Ethiopia Gets no Permission to continue Deportation
                    By Ghidewon Abay-Asmerom, August 29, 1999


"Article 9 (a) (2.1) [of the Technical Arrangements] provides for the
prohibition of deportation from the areas where civilian administration
has been restored. How does this square with the sovereign right of a
state?"

These are Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's words. The OAU Technical
Arrangements clearly prohibits deportations, however, the Prime Minister
on behalf of his government is asking, "how does this square with our
sovereign right to deport people for not liking the color of their eyes?"
Yes it is as shocking as it sounds. The world is hoping to make peace and
Ethiopian leaders are hoping to continue their human right abuses.

Here is Article 8 of the Framework Agreement. Ethiopia had "accepted" it
without "Ifs and Buts" as early as November 1998.

" 8(a) At the humanitarian level, the two Parties commit themselves
to put an end to measures directed against the civilian population
and refrain from any action which can cause further hardship and
suffering to each other's nationals";

Under this proposal deportation is out of the question. It is a measure
directed against civilians that causes "hardship and suffering". Didn't
Ethiopian leaders know what they were accepting prohibited deportations?
May be not. Well the Technical Arrangements leaves no room for ambiguity.
Along the letter and spirit of the Framework it both explicitly and
implicitly declares that neither Eritrea nor Ethiopia should harass,
mistreat, detain or deport civilians.

The question that needs an answer is: are Ethiopian leaders ready to end
"measures directed against the civilian population"? Is the minority TPLF
regime willing to "refrain from [taking] any action which can cause
further hardship and suffering" against civilians? Can the Tigrayan
leaders of Ethiopia live by the commitment that is being asked of the
peace process? Can they? No, Eritreans do not think so; but let's see:

If the civilian population is to feel safe and secure, then "displacement
and deportation" should stop. This is what Article 9 (a2.1 & a.2.2) of the
OAU Technical Arrangements specifically requires. A country that doesn't
have an official policy of "expulsion", "deportation", "displacement" or
"ethnic cleansing" should see no problem with either the spelling or the
grammar of this basic human rights requirement, unless we are talking
about Ethiopia.

The Technical Arrangements also want both Parties to commit to the
facilitation of "human rights monitoring". Again there should be no reason
for concern on this requirement. A Party that is confident of its human
rights record and is certain that it hasn't done any thing wrong shouldn't
worry if international human rights organizations come to investigate
government policies and acts, unless we are talking about the TPLF.

Apparently both the prohibition of deportations and the deployment of
human rights monitors are scaring the hell out of Ethiopian leaders. It
seems the specifications of Article 9 are not sitting well with the
Woyanes either. To make sure they have read it right they asked the OAU to
clarify this prohibition. Here are Woyane's own words:

"Article 9 (a) (2.1) provides for the prohibition of deportation from
the areas where civilian administration has been restored. How
does this square with the sovereign right of a state to take
measures to remove any national security threat to the nation?"

One issue is clear; Ethiopia is obsessed with this "sovereign right" of
the disputed territories. The Framework, Modalities, and Technical
Arrangements had made it clear that no body will have "sovereign right" to
the disputed territories before demarcation. Yet, the TPLF leaders have to
mention it again and again. The TPLF leaders are interested in this phrase
for two reasons. First if they get any loophole in the clarification on
this phrase they will come back and ask for a new delimitation based on
their illegal map of 1997. Their wish after that is to go straight to a
demarcation that makes the disputed territories their own. Second reason
is that if they can establish "sovereignty" over the disputed territory
then they will surely deport Eritreans from the area. On this regard we
have to know that people that are displaced from both sides of the
international boundary around Badme are of Eritrean origin. They are
farmers that moved there in the past 20-30 years.

Why are they interested in deportation at a time when people are taking
about peace? It appears that either our Ethiopian neighbors do not
understand the meaning of the peace proposal they accepted in November, or
they simply don't want to make peace. Of course every Eritrean's guess is
the latter.

I don't think they will be happy with human rights monitoring either. We
have to remember that they condemned UN High Commissioner for Human
rights, Mary Robinson, for her statement against their deportation of
Ethiopians of Eritrean heritage. They had attacked the US State department
because it spoke against their expulsions. They had also gone out of
their way to denounce Amnesty International for its damning report on
their acts and policies. Will they now allow human rights monitors to
investigate all their actions? It is highly unlikely.

The Ethiopian leaders' audacity to ask for "a right to deport more people"
reminds us of the Tigrigna saying "anen HaSiruni ebl nsuKe tedebiru
yisEsE". This is indeed outrageous. It is a sign that Seyoum and Co. are
not willing to make peace with the Eritrean people. How else can we
understand their fresh desire to deport more people for "security reasons"
from areas they might administer for less than six months? To be more
exact, if demarcation goes smooth, they will be administering some of the
disputed area less than 121 days. It is their hateful and evil mind that
is making them look for a green light to deport more nuns, newborn babies,
and elderly. All of course will be deported as "security risks". There is
another catch to this calculation. If the OAU now says yes "you can
deport", then they will use it to argue that all their previous illegal
expulsions were also "just" and thus do not have to pay for their illegal
act. As far as I am concerned it is better to trust the Devil than the
Woyane.

Restitutions for the Deported

Here is the second part of Article 8 of the Framework for Agreement: "8
(b) the two Parties also commit themselves to addressing the negative
socio-economic impact of the crisis on the civilian population,
particularly, those persons who had been deported;"

Is the minority government of Ethiopia ready to address "the negative
socio-economic impact of the crisis on the civilian population,
particularly, those persons who had been deported"? In other words, is the
TPLF led government of Ethiopia ready to compensate all those who were
expelled for no other reason but their national origin? Is the Tigrayan
Administration ready to allow all the farmers it expelled from Badma since
1992 to return to their land? Is the Prime Minister of Ethiopia ready to
pay restitution to all those innocent Ethiopians he expelled for not
liking "the color of their eyes"? According to the Framework Agreement
and Technical Arrangements all deportees, be they farmers or urban
dwellers, have to be compensated for every dime and cent of what they have
lost. Will Ethiopia sign the peace deal on the table knowing all these
consequences? We have to wait and see.

As early as December, when it asked the OAU for clarifications, Eritrea
had specifically asked the OAU on the issue of redressing the human rights
violations. Here is one of the questions: "What will be the role of the
OAU in ensuring that these violations [deportations] are redressed?"

The answer it got from the OAU was: "The OAU, with the cooperation of both
parties and with the assistance of the United Nations and other relevant
institutions, will help the parties to address all aspects of the dispute,
including the humanitarian problems generated by the dispute."

The mechanism of this answer is now spelled out in the Technical
Arrangements.

"14. Consistent with paragraphs 8(a), 8(b) and 10 of the Framework
Agreement, the Parties commit themselves to addressing all humanitarian
concerns resulting from the conflict, particularly the issues of those
persons who have been deported or displaced, as well as the
socio-economic consequences of the dispute.

"For their part, and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the
Framework Agreement, the OAU and the United Nations, working closely
with the International Community, will endeavour to mobilize
resources to assist in addressing such concerns.

"The Parties agree to refer any specific claim on such issues to an
appropriate mechanism of arbitration for binding resolution, should
efforts to negotiated settlement or mediation not succeed.

"If the Parties are unable to agree on the appropriate mechanism of
arbitration within a period of three months starting from the signing,
the UN Secretary General, in consultation with the OAU Secretary
General, will determine the appropriate mechanism of arbitration."

These are the steps of the mechanism envisioned to address the
humanitarian issues. As clarified to Ethiopia, these Technical
Arrangements are not subject to any amendment. This notwithstanding,
Ethiopia had asked the following question for clarification on Article 14.

"Article 14 of the Technical Arrangements envisage arbitration on
humanitarian issues and issues concerning the socio-economic
consequences of the dispute if the Parties fail to settle it
through bilateral negotiations or mediation. Will individuals have
direct access to the arbitration mechanism or will their cases be
espoused by their respective government? Will the mechanism have
the mandate to handle and decide cases concerning:

- Ethiopian property taken by the Eritrean Government at the ports if
Assab and Massawa,
- destruction of public infrastructures like schools, clinics, public
administration buildings, religious and cultural objects and
private property of all kinds in the areas occupied by Eritrea
since 6 May 1998,
- disappearances and killings of civilians in the occupied territories
of Ethiopia etc."

The OAU's clarification on Ethiopia's question on whether individuals will
have a direct access to the mechanism of arbitration or not is that, "it
is up to the individuals and their governments". On the other hand the UN
instituted arbitration, if a need for that arises, will work in accordance
to "customary international practice".

The second question shows that Ethiopia is trying to reintroduce its March
1999 condition through a back-door manipulation. After Ethiopia retook
Badma and before its humiliating defeat at Egri Makel, it had tried to up
the ante for a peace deal with Eritrea. Through a letter to the UN
Security Council and on its public declarations it had tabled the
following pre-conditions:

"Furthermore, in light of the huge loss of lives, the humanitarian
crisis and the destruction of property caused by the Eritrean
aggression, Ethiopia will insist, as it already has done in a letter by
its Prime Minister to the President of the Security Council on 8 March
1999, that Eritrea bears full responsibility for all these damages.
This is the road to peace and to the successful implementation of the
Framework Agreement."
-- Office of Government Spokesperson March 10, 1999

"If Eritrea is genuinely willing to accept the OAU Framework Agreement
and settle the conflict peacefully, it must: ... bear full
responsibility for the loss of lives, the humanitarian crisis and the
destruction of property that has resulted from its unbridled
aggression."
-- Office of Government Spokesperson March 12, 1999

This was designed to run away from responsibility. Of course this was
before Egri Makel. It was at a time when the world thought Ethiopia got
Badma by defeating Eritrea. It was before the world got a chance to
witness the real story. The human wave attack that made Eritrea to leave
Badma was used to clear a path to Asmara. Reporters had witnessed a
carnage whose equal had never been seen before. Ethiopia had violated the
human rights of Ethiopia's poor soldiers, non-Tigrigna speaking
Ethiopians. Tens of thousands of peasant soldiers were forced to be
human-mine-sweepers and cannon fodder and their sacrifice was dismissed as
"Eritrea's PR ploy". We are talking here of a minority government that
doesn't the decency to mourn its own soldiers. The world had condemned
this as an awful human right abuse. We had read none of these conditions
since Ethiopia's disastrous loss at the Tserona front. Well what do we
know? We are seeing those same preconditions trying to sneak in the
pretext of questions for clarification. The OAU's clarification is as
clear as it could be. What Article 8(b) of the Framework Agreements allows
is in, what it doesn't is, out. Here are the words:

"Without prejudice at this stage to the issues that can be raised by any
Party, it is important to specify that: The scope for this is set out in
most general terms under paragraph 8-b of the Framework Agreement and
under paragraph 14 of the Technical Arrangements".

In short will Ethiopia use these and other excuses to run away from a
peace deal that the world is desperately looking to arrange? We have to
wait and see.

One thing has to be clear. If the peace agreement were going to be
implemented, no action that causes hardship and suffering should be
allowed. Would the TPLF leaders live with such a condition? Investigations
on human rights abuses ought to be conducted, and the guilty Party has to
pay for its actions. Would the Woyane be willing to face justice?

In the past few years, as the minority TPLF government of Ethiopia was
embarking and orchestrating its shameful campaign of "ethnic cleansing",
it had forgotten one reality: that a day of reckoning will come. TPLF
leaders should have paused to consider that their evil policies of hate,
acts of expulsions and robbery would be brought to justice. They cannot
and should not get away with murder. They have to pay for the 60 or so
villages they dismantled along the border. In addition they have to
compensate the more than 65,0000 Ethiopians of Eritrean origin they
arbitrarily expelled. To use their favorite label on them, they cannot be
allowed to use the "law of the jungle". After all these are not "ktra
Dedebit" (the banditry of Dedebit, the base during their armed struggle).
Each and every human right abuse they orchestrated on people of Eritrean
origin should be and will have to be investigated thoroughly and redressed
appropriately.

The TPLF's despicable human rights abuses have to be addressed and justice
should be served. The minority government of Ethiopia should be forced to
refrain from arbitrarily expelling Ethiopian citizens. The minority
government in Finfinie (Addis Ababa) shouldn't be allowed to terrorize
people because of their ethnic origin or their physical characteristics.

The world shouldn't allow civilian internees to suffer in Ethiopia's
concentration camps like those in Blatien and Dedesa. This means the more
than 1500 civilian detainees should be released immediately. Ethiopians of
Eritrean origin should live and work without the risk of being ill-treated
for their national origin and those responsible for the ill-treatment and
deportations should be brought to justice.

The Eritrean people and government should continue to uphold the
protection the Eritrean National Assembly gave Ethiopians in Eritrea.
These people should be free to live and work in Eritrea. They should also
continue to leave Eritrea if that is their wish. Eritrea and Eritreans
should continue our exemplary behavior of not wanting to revenge.

For now we are glad that Ethiopia got no permission to continue
deportations.