This time the ICG is talking of "averting" war. Previous reports in December 2005 and November 2007 have spoken of "preventing war" and "stopping the slide to war". Regrettably, as previously, this report demonstrates the serious lack of accuracy and of balance displayed in earlier efforts. This report, however, is particular in that it was publicly introduced by the senior advisor of the ICG's Africa Programme, Ambassador Andebrhan Giorghis.

ICG man former Eritrean government official

Ambassador Andebrhan was Eritrea's ambassador to the EU for many years. He was also Eritrea's commissioner for coordination with UNMEE [UN Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia] for three years, and for many years previously had the reputation of a fixer for President Isayas [Afewerki of Eritrea]. He has officially resigned from the Eritrean government, but, unlike many of his contemporaries, he has made no criticisms of the government nor indicated any support for opposition groups or for his old friends now in jail or exile. Unfortunately, Ambassador Andebrhan's skills have not been utilized to produce a neutral or a veracious report. Indeed, its errors, both dangerous and extensive, suggest frivolity rather than veracity.

ICG man using opportunity in "a most shameless manner"

It is, of course, impossible to under these circumstances to expect the report to be fair, balanced and constructive. In fact, the ICG has been exceedingly predictable in this regard. One can go back and look at the various reports by the ICG on Ethiopia and Eritrea since 2001. All the reports have been partial to a fault in favour of Eritrea. Of course, that is perhaps the reason why the ICG saw no problem with appointing a former senior official of Eritrea to evaluate the adherence of the two parties to the provisions of the Algiers Agreement [signed between Eritrea and Ethiopia in the Algerian capital, Algiers, in December 2000] and their commitment to peace. No doubt, the former Eritrean official is using the opportunity given to him in a most shameless manner. Both governments are authoritarian, the report says, therefore, they both "have interest in keeping the conflict at a low simmer rather than resolving it".

But of course, the ICG knows and the whole world realizes that Ethiopia has always said that it would leave no stone unturned to contribute more than its share for peace with Eritrea. It has responded favourably to all initiatives to bring the two countries together to seek possibilities for making progress towards normalizing relations.

Central errors of ICG report

One of the most central errors of the report is the claim that Ethiopia has failed to accept the demarcation of the [Eritrea-Ethiopia] Boundary Commission. This is simply not true. Ethiopia has made it quite clear, publicly, repeatedly and loudly, since November 2004 that it fully accepts the delimitation of the boundary by the EEBC. The ICG appears to have swallowed Eritrea's belief that constantly repeating lies will finally lead to their acceptance.

Eritrean frustration

Nor is it true that Eritrea began deploying its army in the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) only in January 2008. In fact, as soon as Ethiopia made its position clear with respect to its resolve to proceed to demarcation and put out a peace plan to this effect in 2004, Eritrea began to interfere in the operations of UNMEE and intensified the process of violating the TSZ. Over the last four years, Eritrea has systematically and consistently interfered with the operations of UNMEE and violated the TSZ to the point where earlier this year, it took over the whole zone, forcing UNMEE to withdraw. It is very obvious that this had nothing to do with alleged Eritrean frustration with the speed of the demarcation process, and everything to do with Eritrea's desire to avoid a settlement of the issue.

President Isayas has made it clear he does not want a settlement of the border issue, apparently in order to avoid demobilizing his army, allow an independent press or hold elections.

Ambassador Andebrhan knows this perfectly well. It is very clear that Eritrea continues to regard the border issue as another method of putting pressure on Ethiopia, a way of continuing its destabilization efforts against the government of Ethiopia.

Over the last couple of years, the central element of the boundary issue has become Eritrea's steadily increasing violations of the TSZ, UNMEE activities and the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities [ACH] of June 2000. The agreement and the TSZ and the actions of UNMEE together make up the core of the Algiers peace process, the Algiers Agreements. Although numerous UN Security Council resolutions have repeatedly criticized Eritrea over its activities, little of this is apparent in the ICG report. In fact, the whole ICG report is based on its fundamental misconception about alleged Ethiopia's non-acceptance of the EEBC's demarcation decisions, rather than concentrating on the real problem since November 2004, Eritrea's persistent infiltrations and eventual takeover of the TSZ, and its pressures on UNMEE.

The attempt to equate the actions of Ethiopia and Eritrea with respect to the Algiers Agreements makes it impossible to take ICG suggestions seriously, even though the ICG does insist that the Algiers Agreement must be the core of any progress. That is one of the few sensible points the ICG makes, though it fails to underline the fact that this can only be done if and when Eritrea returns to full compliance with the ACH and the Algiers Agreements.

Extraordinary ignorance

Attempting to equate the likelihood of Ethiopia and Eritrea starting another conflict displays an extraordinary ignorance of recent and current politics in the Horn of Africa. As a former Eritrean ambassador must be aware, the record of President Isayas and of Eritrea for unprovoked aggression is unequalled in the region (or indeed more widely). In the mid-1990s, Eritrean troops were involved across the Sudan border, working hard to overthrow the government of Sudan. Eritrea went to war with Yemen in 1996 to try and seize the Hanish islands, and in 1995/6 threatened Djibouti with its claim to 30 km of Djibouti's coastline. This is the area it now appears to be trying to take over in the current invasion of northern Djibouti.

In 1998, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia. To argue that Eritrea has been merely trying to acquire recognized boundaries is hardly acceptable in light of all these activities, let alone the sending of Eritrean troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo and the assistance for numerous armed anti-government opposition movements in Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia, a number of them with significant terrorist credentials. By contrast, Ethiopia has, at the request of Somalia's legitimate government, sent troops into Somalia to help it against Eritrean-backed efforts at destabilization, and has allowed Eritrean opposition movements to hold meetings inside Ethiopia. Ethiopia has made it clear it will not start any conflict against Eritrea. On the other hand, the ICG would be hard pressed to find Eritrea making similar commitment.

ICG's "consistent anti-Ethiopian bias"

The report claims that the Security Council and the international community "have not adequately pushed both parties to uphold their side of the Algiers deal". At best, this is simply misleading. Ethiopia has been trying to implement the Algiers Agreements since November 2004. Eritrea has as consistently been steadily undermining the agreements by the continuous violations of the TSZ and the pressures on UNMEE. The report also suggests that the international community should make it clear that there would be high costs if Ethiopia broke the Algiers Agreements. If so, it might be noticed that Eritrea has already virtually torn up the Algiers Agreements with no more than a feeble slap on the wrist. Some sign of awareness of this, even a limited attempt at balance, would have increased the credibility of ICG's report. But this has become impossible for the group because of its consistent anti-Ethiopian bias which has now become legendary.

Nobody doubts that breaking the initial stalemate would allow a broader peace process to address demobilization and regional confidence-building mechanisms, explore ways to build mutually beneficial economic relations, including regional electricity, access to ports, and cross-border links. These are all very obvious and simplistic suggestions made frequently before. As ICG very well knows, President Isayas has consistently refused to make any efforts in this or any other direction. One recent commentator likened him to a spoilt child demanding sweets before he would agree to do anything. This might be understandable, even acceptable in a 10-year-old. It is not acceptable in a president, although it is hardly surprising given his insistence on total and personal control. This, after all, is something Ambassador Andebrhan knows better than most. It is a pity he has not been prepared to use his insights for this report.

Further progress with the parties does not, as the ICG suggest, require changes of attitude on the part of both parties. It requires Eritrea to return to full compliance with the ACH and the Algiers Agreements. That is all. ICG might have noticed it. Issues like the state collapse in Somalia (which took place long before in 1991), human rights issues in Eritrea, or Eritrea's involvement in Sudan's conflicts, or even the latest Eritrean invasion of Djibouti have nothing to do with the EEBC decisions or the border.

Deliberate misinterpretations

The real problem with this report is not its failure to understand Ethiopia's actions (although that is bad enough), but what appears to be its deliberate misinterpretations and its basic failure to understand Eritrean policy. Given the role of Ambassador Andebrhan in the production of this report, it is hard to regard this as anything other than deliberate. Ethiopia has made it very clear that it will not initiate any conflict with Eritrea although, not surprisingly, it refuses to rule out a response if attacked. Eritrea has not [made it clear that it will not initiate war], and its record over the past 15 years makes it clear it is likely to launch an attack whenever President Isayas thinks it appropriate, irrespective of legality, argument, even rationality. An obvious example was the aggression launched against Djibouti a few weeks ago, in April, and the subsequent clashes early this month. It is a very clear case of aggression condemned by the African Union, the Arab League and the UN, none of whom have been able to discern any rational cause for the entirely unprovoked attack.

To suggest, as ICG does, that this, like the enforced expulsion of UNMEE, is merely a demonstration of President Isayas's frustration and anger at the lack of international support for "virtual demarcation" is absurd. There are plenty of other minor inaccuracies and what one can only consider as attempts to mislead.

Eritrea's "haemorrhaging" population

Nobody threatens Eritrean independence although its regime, perhaps the worst for human rights [abuses] in Africa, has got many enemies. With Eritrea's population haemorrhaging at well over 1,000 a month across the border into Sudan and Ethiopia, President Isayas has been reduced to claiming this is all a CIA plot. But no one needs to bribe Eritrean youngsters to leave Eritrea these days. They are only too glad to get out. What is it that makes ICG suggest President Isayas wants better relations with the West? He has shown absolutely no interest in this whatsoever. All his recent utterances have revolved around the idea that he and Eritrea are the only ones in step; the rest of the world has got it wrong.

"Long-exploded Eritrean mantras"

The ICG argues that Somalia is becoming ever more troubled. No, it is not. Indeed, quite the reverse, but it is undeniable that Eritrea's efforts in support of terrorist opposition in Somalia has clearly been intended to have just that effect. Ethiopia has got legitimate national security issues and concerns in Somalia. Eritrea has not, and there is no inevitability that it should be linked to insecurity in Somalia. This report even repeats long-exploded Eritrean mantras about self-sufficiency, now known to have always been grossly exaggerated.

The claim that Eritrea's incursions into Djibouti is "another example of its desire to attract international attention and force movement on the border crisis" is quite simply a joke. There is no evidence of anything of the kind. The attempt to continue seeking mitigating circumstances for Eritrea's misconduct does not enhance ICG's credibility.

The report makes a habit of quoting controversial and frequently wrong claims by Human Rights Watch, without looking for alternative sources or information or attempting to check these with the government of Ethiopia, or to Ethiopian government statements. Incidentally, to categorize the launching of the invasion of Ethiopia [against Eritrea] in May 1998 (an invasion which led to perhaps thousands dead on both sides) as "seizing" a disputed village, is outrageous.

"Sheer improbability" of ICG's recommendations

Another main point to make about the ICG report is the sheer improbability of its recommendations. One, for example, is a call for Eritrea to withdraw from the TSZ. It is, of course, an excellent idea and is an essential element in the implementation of the Algiers Agreements. Eritrea has consistently refused to withdraw from the TSZ, nor can such a move be considered likely. Similarly, the possibility of persuading Eritrea to change its policies towards UNMEE or to stop the support for armed opposition movements in Ethiopia or Somalia, a country in which it has no strategic or national interest except as an attempt to destabilize Ethiopia, or to open a dialogue or talk to UN envoys of any kind, are absolutely nil.

ICG report "not worth the paper it is written on"

In fact, all the ICG recommendations immediately fall foul of Eritrea's consistent refusals to consider any of them. There is no EEBC demarcation line on the ground, nor can there be unless and until demarcation is carried out under the auspices of UNMEE with a properly demilitarized TSZ, not one under Eritrean military occupation. There certainly have been delays in taking the process forward since April 2002. Ethiopia was reluctant to accept the original EEBC's decisions, and asked for clarification. Since November 2004 , however, the delays have all been on Eritrea's side as it steadily infiltrated the TSZ, violated the ACH and effectively started the process of tearing up the Algiers Agreements. This can only have been deliberate. Any possible way forward now has to take this into account. The ICG has, to all intents and purposes, totally ignored all this. Until it does take it into account, the report is not worth the paper it is written on.

The problem is not that so many issues have been left unaddressed in the peace process by the narrow focus of the border issue as ICG claims. It is quite simply that Eritrea has consistently refused to discuss anything at all. Apparently piqued by, and, indeed, in denial of Eritrea's defeat in June 2000, President Isayas has simply sulked, refusing to talk about specific demarcation details, let alone the problems of displaced populations, cross-border links, militarized regional relationships, Eritrean aggression or Eritrea's anti-Ethiopian policies, or even the future economic inter-dependence from which both Eritrea and Ethiopia would benefit.

ICG "liability for peace and stability" in Horn of Africa

Eritrea was forced to leave Ethiopian territory in May 2000. It was forced to talk peace in June and to agree to the ACH, to the creation of the TSZ and of UNMEE. All these Eritrea is now in the process of reversing. Regrettably, the ICG is applauding this unhelpful Eritrean approach. Is more evidence necessary for the fact that the ICG is, indeed, a liability for peace and stability in the Horn of Africa?

ICG recommendations "laughable", "dangerous"

It is in the recommendations of the report that the ICG proves, once again, that it is far from being an asset for peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. Some of the recommendations could, in fact, be ignored as almost laughable if they were not dangerous and were not meant to mislead the international community.

ICG's "dangerous miscalculation"

The Eritrean president has continued to insist that there is no need for completing the demarcation process, because, as he insists, that has already been taken care of by the EEBC's virtual demarcation. The road to peace, he says, is via the removal of Ethiopia's occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory. The ICG, perhaps following the advice of the former Eritrean official, says in its very first recommendation that the UN Security Council should endorse "formally the EEBC's virtual demarcation of the border and declare it legally binding". Of course, the ICG knows that Ethiopia has said, with strong support from the international legal community, that virtual demarcation is a legal nonsense. The ICG appears to have convinced itself that Ethiopia might be compelled to change its position under duress. A dangerous miscalculation.

"ICG should disabuse itself"

Ethiopia wishes to see all its partners as friends, not as masters. When all is said and done, what is decisive for Ethiopia and its foreign policy is its national interest. That is what it is guided by. Peace is vital for Ethiopia, including with Eritrea. ICG's advice does not promote peace for Ethiopia, and for our region. The ICG should disabuse itself of the notion that somehow Ethiopia could be made to submit under pressure and compromise its vital interest. A dangerous miscalculation, indeed.

By: Abdi Guled

Email:naasir0513@hotmail.com