Nairobi in pro-DS (leading government party) L'Unita said (5/19): "The UN embargo on weapons to Eritrea and Ethiopia is unlikely to have immediate repercussions, given the fact that Asmara and Addis Ababa have built up stocks of weapons over the last two years, buying them in Russia, the Ukraine, China, Bulgaria and Israel."
''France, Russia, China--And Arms Supplier Ukraine Oppose Resolution"
A report from Nairobi in leading conservative, opposition Il Giornale judged (5/17): "Nobody in the Eritrean capital believes that the Ethiopian offensive will stop anytime soon. Many people fear it will intensify in order to impose a 'peace of the losers' on Eritrea. Also because, as a European diplomat notes, the show offered yesterday by the UNSC...is rather disappointing. Besides France, Russia and China, among the non-permanent members of the Council opposing the embargo, there is also Ukraine, which so far has been the main arms supplier to both Ethiopia and Eritrea."
BRITAIN: "A War With No Purpose"
The liberal Guardian insisted (5/18): "The sheer, reckless imbecility of the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea is breathtaking. The fighting seems totally pointless. What can justify the recurring carnage which has claimed up to 70,000 lives in the past two years? What can possibly excuse the creation of yet more refugee armies in a region where millions are already suffering the cruel deprivations of drought and famine? Nothing excuses it. It is beyond reason. The war is as reprehensible as it is futile. The UN Security Council is right to seek am arms embargo. It is long overdue."
GERMANY: "Hunger And Weapons"
Right-of-center Thueringer Allgemeine of Erfurt noted (5/31): "Hunger and weapons--both
Ethiopia and Eritrea have enough of them. They do not know any compassion. Neither the leadership in Addis Ababa nor the one in Asmara care whether hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians or Eritreans die because of malnutrition or die on the flight from the armies. This is why we cannot have too much hope in the Ethiopian announcement of withdrawal and the willingness for peace. Ethiopia, with its 60 million inhabitants, is the Goliath in comparison to the four million Eritreans, and sees itself as the winner in this latest escalation. We can hardly expect Ethiopia to release Eritrea from its stranglehold. The ones who give the orders sit in rooms with air condition. With this war, the leaders can easily explain why there is nothing to eat in the country. Thus the anger of one hungry person is directed against another hungry person."
"Seed Of Hatred"
Udo Ulfkotte argued in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (5/30): "Ethiopia, that is celebrating the ninth anniversary of the expulsion of dictator Mengistu these days, seems to forget in its triumphant mood that the willingness of the former donor nations to provide assistance to the country will decline with every bomb that is dropped on Eritrea."
"From Border Conflict To War Between Brothers"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (5/30) noted: "The situation in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia is getting serious now. For more than two years the conflict smoldered as a bloody border war but now Ethiopia has turned it into an aggressive war and is about to swallow smaller Eritrea.... The Ethiopian government has always emphasized that it only wants back conquered territory and by no means to annex Eritrea. But these promises now turn out to be mere propaganda.... In a double sense, this war is a war between brothers. First, both peoples are related with each other, second, the two leaders, Meles Zenawi and Isayas Afeworki, are old brothers-in-arms. Both countries do not enjoy a democracy, and the governing parties are omni-powerful.... The party functionaries are responsible for this war, and nobody asked the people. And at the latest demonstrations in Addis Ababa, straw dolls of Afeworki were burned,
but many people also carried along palm branches, signs of peace."
"On The Field Of Honor At The Horn Of Africa"
Maritta Tkalec judged in an editorial in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (5/30): "The terms 'defense' and 'protection' have disappeared from the vocabulary of Ethiopian officials. When they now speak before the masses they speak of retaliation that is carried out against Eritrea.... The rhetoric of the past days illuminates a bit the sense of the 'most senseless' of the current wars. With advanced weaponry, various clans--mainly their leaders--that have transformed to states are fighting archaic conflicts. They do so for reasons of pride, honor, and saving face. According to previous experience, such wars are waged in a more fanatical way than wars that are waged because of economic reasons. A peace treaty cannot really end them. The Ethiopian attacks, the gestures of superiority, are prompting the Eritreans to look for retaliation at the moment of defeat."
"UN Disaster"
Pierre Simonitsch contended in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (5/19): "The arms embargo passed by the UN Security Council against Ethiopia and Eritrea is arriving years too late. The two opponents have long since supplied themselves with tanks, heavy artillery, and
fighter planes on the world market. What is happening on the black continent these days confirms all of the usual prejudices.... It should be the Security Council's obligation to end the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Instead, key UN members have provided both states with arms, while international aid organizations keep drought victims from starving. In this manner, the war was made possible directly and indirectly, with the UN helping to cover up political failures by supplying humanitarian assistance. UN General Secretary Annan has pointed out some of the main problems of his home continent--faulty economics and the tendency of some rulers to consider the state as their private property. Annan subsequently lost a few friends in Africa. His predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, upset the ruling powers when he demanded a permanent UN intervention force. But cheap resolutions will not bring about peace in Africa or anywhere else."
"Embargo Without Value"
Dominic Johnson judged in an editorial in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (5/19): "This should make Ethiopia and Eritrea tremble. The UN Security Council has passed an arms embargo--limited to one year. For two years, the largest arms exporters of the world, ranging from China, Russia, and Bulgaria to Italy, France, and Israel, have happily shipped arms to the region and thus kept alive a conflict whose blood toll rivals those of World War I battles.... It is not likely that the UN or other aid organizations will refuse to aid the new war victims in the same way they have supported drought victims. But the more aid organizations help, the more they relieve governments of the burden to face the consequences of war themselves.... It is possible to prolong conflicts with food shipments. The war front between Ethiopia and Eritrea would have been an ideal place for establishing...a security zone, which would have been guarded by well-equipped UN troops. Such a UN mission would have been easier than the current one in Sierra Leone or the one planned for Congo. The governments in Ethiopia and Eritrea knew very well why it was worth resisting an internationalization of the conflict for a year and a half. But why did the members of the Security Council not think about sanctions at that time, instead of voting for them when they have become useless?"
"An Arms Embargo Of Purely Symbolic Value"
Right-of-center Mitteldeutsche Zeitung of Halle held (5/19): "The UNSC resolution does not say anything about its application; it is of purely symbolic value. In order to prevent the import of weapons to Eritrea and Ethiopia effectively, a larger military mission would be necessary: a naval blockade in the Red Sea and in the Gulf of Aden, as well as surveillance of both countries' borders and air space. But nobody is willing to undertake such an intervention, because the national interests of the United States and Europe are not being affected by this conflict over a dusty piece of steppe. It is an illusion, or maybe even plain cynicism, to count on moderation in the community of states when it comes to trading arms with Africa. Countless African crises have shown that someone can always be found on this continent to supply weapons--and if not, there are third states, terrorist organizations, or internationally active arms smugglers."
"Much Fanfare Over Empty Gesture"
Right-of-center Abendzeitung of Munich maintained (5/19): "With much fanfare, the UN is celebrating the embargo against Ethiopia and Eritrea. As if it will make a difference. On the contrary: It will not change anything, nothing at all. Both countries have used the two-year war to beef up their arsenals. For months it has been known that Ethiopia is planning its final offensive for mid-May. To set up an embargo while this offensive is already underway is nothing but an empty gesture."
IRELAND: "The War In Eritrea"
The moderately conservative Irish Times (5/22) held: "The war is certainly being conducted on an extravagant canvass and scale. Reports of extensive trenches and bunkers remind observers of the first World War in Europe, while conscription in Eritrea has closed school and universities . There is no shortage of weapons, supplied by the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and China as well as the flourishing arms suppliers of eastern Europe. The Security Council's arms embargo contains a limit of one year for the first time and is contingent on progress being made towards a peaceful settlement. This Ethiopian breakthrough could set the scene for a rapid negotiation. Arguments about whether a cease-fire should come before an agreement, have dogged negotiations. With a view to restoring the urgent famine relief program, international pressure must be exerted to bring both to a speedy conclusion. That is the least to be done of the millions of people endangered by drought, famine and war."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Poorest Countries Conduct Largest War"
Liberal De Volkskrant opined (5/31) on Ethiopia's route to Assab and its encouragement of the AENF against the Eritrean government: "If all this works out, Ethiopia will have attained its objectives. And then? No one knows how many victims the war has claimed, but experts estimate the number to be at least a hundred thousand. In Eritrea there are at least half a million displaced people. And meanwhile in both countries millions are threatened by famine as a result of drought. Both countries have to start from rock bottom again.... For a moment Ethiopia and Eritrea were record-holders when they fought in the largest war in the world at the moment. Soon they will be the countries as proud as they are poor. They flout the international community, and will soon hold up a begging hand to the same community."
INDONESIA: "Confrontational Attitude Yet to Abate in Ethiopia-Eritrea"
Leadingm independent Kompas observed (5/29): "The 1998 outbreak of war proved that the friendship between the Tigraya People's Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) was an artificial one made to achieve short-term objectives. The two nations have failed to forget past hostilities and are unable to build on mutual cooperation. With such contentious relations, it is easy for prejudices and suspicions to surface and prompt armed conflict."
BANGLADESH: "Horn Of Conflict"
The centrist, English-language Independent commented editorially (5/31): "At this point, the Ethiopians will seize all the advantages they can from an offensive which has been scattering their enemies in all directions. That certainly leaves the men in Asmara in a state of worry, if not panic. For all the right reasons. The tragedy for both Ethiopia and Eritrea is that it was only seven years ago that they stopped clobbering each other when the latter achieved freedom after a decades-long guerrilla war against the former.... It was a friendly parting of ways. But then economic issues came between the two countries. The Eritreans, fortified by the years of struggle against their enemies to the south, struck once more with military might. That was a mistake. The mistake has cost the Eritreans much in terms of military strength and loss of territory. Ethiopian Prime Minister Zenawi and his government, flushed with victory, have little incentive to talk until Addis Ababa's objectives are achieved. Those objectives, beyond the capture of Eritrean towns, remain unknown. Meanwhile, refugees are fleeing from their homes
by the thousands. Add to that the natural disaster of famine reigning over large parts of Ethiopia. That should be a compelling enough reason for Addis Ababa to talk to the vanquished. A delay can only fuel resentments that could last for generations."
"War In The Horn Of Africa"
Conservative, Bangla-language Ittefaq opined (5/30): "It is not uncommon for two neighboring countries to have territorial disputes. However, there is no justification for them to resort to war instead of resolving the conflict through negotiation. There are several provisions for conflict resolution in the UN system. Nations may also refer their case to the International Court of Justice in the Hague.... Instead of that, Eritrea and Ethiopia have chosen the course of war. Algeria is also trying to mediate a solution to no avail.... The two famine-stricken countries should accept a cease-fire and resolution of the conflict through international mediation."
ARGENTINA: "Two Wars: Not Quite The End"
Gwynne Dyer, international columnist of liberal, English-language Buenos Aires Herald, wrote (5/29): "While the border dispute that lies behind the war in the Horn of Africa involves a tangle of legal claims going back to colonial times, three facts are beyond dispute. First, the territory in question is virtually worthless. Second, the Eritreans, confident of their innate military superiority over their much larger Ethiopian neighbor, were the first to resort to force. Third, the Eritreans were wrong about the Ethiopians.... Eritrea fought a long guerrilla war for independence from Ethiopia in the 1970s and 1980s, and, as a result, in some quarters it enjoys the romantic image of an African Cuba. In reality, however, it is a highly militarized one-party state with a bad case of arrogance: It attacked a country with twenty times its population, and it is now being soundly thrashed.... The Ethiopian army is now in striking distance of the Eritrean capital, Asmara. In times past, this would have been the signal for a rapid peace offer by the Eritrean government, handing over the disputed territory in order to ensure its own survival. Now, however, the whole world will intervene to prevent such a decisive outcome. Indeed, the UN has just imposed an arms embargo on both sides in a belated attempt to freeze the conflict. It is not a bad thing, in principle, that the world has become a more interconnected place. It is certainly not a bad thing that the UN is determined not to acknowledge territorial changes that are brought about by force. But a major side-effect is that wars are getting a lot more difficult to end."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
