Fiction Vs Fiction: The Dueling Ethiopian Stories

By Saleh AA Younis

march 30, 1999

With respect to the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict, in the battle waged over the internet to win the hearts and minds of all rational people, it’s now become standard practice for Eritreans to present a "Fact vs. Fiction" only to be contradicted by Ethiopia's version of "Fact Vs Fiction." In straying from this orthodoxy, I now present Ethiopian Fiction Vs Ethiopian Fiction, dueling and contradictory Ethiopian arguments presented by the Ethiopian Government’s apologists to support ridiculous claims. 

The issues deal with the apologist’s explanation for the following:

 

     
  • Fact 1: Bada. 
What happened on July 1997 at Bada is now commonly referred to as the "Bada Incident." The Eritreans says that in July 1997, the Ethiopian Government, in hot pursuit of an insurgent military group, crossed over Eritrean border, dismantled the administration of a hamlet known as Adi Murug and stayed there. The method the Eritrean Government used to protest Ethiopia’s violation of its sovereignty was in stark contrast to Ethiopia’s declaration of war of May 14, 1998. Quite simply, the Eritrean President sent a letter to the Ethiopian Prime Minister to express his concern. Since May 1998, the Eritrean Government has requested that all mediation efforts begin with investigating what happened at Bada. Throughout the conflict, Ethiopia had been downplaying the incidents of Bada and the issue was included in the OAU Framework Agreement over its strong objection. 

 

FICTION 1 A: THE OLD ETHIOPIAN VERSION OF THE "BADA INCIDENT"                       (As told by Wray Witten*, JD MPA, November 1998) 

Thus, from 1991 to July 1997 the Bada area was effectively a "restricted" military area, with the ANLF and Gugma guerillas frequently fighting both Ethiopian and Eritrean military forces, Eritrea pressing them from the north and Ethiopia pressing them from the south. Because of this, for example, two foreigners who strayed near the area from the Ethiopian side were arrested in 1996. I myself was detained in 1996 in Sheket, 100 kilometers to the south. And a group of Italian tourists who strayed into the area from the Red Sea coast had to be rescued from Gugma by administrators from Tigray traveling together with some of the Afar elders I have interviewed.

Under these circumstances, what kind of "administration" was there in the Bada area between 1991 and July 1997? In fact, neither Ethiopian nor Eritrean forces were able to create a sufficiently secure environment in the village of Ad’Murug for regular government services because of the frequent fighting. Added to this, in what has come to seem like standard Eritrean military procedure, Eritrean military forces took all the equipment from the Ad’Murug school and clinic on a foray into the area soon after 1991. The Ad’Murug school and clinic did not operate between then and July 1997.

The irrigated farms continued to operate, however, as resilient private enterprises often do under such circumstances. And at some point, probably in 1996, the Eritrean government undertook to repair and improve the irrigation structures. But the Gugma destroyed the work. After that the irrigation facilities were maintained and operated only by the farmers’ traditional non-governmental irrigators’ associations.

<DELETED FOR BREVITY>

It was only in July 1997, as a result of the "Bada incident", that Ethiopia finally was successful in coming to terms with Gugma through a combination of military force and negotiations. During the final military engagement, the Ethiopian troops moved forward and the Eritrean troops retreated in a coordinated manner, in order to avoid accidental clashes between Eritrean and Ethiopian troops. This had been the practice of both forces in the proceeding years, as is referenced in the exchange of letters between the heads of state of Eritrea and Ethiopia at the time. Significantly, for almost a year after the incident, Eritrea did not refer to this military action as a justification for war. Just as it had not taken previous similar Ethiopian military actions in the same area as justifications for war.

Finally, it is important to point out that the Ethiopian forces that succeeded in establishing a peace with the Gugma in July 1997 subsequently withdrew from the Bada area. The entire Bada area, including the village of Ad’Murug is today under the administration of the Eritrean government.

 

FICTION 1B: THE NEW, IMPROVED ETHIOPIAN VERSION OF THE "BADA INCIDENT" (As told Sewale Belew, The Conflict between EPLF Leadership and the Ethiopian Government, March 1999) 

EPLF Forces illegal attack in Bada In August 1997, EPLF forces illegally entered Adi Murug in the Bada area and the EPLF leadership in Asmara did not attempt to justify the incursion by denying Ethiopian sovereignty over the area. Instead, EPLF leaders explained that it had been pursuing reclamation of land that belonged to Eritrea. Nonetheless, while present in Bada, EPLF forces dismantled public administration and property belonging to the community and set up a military administration of their own. 

 

     
  • Fact 2: The New Tigray Map. 
It is a fact that soon after it came to power, the Ethiopian Government redrew the provincial maps of Ethiopia and that the winner of the redrawing of the maps was (surprise!) the Ethiopian Province of Tigray—home to the dominant players of the Ethiopian Government. (See old literature of the disenfranchised groups) In 1997 (quite an eventful year for the Ethiopian Government), new maps of the Province of Tigray appeared, this time incorporating Eritrean land. The maps (some of which appear in the WFP home page) were conspicuous in that        (1) they were different from every other map (including those issued by authoritative bodies like the CIA) and (2) they disfigured perhaps the most identifiable part of Eritrean map: the straight line that crosses the Badme Triangle (and thus justifies its definition as a triangle). Incredibly, to this day, the Ethiopian Government hasn’t (1) disavowed the illegal map; (2) decided whether the line that separates the Badme Triangle and the Yirga Triangle is really a straight line or not.

Myth 2.1. THE OLD ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR THE EXPANSIONIST TIGRAY MAP, (As told by Wray Witten, JD MPA, November 1998)

Briefly, regarding the "map issue", so many conflicting maps exist that it is hard to accept the publication of one more as a reasonable justification of war. In fact, Eritrea published a map of Eritrea in 1993 that located inside Eritrea some areas then administered by Ethiopia, such as Erob Alateina, as well as Ad’Murug. Ethiopia did not take that as an act of war. Both countries simply noted that there were border areas in dispute and eventually they created the bilateral commission to resolve them. Meanwhile each country went about the important business of rebuilding and developing. As did Eritrea for more than six months after the map of Tigray was published in 1997.

Myth 2.2: THE NEW, IMPROVED ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR THE EXPANSIONIST TIGRAY MAP                                                                                                                                         (As told Sewale Belew, The Conflict between EPLF Leadership and the Ethiopian Government, March 1999) 

Much early in time, EPLF leaders obviously attempted to create "new" maps simply altering the traditional borders without any justification or explanation for their unilateral incorporation of Ethiopian territory. They simply felt that they had the power to unilaterally define "the new boundaries of Eritrea with other countries" or to draw the line in the location that it did. While EPLF leaders refuse to state the extent or the basis of their territorial claims, it can hardly be doubted that this new Eritrean map was intended to be an early step in a campaign to acquire still more portions of the Ethiopian territory. 

 

     
  • Fact 3: The May 6 Badme Incident
Prior to May 1991, citizenship and nationality was not an issue since Eritrea was just another province of Ethiopia and Eritrea in its entirety was administered by Ethiopia. After Eritrean independence, May 1991, the border areas are inhabited by people of mixed citizenry; some called themselves Eritreans and others Ethiopians. Badme Town was administered by Ethiopian authorities. From 1991 to 1998, there were repeated complaints by Eritrean citizens (farmers and pastoralists) that they were being abused by the Ethiopian authorities in Badme. These complain kept increasing in volume and magnitude but they were being handled by the Bilateral Commission that the two governments had set up. The slow pace of the commission’s work could be attributed to (a) foot dragging by Ethiopia which knew that, according to colonial maps and treaties, it was administering Eritrean territories (b) the low priority given to territorial issues by Eritrea’s macroeconomic policy and (c) the unique Ethiopian system which granted provinces autonomous powers including secession and the Ethiopian Government was ambivalent on whether border issues were a Federal question or a provincial question.

According to Eritrea, in May 6, 1998 mediators who went to Badme to safeguard the interests of Eritrean citizens were murdered in cold blood. What does Ethiopia say? It depends on when you asked the question. What is instructive is that throughout the conflict it was Eritrea who has been calling for an investigation into the events of May 6, 1998. The OAU’s investigation was limited to: who was administering the area on May 6, 1998.

Myth 2A: THE OLD ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR THE "BADME INCIDENT"               (As told by Wray Witten, JD MPA in BADA: Further Background Information Concerning the Eritrean Invasion of Ethiopia, November 1998) 

It is equally difficult to accept the "May 6 events" in the Badime area as a justification for war. Though local Ethiopian militias were certainly present along the border (because in every Ethiopian village local men are selected by the people to be armed and to serve as a rural police force, some even with uniforms), contrary to Eritrea’s current—and revised—statements there were no Ethiopian military units in the area. Given the history of the border dispute it seems quite probable that there was very simply "just another border incident" like many before it: people from both sides of the disputed border argued hotly and shot at each other (which is why both sides had previously agreed not to bring weapons into the other’s administrative areas) and some people—very regrettably—died. In order to try to stop just this sort of thing Eritrea and Ethiopia had created the bilateral commission to settle once and for all their borders. It is hard to take seriously the Eritrean claim that yet another such event could justify a military invasion by Eritrea at the very time when the bilateral commission was meeting.

 

FICTION 2B: THE NEW, IMPROVED ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR THE "BADME INCIDENT"                                                                                                                                    

(As told by Darota Chara, Fact vs. Fiction: Refuting Eritrean Allegations and Fabrications, March 29, 1999) 

On 6 May 1998, a violent confrontation was provoked when armed Eritrean troops crossed into Ethiopian territory in the Badme area. The Ethiopian police immediately reminded the Eritrean troops of an existing agreement that prohibited individuals from crossing armed to either side of the border and asked them to leave their arms on their side if they wished to enter Ethiopian territory. The Eritrean troops not only refused to comply with the Ethiopian police’s request, but they also opened fire and an exchange of shooting ensued which resulted in casualties on both sides. Six days later, the Eritrean army, backed by tanks, invaded Badme town and its environs, overwhelmed the local police posts and the militia and occupied the Ethiopian territory. There were no Ethiopian army units in the area at that time. An investigation undertook by an OAU Committee of Ambassadors concluded that Ethiopia was administering Badme before 12 May and that what happened in Badme from 6-8 May constitutes a fundamental element of the conflict.

     
  • Fact 3: Ethiopia’s Deportation of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean Ancestry
Ethiopia’s recklessness and inhumanity has been documented by:
Amnesty International**<http://www.amnesty.org/news/1999/12500299.htm>
Human Rights Watch <http://www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport99> UN High Commission for Human Rights (07/01/98) and (12/11/98)
EU Heads of Mission in Eritrea**

OAU Ambassadors Report **

Australian Jurist, Natalie Klein** http://visafric.com/Klein.htm 

** In addition to condemning Ethiopia, these agencies reported that Ethiopia’s claims of Eritrea’s violation of Ethiopian human rights are without merit. 

Myth 3A. THE OLD ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR DEPORTING ERITREANS AND ETHIOPIANS OF ERITREAN ANCESTRY:

(A) IT IS OUR PREROGATIVE, NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS ARGUMENT advanced by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, June 9, 1998, Radio Ethiopia): "...any foreign national, whether Eritrean or Japanese, etc...lives in Ethiopia because of the goodwill of the Ethiopian government. If we say, ‘Go, because we don’t like the color of your eyes,’ they have to leave."

(B) "IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DEPORT FOREIGNERS, BUT WE ARE NOT DEPORTING ETHIOPIANS" ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY ZAKIR IBRAHIM, in "The Legal Aspect of Ethiopia’s Deportation of Undesirable Eritreans."

Hence, under Eritrean law, acquisition of Eritrean nationality, expressed by possession of identity card was the pre-condition for participation in the Referendum. Thus, for the purpose of the Ethiopian Nationality Act, deportees confirmed to have taken part in the Referendum have voluntarily lost Ethiopian nationality and should be considered as Eritrean nationals. The Ethiopian nationality is automatically lost as soon as Eritrean nationality is acquired. 
(C) ERITREANS ARE WELCOME TO STAY IN ETHIOPIA AS LONG AS THEY CONDEMN SHABIYYAH ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY SEYOUM MESFIN, Interview with Ethiopian TV, June 18, 1998: If the Eritreans are innocent citizens and if they appeal in unity, if they condemn the aggression attempted on the country, raise their voices together with those of the Ethiopian people for the achievement of peace, they will not be under threat.
Myth 3B: THE NEW, IMPROVED ETHIOPIAN EXPLANATION FOR DEPORTING ERITREANS AND ETHIOPIANS OF ERITREAN ANCESTRY

:(As told by Darota Chara, Fact vs. Fiction:Refuting Eritrean Allegations and Fabrications, March 29, 1999)

The Ethiopian government has only deported those Eritreans considered likely to pose a threat to its national security. Peace-loving Eritreans continue to live and work peacefully in Ethiopia. Ex-combatants and conscripts suspected of posing a threat to national security, on account of their training, have been detained at temporary camps. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been allowed full access to these individuals. Functionaries of the EPLF office and other party interests in Addis Ababa have also been expelled, as well as Eritreans engaged in spying activities and mobilizing financial and other resources to support the Eritrean aggression.