"Status Quo Ante": Nowhere in Any Peace Package
By Saleh AAY Sep. 28, 1999


When Eritrea and Ethiopia were asked by the OAU High Level Delegation in July 1998 what their recommendation were for peaceful solution to the conflict was, both parties gave their "bottom line." In its Ougadougou meeting of November 7 and 8, the OAU High-Level Delegation described the "bottom line" as follows:

"While the Ethiopian side demands the prior withdrawal of Eritrean
forces from Badme and its environs and the restoration of the status
quo ante, the Eritrean side proposes the demilitarization of the
common border through the simultaneous withdrawal of the forces of
the two Parties…."

The High-Level Delegation took note of the two positions and went on to state:

"Our major concern has been and still is to know how to reconcile
these two positions. The solution which we are proposing is based
on the principle that each of the Parties must be willing to make a
concession to facilitate the attainment of a comprehensive and
peaceful solution to the crisis. This concession made by one another
will be the key to a comprehensive Peace Agreement the details of
which will be submitted to you in a separate document."

That was in November 1998. The "separate document" they refer to is the document that came to be known as the "Framework Agreement." Along with the Modalities and the Technical Agreement, the Framework Agreement is the peace package that has been submitted by the OAU in its mediation effort on the tragic Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict.

The entire peace package is over 10,000 words. Nowhere in any of the three documents,--or even the US-wanda Peace Plan--do the following words exist: "Status quo Ante." Remember that Ethiopia has "fully accepted" US Rwanda and two of the three OAU proposals. (It is agnostic on the Technical Arrangments.) Yet, Ethiopia has made "Status Quo Ante" its mantra. It is as if nothing happened between May 13, 1998 to present. A party enters willingly into negotiations, is offered less than what it wants, claims that it accepts the offer, then insists that it gets more than what it is offered.

This may be baffling to those who are familiar with TPLF history (including many of the current war cheerleaders in the new Ethiopian coalition) but not to Eritreans.

The facts are these: making choices has never been easy for the Ethiopian Leadership. From 1975-1990, it wholeheartedly accepted the dual goals of liberating Tigray from the shackles of Amhara dictatorship AND keeping Ethiopia whole and democratic;. It espoused provincial ethnic-based ideology AND universal Marxism;. It considered the EPLF its ally AND mortal enemy. It told us that Ethiopia was said to have a 3000 year history AND only 100 years. It lectured that border disputes should be resolved only peacefully using Menelik-Italian treaties. Now it says Ethiopia must solve border disputes militarily. Its forces are nowhere in Somalia -- except when they are scoring one impressive victory after another.

This habit of talking out of both sides of your mouth eventually catches up with you-as it has with the Ethiopian leadership. The Ethiopian leadership must decide that it accepts the Framework Agreement, its Modalities and the Technical Arrangements OR it rejects the peace package and insists on having its "bottom line" of "Status quo ante." The first choice alienates it from its new war-mongering, Eritrea-hating friends; the second choice makes the
alms-givers very unhappy. Solution: To go on pretending that the peace package offers Ethiopia restoration of the "status quo ante." This is why Ethiopia continues to talk about the "pillars" of the peace package and the "spirit" when everybody knows that the OAU has rejected its claims of Eritrean aggression and that the unilateral withdrawal is only as a sign of goodwill. Ethiopia's stance won't stand--that is assuming the people who authored the peace package (and their influential partners) finally tell the Ethiopian Government that the agreements it has supposedly accepted do not call for restoration of status quo ante.

And what does Ethiopia find objectionable in the Peace Package it has "fully accepted"? What rights are the mediators denying it? Limits on exercising democracy? Maintaining law and order? Education? Tourism? Tax collection? No. Ethiopia is claiming that the Technical Arrangements denies it the right to deport people and brandish weapons. For fifty long days. Does this sound like a nation ready for peace?

In contrast, Eritrea has compromised for peace. It has agreed to
unilaterally withdraw from not only "Badme Town and Environs" but all disputed territories. It has agreed that--until the issue of ownership is decided permanently through demarcation--the Ethiopian "civilian administration" (code for heavily-armed militia) can return to the disputed territories. It has agreed that Ethiopia can even expel people from these territories--provided that it is not excessive and arbitrary. Does this sound like a nation ready for peace?

It is time for the mediators to tell the world who is for peace and who is for war. And let the international community make its position known loudly and clearly because the Ethiopian Government thrives in areas of ambiguities and fuzziness.