User:Lemlemhade

US State Department Officials Serving as Ethiopian Lobbyists By Ghidewon Abay-Asmerom Jun 13, 2006, 15:00

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Mr. Donald Y. Yamamoto, is not new when it comes to the politics of the Horn of Africa. He was Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Asmara; he had served as Deputy Director for East African Affairs. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Djibouti and lately as Deputy Assistant for African Affairs. Given such an experience one would expect Mr. Yamamoto to have an understanding of the complex politics of the Horn of Africa. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Quite to the contrary along with Dr. Jendayi Frazer, the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, he is overseeing another misguided US policy for the Horn of Africa, and all these at a grave consequence to US interests and tax dollars. The latest news from Somalia is a case in point. The problem in the Sudan and the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue being others.

Frazer and Yamamoto have been busy shuttling between Washington, London and Addis, supposedly “to help, support and work together” with Ethiopian authorities to solve their internal conflict and to push for the Eritrea-Ethiopia border demarcation. But unlike their predecessors they have also been very busy giving interviews to journalists. What is interesting is also that either by pure coincidence or by design Mr. Yamamoto in particular likes giving interviews to VOA’s journalists of Ethiopian origin as if the English service of the VOA has no other neutral people.

On Ethiopia’s internal conflict, the Ethiopian opposition and population have been accusing the minority regime in Addis Ababa of stealing the May 2005 election from them. Furthermore, Ethiopians and human rights organizations have accused the Tigrayan dominated Regime in Ethiopia of committing genocide, but ironically the Ethiopian government with a node from the US State Department is now the one who is charging and trying over a hundred opposition leaders, including Voice of America journalists of Ethiopian origin for inciting genocide. And what is the US State Department doing? It is telling the World, “Ethiopia is on the right path; it is in good hands, we have to continue helping and supporting its government because Ethiopia is a very important country, not just to the United States but to the region.” State Department officials add, Ethiopia is important because of its big size and “is strategically located.” How Ethiopia is strategically located, they don’t tell! But it is clear for anyone who follows the politics of the Horn. It all has to do with religion. Ethiopia is “strategically located” because it is the only country whose rulers are perceived to be hostile to Islam and Moslems. This is the only reason why the US is allowing the Ethiopian regime to get away with murder. It doesn’t matter that the majority of Ethiopians are Moslems. It also matters less that Islam, the religion, and the overwhelming faithful Moslems have nothing to do with international terrorism. It has to be noted that such a blind phobia against Islam is going to lead nowhere but to a disaster. An Ethiopia-centered US policy driven by the motive of religion is also a disaster for the region in general but more so for the people of Ethiopia. The region is known for the harmonious coexistence of Christianity and Islam for the past 1400 years. A myopic US policy calculation is thus becoming counterproductive.

On the Eritrea-Ethiopia border demarcation, Mr. Yamamoto is congratulating himself for making Ethiopia attend the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) meetings in London. It is to be remembered that Ethiopia had been boycotting EEBC meetings since it dismissed the EEBC saying “Nothing worthwhile can be expected from the Commission to salvage the peace process. Indeed, the Commission seems to be determined to continue its disastrous stance whatever the consequence to the peace of the region.”[1] Is Mr. Yamamoto now blowing his own horn saying: “I think we are making tremendous progress. As you know the witnesses met in February; the first London meeting was in March. The London meeting was really the first time in a long, long time that Ethiopia participated. That in itself was a tremendous dramatic change in the dialogue”[2] because Ethiopia has changed its attitude to the Commission or towards the Commission’s ruling? No, not at all! Despite Yamamoto’s self-congratulatory pronouncement, there is nothing to hope for. Ethiopia’s position vis-а-vis its rejection of the EEBC Decision is exactly as it was September of 2003. Ethiopia didn’t go to London to implement the April 2002 Decision. It only went there because it believed the US is going to help it change the April 2002 Decision. Since the US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs and her Deputy are actively lobbying on behalf of Ethiopia to change the April 2002 Decision, Ethiopian leaders had no objection to attending the London meeting of the EEBC.

What is interesting is that Dr. Frazer and Mr. Yamamoto are pushing for old issues that Ethiopia had presented to the EEBC on January 24, 2003[3] and before, all without any success. The Commission had looked at all the issues raised by Ethiopia since May 13, 2002 and had unanimously rejected every one of them stating that they were all attempts by Ethiopia “to undermine not only the April Decision but also the peace process as a whole.”[4] That is also exactly what Commission is said in its 21 May 2006 letter to the UN Security Council. "Ethiopia, while accepting the Boundary Commission's April 2002 decision as final and binding, appeared to take the position that if, in the process of demarcating the delimitation line, difficulties were to arise they could only be resolved by negotiations between the parties. The implication of this position could be that any decision of the Boundary Commission on demarcation with which Ethiopia does not agree may not be treated by it as binding."[5]

Characterizing a mere attendance at a meeting as “a tremendous, dramatic change” shows that the US State Department and Mr. Yamamoto are not serious about bringing a speedy demarcation. The question that needs an answer is “where is the acceptance of the Decision by Ethiopia?” Only Ethiopia’s unconditional acceptance of the final and binding April 2002 Decision and her full cooperation with the EEBC to let demarcation proceed unconditionally can be characterized as a dramatic change. Anything short of this is unacceptable. However, by setting the bar for progress so low Mr. Yamamoto and his colleagues at the State Department are trying to give the discredited Ethiopian regime credit and support where it deserves none. So much for stating “the United States is a neutral facilitator.”

The US had promised Ethiopia that it will twist the arm of the Commission to reconsider its April 2002 Delimitation Decision and at the same time it will coerce the Algiers witnesses and guarantors to toe its line. This was the only reason the lawless Ethiopian regime decided to end its boycott of EEBC meetings. The Ethiopian regime had boycotted EEBC meetings because its request for “variations to the boundary line delimited in the April Decision” was repeatedly rejected by the Commission. If the US’ attempt to shove down the Commission’s throat an American General as an envoy of the EEBC succeeded, the Ethiopian regime thought, it had nothing to worry. With the appointment of General Fulford, they were told, they need not be concerned, the General was there to do the dirty work of varying the border for them from within the Commission. In other words, what the US is attempting to do is to essentially usurp the mandate of the Commission and creating an “alternative mechanism” to help Ethiopia. That is also why the US is facing a principled resistance from Eritrea. It was essentially asking Eritrea to compromise and Eritrea insisted that “the case of the border is closed”. That is precisely why Dr. Frazer and Mr. Yamamoto are angry at Eritrea. They are angry because they could not deliver what they had promised. General or no General working for the EEBC, the real question still remains: “has Ethiopia clearly and unequivocally accepted the Decision? Is it ready to let demarcation proceed unconditionally?” “Does Ethiopia take the EEBC Delimitation and Demarcation Decisions as final and binding?” The answer is absolutely NO. This means, as long as Ethiopia remains in breach of its treaty obligation there is no progress one can talk about let alone boast about.

Fortunately, the EEBC Decision is final and binding. There is nothing Mr. Yamamoto or anyone else can do without declaring the Algiers Agreement “null and void.” Furthermore as the EEBC said it in its 16th Report to the UN, “The Commission must conclude by recalling that the line of the boundary was legally and finally determined by its Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002. Though undemarcated, this line is binding upon both Parties, subject only to the minor qualifications expressed in the Delimitation Decision, unless they agree otherwise. Conduct inconsistent with this boundary line is unlawful.”[6] This means what the US State Department are trying to do is unlawful. This illegal act has to be exposed and challenged tooth and nail by all peace loving people.

It would have been a tremendous service to the interest and image of the United States if Dr. Frazer and Mr. Yamamoto’s shuttle diplomacy had convinced Ethiopia to abide by its treaty obligation to implement the final and binding Delimitation Decision without any preconditions. Unfortunately, they have miserably failed and their recent words are making the US look like a party to the problem rather than a neutral facilitator. Instead of taking a noble and neutral path, Mr. Yamamoto and Dr. Jendayi Frazer have chosen to serve as Ethiopian lawyers and lobbyists. This indeed is a historical blunder that will have a grave consequence to US foreign policy for years to come.

Let’s look at Mr. Yamamoto’s statements closely:

1.     “We are going to meet in London again in April. We are going to meet at the UN in New York in May, and then we are going to start the whole process forward. Again what we want to assure your listeners and also the people along the border is that their views and their issues are going to be taken into consideration. We are going to have and implement a lasting peace. Not a temporary peace, but a lasting peace.” (emphasis added)[7]

2.     “The other issue that’s important is the thirty towns and villages that will be divided. We don’t want these divided towns and villages to be the source of another war or conflict.” (emphasis added)[8]

These statements, including the count of “thirty towns and villages”, were taken from Ethiopia’s January 24, 2003 submission to the EEBC, which the EEBC rejected. At the time (in 2003) Ethiopia had unsuccessfully argued that:

“[D]uring the demarcation phase, the Commission will have its first opportunity to examine the situation on the ground in the border region, that certain local problems can be addressed… In conducting its examination, the Commission will find, among other problems, that communities currently under the governmental administration of one Party would be divided by a mechanical and unsophisticated application of the April Decision Coordinates. … An important purpose of demarcation, pursuant to conventional practice, is to accommodate realities on the ground so as to produce stability and finality in the boundary. … the Badme community can little afford to be torn into two by a mechanical and insensitive demarcation. … Sembel’s people cannot afford to see their village divided and their access to the necessities of life obstructed. … The community of Adi Tsetser also would be split by a mechanical application of the diagonal line. …Ethiopia has understood that this line would be subject to refinement during the demarcation process when the effective administration of the Parties could be determined in the field. It was on this basis that the Government accepted the April Decision and it is on this basis only that the Government continues to do so.” [9]

While the Commission in its latest report to the Security Council is saying that “There is nothing exceptional or unprecedented in the division of villages by an international boundary,”[10] Mr. Yamamoto is implying the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border should be treated different and shouldn’t divide villages. He is also assuring Ethiopians that no matter what the Boundary Commission says, the Border is going to be changed so as to accommodate Ethiopia’s wishes. What an arrogance!

Never mind also the communities Mr. Yamamoto and Frazer are now concerned over are in fact Eritrean communities whose original inhabitants were long and systematically deported under Ethiopia’s ethnic cleansing policies. If Dr. Frazer and Mr. Yamamoto care to know Sembel, one of the places Ethiopia is claiming it will be divided by the April 2002 line is an Eritrean village named after the Sembel plain in the outskirts of Asmara. Sembel is of course the very plain Mr. Yamamoto used to fly in and out of Asmara during his stay in Eritrea as a DCM and during his numerous diplomatic trips since then.

Mr. Yamamoto also needs to be reminded that the Algiers Agreement has provisions for any problems that might arise because of demarcation. But those are to be addressed after demarcation not before demarcation and they have nothing to do with where the pillars of demarcation should be. The later is to be based solely on the April 2002 Delimitation Decision. This is how the Commission put it in its latest letter: “In paragraph 16 of article 4 of the Algiers Agreement, the parties requested the United Nations to facilitate resolution of problems that may arise from the transfer of territorial control. Such problems in the Boundary Commission's view may include the consequences of division of villages by the delimitation decision.”[11] One thing is clear: by attempting to put the dialogue cart before the horse of demarcation, the US State Department, similar to the Ethiopian regime, is only trying to undermine not only the Algiers Agreements, but also the whole peace process. Does this make the US a neutral facilitator? Not at all!

State Department officials in charge of African Affairs have to carefully read the clear and unequivocal answer of the EEBC to Ethiopia’s January 24, 2003 submission. It is in the March 21, 2003 EEBC Observations. The document can be found either on the Commission’s official site http://www.pca-cpa.org/PDF/Obs.EEBC.pdf or on Dehai’s Demarcation Watch page: http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/eebc/EEBC-Observation-March2003.pdf. The entire document has to be read, but particularly §3-§9. The document will show that Mr. Yamamoto’s concerns have long been raised and had received their legal answer by world class jurists who were chosen by both countries. The latest letter of the Commission is also clear on this.

Mr. Yamamoto had also said:

3.     “Because the United States is a neutral facilitator. We are the only entity probably that is going to get this, bring the parties together, and move forward the demarcation. And that is what we want to do. To make sure that this demarcation works and there is lasting peace. Not a border demarcated and there is war. We want it demarcated and we want a permanent peace. …We are going to have and implement a lasting peace. Not a temporary peace, but a lasting peace.” (emphasis added)[12].

4.     “There’s a bigger problem that needs to be resolved, and that is the normalization of relations. Because if we can’t resolve the problem that gave rise to the war, then demarcation only leads to another war.” (emphasis added)[13]

5.     "We talked about bilateral relationships; the continuing issue of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border [dispute] -- on how to achieve permanent peace and secure safe and permanent demarcation of the border. The emphasis was peace." (emphasis added) [14]

This “emphasis on peace” and normalization of relations is also a regurgitation of Ethiopia’s statements and particularly those of January 24, 2003 submission to the EEBC. Ethiopia had unsuccessfully tried to convince the EEBC that the purpose of the Algiers Agreements and the OAU peace documents was to demarcate the border not according to the colonial treaties but in a way that could ensure permanent peace. Read it to mean the EEBC has to demarcate the border to Ethiopia’s liking or else there will be war. That is exactly what Kofi Annan reported Ethiopian authorities telling his envoy: “In recent meetings with my Special Representative, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin expressed their serious concerns regarding the Boundary Commission’s demarcation of the border. While emphasizing Ethiopia’s commitment to peace and to the Algiers Agreements, Prime Minister noted that if its concerns were not properly addressed, Ethiopia might eventually reject the demarcation related decisions of the Commission.” That was March of 2003. It is also exactly what Ethiopia told the Commission in its latest meeting in London, in the meeting Mr. Yamamoto termed “successful”. The Commission wrote: “any decision of the Boundary Commission on demarcation with which Ethiopia does not agree may not be treated by it as binding.” Tell us Mr. Yamamoto: if this Ethiopian stand is not a breach of international agreement worthy of condemnation and sanctions, then what is?

Instead of condemning Ethiopia for breach of international law, US State Department officials are stating that Ethiopia is bigger and important and hence it should get what it wants. And if there is going to be compromise, Eritrea should be the one to make it. It is this dead-on-arrival proposal what Dr. Frazer and Mr. Yamamoto had wanted to peddle in Eritrea. Eritrea was not willing to buy their illegal package and that is why they were quick to blame Eritrea by going on a media offensive. The Assistant Secretary for African Affairs was on VOA as well as Deutsche Welle misstating the Algiers Agreement, and her Deputy, Mr. Yamamoto was on VOA lobbying for Ethiopia’s long refuted excuses not to proceed with demarcation. What a travesty of justice and shoddy diplomacy!

It is noble to wish and work for a permanent peace. In fact, Eritrea more than Ethiopia desires a permanent peace. The reason for Eritrea is simple. First and foremost Eritrea knows well what the cost of war is. Eritrea cares a lot about the precious lives its wars with Ethiopia had consumed. Unlike Ethiopian rulers who consider southern Ethiopian lives as expendable, to Eritrea even one more sacrifice is one too many. The second reason is that Eritrea has no territorial claim or ambition on Ethiopia. The Eritrean people have no craving, even for a square inch of Ethiopian territory. However, the same cannot be said about Ethiopia. But saying this one thing must be clear: Eritreans are not going to allow the proverbial Arabian Camel to poke its nose in their sovereign territory in a disguise of permanent peace. Neither will they leave Ethiopia or any other power a crack in the April 2002 Decision where they can drive their eighteen wheeler through. If the US can convince Ethiopia to work for a permanent peace, all the best! Eritreans would be happy. However, this permanent peace cannot and should not be expected to come at the expense of the April 13, 2002 Decision. It can and should only come as a result of a faithful demarcation. A party that is genuinely interested in a permanent and lasting peace should have no problem in implementing the April 13, 2002 Decision without qualms and as is. After all implementing a Decision agreed to be accepted as final and binding should be a prerequisite for any talks for normalization of relations and permanent peace. Let first things be first. No one can expect Eritrea to talk with Ethiopia about anything while Ethiopia is still occupying sovereign Eritrean territory and unwilling to take the Delimitation and Demarcation Decision of the Commission as final and binding. Diplomats who profess to work to ensure there is no war after demarcation should have no problem persuading Ethiopia take the right path to permanent peace. That path is an unconditional implementation of the April 2002 Decision. Particularly if these diplomats are representing one of the world’s strongest nations, a government that had brokered and authored the Algiers Agreements and witnessed their signing, and a power whose big purse has been the sole lifeline for the Ethiopian regime. But the fact that Mr. Yamamoto and his State Department boss are trying to link demarcation with dialogue for a normalization of relations is enough evidence that they are not serving as neutral facilitators, but as agents lobbying on behalf of Ethiopia and intimidating the Commission and witnesses to toe their line. Ethiopia’s request for varying the Eritrea-Ethiopia border has been rejected time and again. The recent US diplomatic efforts to lobby on behalf of Ethiopia to raise these long-settled issues are thus illegal and unlawful and have to be condemned.

[1] Prime Minister Meles Zenawi: Letter to the UN Security Council, September 19, 2003 [2] Donald Yamamoto: Interview with VOA, April 10, 2006 [3] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Submission to the EEBC: “Comments Pursuant to the December 2000 Agreement, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission’s Demarcation Directions and Instructions Provided at the Boundary Commission’s Meeting on 6 and 7 November 2002,” January 24, 2003. [4] Eighth report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, 21 February 2003 [5] Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, 21 May 2006 [6] EEBC 16th Report to the UN, 24 February 2005 [7] Donald Yamamoto: Interview with VOA, April 10, 2006 [8] Donald Yamamoto: Interview with VOA, June 2, 2006 [9] FDRE Submission to the EEBC: “Comments Pursuant to the December 2000 Agreement, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission’s Demarcation Directions and Instructions Provided at the Boundary Commission’s Meeting on 6 and 7 November 2002,” January 24, 2003 [10] Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, 21 May 2006 [11] ibid [12] Yamamoto: VOA interview, April 10, 2006 [13] Yamamoto: VOA interview, June 2, 2006 [14] Yamamoto: As quoted by Jim Fisher-Thompson, Washington File Correspondent, 30 May 2006

___________ DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the commentary section of Shabait.com do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Information of the State of Eritrea. The writer contributed this article and bears sole responsibility for its contents.