Eritrean Aggression and US Policy: Which Way to Peace

The United States has been mediating peace since Eritrea's invasion of Ethiopia about 17 months ago. In the meantime, the expectation of Ethiopians has been that the US would denounce the aggressor because no one other than the US would know better how Eritrea has for years been heavily dependent on Ethiopian resources while Ethiopia was actually focused on fighting underdevelopment.

But as the war appears shifting into higher gear, the US conduct has generated mistrust among Ethiopians. Why? This question makes it necessary to examine US policy in the region. Is the US interested in saving Eritrea as a nation or saving Eritrean dictator Issayas Afewerki's regime? As we all know, the conduct of US foreign policy has been defending anyone that seems to defend US interests, even though what the US defends is a tyrannical regime as that of Eritrea. So far the immediate policy does not make sense to understand the American interest. The US simply underestimated Ethiopia's ability to halt Eritrean aggression. The expectations that the Eritrean regime could further destabilize Ethiopia has resulted in consolidating Ethiopian unity. The idea of treating the Ethio-Eritrean conflict only as a border war is absurd. The economic context has created enough steam to ignite further confrontation.

I shall only focus why the diplomatic shuttle (American) failed resolving Ethio-Eritrean conflict. American conduct seems to play the outside agitator role. In noting this, the policy movers and shakers for Africa sounded more like cheerleaders than peacemakers. Eritrea, a country that in its present form is only seven years old, has been a country in crisis, a country which failed to steer right from the start a straight course with its neighbors. Ironically, American disengagement comes when African countries have taken bold steps to liberalize their economy. Ethiopia accepted the market-oriented economic reform programs demanded by the United States and formulated by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Ethiopia liberalized her trade policies and have put much more effort into promoting export oriented growth. In addition, the country has devalued its currency and drastically reduced the state control and subsidies that Ethiopia has implemented, including new investment codes that are extremely favorable to foreign investors.

On the other hand, the Eritreans were not committed to such objectives. Eritrea is in fact at odds even with the basic ideals of democracy. No opposition parties and no private press. Therefore, the policy incentives of Ethiopia revealed assumptions and desires quite different from the Eritreans approach of development. The Eritrean approach right from the start supports a state-controlled economy. Even as an aid recipient, Eritrea wanted no strings attached to it because the militaristic regime had no other objective than spending millions of dollars on purchasing arms and ammunition.

The difference between Ethiopia and Eritera is even more manifest in the economy. Ethiopia's economy grew at a rate of over seven percent as a result of their close involvement with the program put forward by IMF and World Bank. On the other hand the Eritrean regime lost control over its economy and investment policy. Their illusion of becoming like the four tigers of Asia further disillusioned into anarchy and lawlessness by invading someone's territory.

The United States has tried, with only limited success, to expand and prompt trade and investment in Africa. President Clinton's visit to Africa only produced warm hospitality and a firm handshake, which cannot solve Africa's problems. It only raises unrealistic expectations. The American policy towards Africa is always at odds when it comes to aid Africa. In November 1990, it raised aid to Africa to about $800 million, which was more than 40 percent over the $560 million suggested by Bush Administration. Nevertheless, the amount is a drop in pocket when compared to the $2.3 billion the United States dishes out yearly to Egypt and $3 billion in economic and military assistance for Israel.

Why has not American aid to Africa raised to the level of Egypt's? Corporate America remains largely peripheral when it comes to Africa and its untapped potential. Still its knowledge of the continent barely extends beyond what appears in the popular media, which is always distorted with stereotypes. As a result of this, Africa's problems have grown to catastrophic proportions. Although the United States has forced radical economic reforms in Africa, it has also demanded major changes in the political environment. As a lip service, United States policy towards Africa has appeared to change to some extent. At least in paper the public assistance to Africa was linked to democratization, multiparty politics, and free and fair elections. Despite this it is clear that the United States is supporting Eritrea which has violated the rights of states to live in peace and gone to war with Yemen, Sudan, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

The naked aggression of the Eritrean regime is aimed at destabilizing the Horn of Africa. Eritrea seems to acknowledge that by destabilizing the Horn it can create governments that are amenable to its desire of plundering their resources. But this has proven catastrophic because Eritrea is too weak both economically and militarily to overthrow such strong governments such as Ethiopia's. The chances are that Eritrea itself is most likely to suffer the consequences of its unwarranted actions that the US has failed to denounce.

As we all know, the Eritrean regime is characterized by opting for a military solution over political solutions. A case in point the aggression against Ethiopia which has escalated rapidly, absorbing more manpower and resources. So far United States involvement to resolve the Ethio-Eritrean crisis is not only unfair but in fact violates article 51 of the UN charter. The stand taken by United States of America encourages the Asmara authorities to defy the rule of international law. The UN Security Council, which is spearheaded by United States of America, treated both the aggressor and the victim on equal footing and imposed an arms embargo. Had the United States and the world sent a clear message that aggression should not tolerated, it could have prevented the bloodshed.

Even now, the danger of war is looming large over the horizon and it is never late for the US and other influential mediators to help restore peace in the Horn. And for this to take place, there is one and only one option: THE OCCUPATION ARMY OF ISSAIAS AFEWERKI MUST WITHDRAW FROM ALL ETHIOPIAN TERRITORIES WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.As the Ethiopian people and government reiterated time and again, anything short of Eritrea pulling its forces to pre-May 6, 1998 positions would be doomed to fail and Eritrea is very likely to suffer the consequences of inviting another round of death and destruction.