By Aradom Iyob April 21, 1999

In its present war with Ethiopia, Eritrea is facing a repeat of a historic challenge. Once again, Eritrea finds itself in a difficult but necessary position of having to combat Ethiopia’s aggressive efforts on the military, diplomatic and public relations fronts. The heavy Ethiopian casualties in Badme late in February as well as Tsorona in mid-March this year demonstrate that Eritrea's military performance, thus far, has successfully contained Ethiopian efforts. On March 17 Marek NCN News Briefs stated:

NCN has been told by a highly reliable Washington source that the reports that Ethiopia lost perhaps as many as 10,000 soldiers in the last major battle, dubbed "Operation Sunset" by the Ethiopians, that occurred on February 23-26. Ethiopia claimed total victory in that battle, and there was massive jubilation in the streets of Addis Ababa. What Ethiopians have not been told is the enormous toll on their forces. In that battle, Eritrea said 9,000 Ethiopian soldiers were lost as they launched old-time Chines-style human waves assaults against Eritrea's heavily fortified defensive emplacements. NCN has now been informed that the Eritrean estimate is accurate.

With respect to the equally intense battle at the Tsorona front on March 13-16, Eritrea claimed that more than 10,000 Ethiopian troops were killed. In its March 18 piece titled Eritrea Displays Enemy War Dead 'Drama Staged,' Ethiopia Claims, The New York Times corroborates, "Foreign diplomats in both nations said they generally believed Eritrea's version of the battles."

Diplomatically, Eritrea's relative performance has been respectable. UN Resolution 1227, which was issued on February 10 and among other things urges all states to immediately terminate all sales of military weapons to Eritrea and Ethiopia, treats both countries equally. This resolution manifests that Eritrea has finally caught up with Ethiopia, a country that despite its experience of several decades has failed in its intense and relentless attempts to secure international condemnation of Eritrea. Furthermore, Eritrean diplomats have impressively cleared up any ambiguities about Ethiopia’s position vis a vis the OAU's plan. Notwithstanding Eritrea's forced military withdrawal from Badme late in February, they accepted the OAU plan only after securing a crisp clarification from the OAU that "environs" does not mean territories other than Badme and vicinity. Finally, high level Ethiopian government officials as well as the Ethiopian media have been increasingly condemning the US lately, demonstrating to some extent that the only remaining superpower is distancing itself from Ethiopia.

Throughout its conduct in its border conflict with Eritrea, Ethiopia has suffered serious public relations blows. Its image, once prestigious in Africa, has been tarnished. Exposing Ethiopia’s propaganda in its January 29 report, Amnesty International definitively proved to the world that only Ethiopia systematically deported Eritreans as well as Ethiopians of Eritrean origin in clear violation of international human rights laws:

Fifty-two thousand Eritreans have been arbitrarily deported from Ethiopia over the last seven months, 6,300 so far in January 1999. "Women, some of them pregnant, children, the elderly - even hospital patients - are now being arrested and detained in the middle of the night, " Amnesty International's representatives said.

In addition to the human rights violations renowned news media such as BBC, AP, Reuters, Corriere della Sera continue to expose Ethiopia's lies and fabrications as to its performance in the battle field. Corriere della Sera's February 16 piece titled Etiopia, La Trincea Dei Fantasmi by Lanfranco Vaccaro is a classic. In his battlefield reportage Vaccaro reveals the extent to which an Ethiopian colonel goes in order to prove Ethiopia's military control of Geza Gerlase. In this derisory article the colonel submits a mere sack of abandoned bread as evidence of intense battle between Ethiopian and Eritrean forces.

Ethiopia's present predicament is unwittingly exposed by the Ethiopian government’s bombastic claims. For instance, Spokesperson Selome Tadesse on March 28 stated that since February 23^rd more than 45,000 Eritrean troops have been killed, wounded or captured, over 70 tanks destroyed and 2 MIG 29s shot downs. If true, at this rate most people would expect the Ethiopian army to have by now occupied Asmara and disposed of the present Eritrean government of Issaias Afwerki as it saw fit. Instead, the world - especially Ethiopians - do not see convincing evidence showing that Badme is in full Ethiopian control much less significant military progress in favor of Ethiopia. For example, Reuters' Rosalind Russell's February 18 report was titled, "Ethiopians march on, but victories hard to verify."

In order to correct its serious credibility problem, both external and internal, the Ethiopian government finds itself in the precarious position of having to decisively defeat the Eritrean army - a task that is extremely difficult and costly - in order to ensure its political survival. At this juncture, catering to its internal audience is sine qua non. This is all the more paramount given that the desired Ethiopian victory cannot be achieved with demoralized Ethiopian troops in the trenches and a weakened flow of financial and material resources from Ethiopians inside as well as outside Ethiopia.

Amid Ethiopia’s largely self-imposed quagmire, enter senior historian with 30 years of experience in US government and government-related positions as well as 'expert' on the Horn of Africa Paul. P. Henze. He has been at the forefront of the image-making production of Ethiopia’s public relations and, unfortunately, continues to compel academics and policy makers to carefully separate facts from his fiction.

In October 1998 Henze wrote an article about Ethiopia for the Journal of Democracy. In this article he quixotically anoints Ethiopia a democracy. In that same issue Emory University's Political Scientist Dr. Richard Joseph seriously criticizes Henze's declaration that Meles Zenawi's Ethiopian government is democratic in structure, substance and practice. Dr. Joseph says, "By simply echoing the EPRDF's claims and denials, and adding his own obfuscations, Henze has done a disservice to the Ethiopian government, its people, and the community of scholars and policy analysts." (Pg. 60)

With respect to Henze's assessment of Ethiopia's government, Dr. Joseph is not alone. On Henze's view, the editors of that same issue of Journal of Democracy state,"This is a view that runs counter to the assessments of most scholars and international monitoring organizations, who generally regard the EPRDF rule as falling well short of democratic standards."

Again, on the same issue and same publication, John W. Harbeson of the United States Institute of Peace adds," In my view, Henze conveys a highly misleading account of Ethiopia's post-1991 political transition by glossing over or completely overlooking some of its most important dynamics."(Pg. 66)

That there is no democracy in Ethiopia is an open secret. In its August 16, 1997 issue The Economist appropriately describes Ethiopia's form of government as a "Federal Sham." Paul Henze's position on the nature of Ethiopia's present form of government, then, clearly manifests - among other things - a serious and harmful lack of intellectual integrity.

The present conflict finds Henze continuing his habit. In his April 7 interview with The Reporter he makes several uncorroborated as well as easily refutable and discreditable statements. With respect to the OAU Plan, Henze states, "I see no evidence that there is any movement in the Eritrean side…" But on March 5 the Eritrean government issued a press release indicating that together with the OAU and consistent with the OAU Plan, Eritrea has already established a high level body ready to negotiate the implementation of the plan. There could not be any greater evidence of positive movement on Eritrea's part than the establishment of an implementation body. Strike one!

In unison with the Ethiopian government, Henze wants to see the Eritrean government explain "…to their own people through their own media what their position is…" The Eritrean government has been explaining its position on the OAU's plan as well as the result of the battle of Badme since its acceptance of the plan on February 27. Since then, Foreign Minister Haile Woldetensae explained Eritrea's position in an extensive radio interview in March, the Eritrean Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been issuing press releases almost daily, and President Issaias Afwerki addressed Eritrea's position extensively in a two part radio interview on March 31. Once again, Henze makes easily discreditable assertions. Strike two!

Henze proceeds to say that Eritrea is in violation of the OAU's established " principle that African states should change their borders only by mutual agreement and peaceful means." However, it was Ethiopia that violated that principle by a) unilaterally drawing a map that violated the colonially inherited Eritrea-Ethiopia border and b) creating facts on ground by militarily occupying Bada in 1997 and provoking a border dispute at Badme in May 1998. These two points will be proven in time. It is nonetheless instructive to note that the OAU has not thus far indicated that Eritrea violated any of its principles. On the other hand, the OAU has called for an investigation of the two incidents above as part of its proposed peace plan. Henze, then, appears to know more about what constitutes violation of OAU principles than the OAU itself. Strike three!

Regarding the Eritrean government, Henze opines that it "..is not trusted by many of its people now; there is no reason why they should trust it." The international community acknowledges that the current government led by President Issaias Afwerki continues to enjoy the support and trust of its population. Eight years after liberation and six after independence, the majority of Eritreans hold up the current regime as legitimate and true to the collective ideal of an independent, self-reliant African nation. The Washington Post's February 14, 1999 quote of the day was:

Issaias Afwerki is the George Washington of Eritrea…He is the one who most people consider brought them their freedom and sovereignty [A29].

The same cannot be said about Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the present leader of the Ethiopian government. Unlike Afwerki, Zenawi has been regarded as the architect of Ethiopia’s institutionalized ethnic nationalism that placed post-1991 Ethiopia on a collision course with civic nationalists who fought for not only a democratic and pluralist Ethiopia, but also a unitary nation. The March 1999 issue of the Ethiopian Register published how some Ethiopian students chose to celebrate Ethiopia's pyrrhic victory in Badme in the midst of celebrating the historical Battle of Adwa in March:

Later more students decided to join the demonstration and changed the spirit of the demonstration from support for the government to solidarity with the Ethiopian Forces. It was in this context that some students carried placards saying Ke Badme mels wede Meles! "After the return from Badme let's march on Meles"

[pg. 11]

It should be recalled that it is Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Henze anointed Mr. Democracy himself, who on July 9 said that Ethiopia can deport anyone even "if we do not like the color of their eyes." He made this dangerous, alarming, and by all standards undemocratic statement in reply to UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson's condemnation of Ethiopia's policy of deportation. Strike four!

Regarding the current conflict, Henze's most serious yet easiest to discredit accusation against Eritrea is the following, "This is a clear case of aggression on the part of Eritrea and resistance to aggression on the part of Ethiopia." Henze accuses Eritrea of aggression without indicating how Eritrea committed this alleged transgression. Nowhere does he specify how exactly Eritrea attempted to change its borders with Ethiopia in violation of the OAU principles. Nowhere does he explain how exactly are Ethiopia's territorial rights violated in conflict with the OAU's principle of sanctity of colonial borders. Only the most gullible can accept Eritrea aggression based on Henze's fiat. Strike five!

Moreover, if the present war between Eritrea and Ethiopia were so clear, why is it that the US, UN, OAU and EU have not reached Henze's conclusion ? A clear case should not take a year or more to reach. Unlike Iraq's aggression against Kuwait, the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict is not clear and will likely end, not by an internationally imposed military solution, but by peaceful negotiations between the two belligerents. Strike six!

Even recent events render Henze's insights questionable. No sooner Henze spoke of Ethiopia's innocence than yet another event exposed Ethiopia's aggressive tendencies. He states that "Ethiopia has never attacked any neighboring country" but on April 11, less than a week after he uttered these words, BBC reported that feuding Somali leaders Ali Mahdi and Hussein Aideed issued a joint statement to the UN Security Council as well as the OAU indicating that Ethiopia is committing aggression against Somalia. Strike seven!

Let's carefully look at Paul Henze. It is this very person whose statements are at best uncorroborated and at worst in incontrovertible conflict with the facts that in his extensive interview with The Reporter advises Ethiopians to support the Tigray-dominated Ethiopian government, to focus on the future; not the present or the past. It is Henze that vehemently urges Ethiopians to ignore important questions such as where exactly are the disputed territories? what exactly are the geographic coordinates of these territories? why is Ethiopia losing so many troops? why is it that independent journalists have not been allowed access to Badme, Tsorona and anywhere near the war front ? why is it that the international community is not overwhelmingly supporting Ethiopia, the previously prestigious country that was once the envy of much of Africa ?

Henze's view on Ethiopia as well as its present war with Eritrea is inordinately biased and as a result, should continue to be seriously challenged by Horn of Africa scholars and analysts. In fact, in their October 1998 issue the editors of Journal of Democracy were compelled to do something extraordinary, if not unprecedented, when they received his piece for publication: they published not one but two articles refuting his on the same issue. As a berating critic of President Clinton, he will not be able to significantly influence the State Department in favor of Ethiopia. As a, in his own words, "pro-EPRDF", he will not be able to fool Ethiopians about the legitimacy of this minority led government that has ethnically divided the once unified Ethiopia in order to enrich Tigray at the expense of the rest of Ethiopia.

Hence, whether the words are uttered by Paul Henze or Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Ethiopians should not allow themselves to be mesmerized by wishful thinking. They have yet to see their government’s rhetoric match concrete results on the military and diplomatic fronts. They anxiously await independent confirmation of the Ethiopian government press statements. Like the rest of the world, they are disappointed by this Ethiopian government, particularly when it exacerbates its precarious position by recruiting a supporter as patronizingly insulting as Paul Henze.

In the final analysis Henze is perhaps best understood through his own words. In his article titled Moscow, Mengistu, And The Horn: Difficult Choices For The Kremlin Henze writes, "In its crudity, it (report on alleged American plan to overthrow Mengistu) is insulting to the intelligence of the Ethiopians." In their naked unrealism, unfortunately, his statements on the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia are an insult to the intelligence of the Ethiopians as well.