Ethiopia never surrenders to any external pressure

Dear Mr.Charman,

The standing Committee for Foreign Affairs in the House of Peoples' Representatives of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia wants to express its deep felt disappointments at your comment regarding Ethio-Eritrea conflict which was published on Washington Post dated 3 January 2000. The committee, after thorough assessment of your comment, has found it totally unfair and highly biased.

Mr. Chairman: Our committee rightly feels duty- bound to correct any error pertaining to our conflict with Eritrea which, as you thought, is not 'minor border dispute'. To this effect we believe that certain points need be highlighted for the benefit of you and other concerned parties.

The facts behind our problem with Eritera are more than clear for anyone who is honest and principled. Any attempt to cover up the plainly clear facts can't whatsoever do any good. Particularly deliberate rambling of the causes of the conflict especially by highly reputed personalities like you, definitely worsens the situation to a dangerous scale.

Mr. Chairman: The widely publicized Ethio-Eritrea conflict, as you incorrectly labeled, is not 'a minor border dispute'. In all probabilities it is one of a very serious tragedic conflict between the two states which has its root in the Eritrean unprovoked aggression against Ethiopia in May of 1998. The core of the fact is simply that Ethiopia was and still is a victim of Eritrean aggression. This fact was unambiguously certified by regional and international organizations. The USA even was one among nations that was suggesting Eritrea's immediate withdrawal. The US Rwandan peace plan, which later went to form the hard core of the OAU peace initiatives, specifically the framework agreement and the modalities, is a clear testimony.

The House of Peoples' Representatives of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has been firmly committed, above all, in accordance with international law and principles, to restore the country's sovereignty peacefully. In case the peaceful legal Mechanisms cannot restore the sovereignty of the country, the House pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter, did decide the use of force.

Accordingly, we have gone so far to wind the conflict in a way suitable to international law and international discipline. We don't have the slightest doubt that Your Honor possess sufficient knowledge of Ethiopia's remarkable patience to conclude the crisis peacefully. The US-Rwandan peace plan, as it called on Eritrea's immediate withdrawal, was suitable to our taste. Since then, we have lived with a belief that international law and peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms would solve our problem. Due to this belief, we have been trying what could be tried. The OAU summit of heads of states, on the basis of U.S.-Rwandan peace plan drew a general frame work agreement. Later the summit attached modalities to this frame work. Ethiopia as can be recalled accepted these two documents immediately. However, our hope was shattered as Eritrea openly declared its rejection of the OAU initiatives. Ethiopia's acceptance of the OAU framework agreement and the modalities clearly shows our consistent commitment to observe international rules and principles.

Mr. Chairman: Ethiopia never needed international pressures to accept either U.S.- Rwandan peace plan or the later OAU documents. Indeed Ethiopia will never ever need any push or any pressure to accept an arrangement, which would fully guarantee its sovereignty.

Being aware of the above facts, your excellency and your committee is pressuring a victim of an aggression, which would not help the peaceful resolution of the crisis. In our opinion it simply rewards an aggressor.

Mr. Chairman:when it comes to the technical arrangement to the frame-work agreement, it is not clear for us why you deliberately misquoted the response of Prime Minister Meles. We didn't reject the arrangements altogether. Basically the technical arrangements are inconsistent with the OAU framework agreement and the modalities which we had accepted earlier. These arrangements, as far as Ethiopia is concerned amount to appeasement. They not only failed to be consistent with the OAU peace plan, but they also appear to have been drafted with the express aim of appeasing the aggressor country. To the best of our knowledge appeasement of aggression has never worked in the past and is unlikely to work now or in the future.

If you are forcibly pushing us to accept any arrangement that would not fully guarantee our sovereignty and territorial integrity we would like to tell you, that clearly, that it is absolutely unacceptable. Ethiopia in her entire history has never surrendered to any external pressure and definitely it will never do so.

Mr. Chairman: We want to emphasize the very crucial point that our conflict with Eritera is not 'a minor border dispute' nor is it a conflict solely motivated by an evil desire such as revenge or, to use your own word, 'Vendetta.' Our interest behind the conflict is purely one of restoring our sovereignty and national pride. We don't want more and we don't want less. Therefore, there won't be any international pressure (be it from the USA or the international community) that would prevent us from restoring our sovereignty. If you are sincerely concerned for the peace of our sub-region, we kindly advise you to remind the Eritreans to behave their dogs of war.