New York Times Editorial

[see below a response by Woyanne ministry of foreign]

Eritrea and Ethiopia seem well on their way to starting yet another destructive war. Tensions between the two Horn of Africa countries have hovered near a boiling point ever since Eritrea wrenched its independence from Ethiopia. In the late 1990s, the two fought a vicious battle over an inconsequential border town that left 100,000 dead.

The treaty that ended this last bloody war included a new border drawn by the United Nations. With a November deadline for the border about to go into effect, Ethiopia is balking at the deal after seven years of dragging its feet. Eritrea, also no innocent victim, has violated the treaty, sending troops into the demilitarized zone.

The Bush administration has been very cozy with Ethiopia since Ethiopian troops ousted a radical Islamist government in Somalia last year. And officials have had some success pushing Ethiopia to do the right thing, gaining the release of some political prisoners in July. Now the administration should be using its influence to press Ethiopia to recognize and demarcate the border and talk with Eritrea to lower tensions.

Washington has considerably less influence in Eritrea. At the moment President Isaias Afewerki — who makes most of the decisions — is refusing to talk to American diplomats. But instead of looking for other ways to reach out, the Bush administration has threatened to list Eritrea as a state sponsor of terror.

Eritrea has some very frightening friends. It has given safe haven to Islamists from Somalia and has shipped weapons there, fueling the civil war. The list of terror sponsors is a very blunt instrument (no state has yet been taken off it), and one that is unlikely to alter Eritrea’s behavior any time soon. There is, however, a very immediate danger that Ethiopia would see Washington’s decision to list Eritrea as a green light to attack its neighbor.

What the administration needs to do now is press Ethiopia to respect the treaty. If something isn’t done quickly, we fear many more Eritreans and Ethiopians will die for no reason. There is time to put Eritrea on the list of terror sponsors if it doesn’t clean up its act.

Correction: October 19, 2007
An editorial published on Wednesday about tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea said incorrectly that no country had been taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq and Libya have been removed.

________________________________
Response from the Woyanne lie factory

October 18, 2007, Addis Ababa

No Urgent Matter than Restoring the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities

The process to achieve sustainable peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, under way since 2000, is at a critical stage. Demarcation cannot be carried out. It is not because Ethiopia is dragging its feet. It is because demarcation is not a priority for Eritrea. Ethiopia has always been ready for dialogue and for the normalization of relations with Eritrea. Ethiopia does not need to be pressed: “to recognize and demarcate the border and talk with Eritrea to lower tensions.” The New York Times (October 17 editorial) shows little knowledge of the position of the respective parties to the conflict.

The New York Times is, however, correct when it says Eritrea “has violated the treaty, sending troops into the demilitarized zone.” This, in fact, is the crux of the matter. Eritrea has violated the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. This provided for a buffer zone, the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ), between Ethiopian and Eritrean forces. The Zone was created by the voluntary withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from areas inside Eritrea put under Ethiopian control following the counter offensive to repulse Eritrean aggression. This buffer Zone put the two armed forces at a distance of 25 kms from each other. This condition was insisted upon by Ethiopia. With Eritrean troops taking over the Zone, the Agreement is now in tatters.

At present, the most urgent matters between the two parties are the restoration of the TSZ, the removal of the restrictions placed by Eritrea on UNMEE and full compliance with the provisions of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. Ethiopia has been insisting on this over two years. Ethiopia’s Notification to Eritrea should be seen in this context. Ethiopia is still awaiting the response of Eritrea. In the meantime, Ethiopia must reiterate that there can be no more urgent matter than full, not partial, compliance with the Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities.

With regard to the demarcation of the boundary, as it has frequently pointed out, Ethiopia is ready to carry out its obligation in conformity with customary international practice. This cannot include “virtual demarcation” on paper. Any attempt at “virtual demarcation” is fraught with danger. It is likely to end up legitimizing irresponsible behavior. Eritrea has shown its capacity for irresponsibility all too often. Ethiopia would urge the Security Council to exercise wisdom and common sense in this regard.

The Security Council has repeated in many of its resolutions that demarcation of the boundary is primarily the responsibility of the two parties. We agree, but this means acceptance of responsibility for a dialogue, a preparedness to normalize relations and a willingness to accept third party facilitation, primarily that of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ethiopia is certainly ready for all this. It will also provide an answer to the question of what happens after November 2007. In the meantime, there can be no more urgent matter than the restoration of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities without which demarcation of the border cannot be carried out.