The
Paradox of History: When Chauvinists Shift
Positions and Forge Unholy Alliances
Ghelawdewos
Araia, PhD
October 31, 2015
I always have said to my friends and
colleagues in the academia that history, at
intervals, comes up with surprises and the latter
are often revealed when relatively unpredictable
phenomenon appears on the horizon and when what is
brewing in a given political crisis is not clearly
perceived. What we are witnessing at this juncture
of Ethiopian history is a more obscure political
atmosphere in which chauvinist actors seemingly
have taken center stage in politics, especially
among the Ethiopian Diaspora.
The Ethiopian chauvinists are a rare
breed of opportunists, shamefaced, undignified,
and without remorse, but it looks they have now
created a new political agenda under the guise of
Ethiopian-Eritrean relations. These actors, who
were either Derg members, that is,
comrades-in-arms with the Henchman Mengistu
HaileMariam who presided over the Red Terror and
consumed an entire generation of Ethiopians; or
ex-Mesione members who were advisors and mentors
to the Derg but who later became victims of the
man-eating Mengistu politics; or former EPRP
members, who were the number one enemy of the Derg
and who resolutely fought for a people’s
democratic Ethiopia, but have now created a
rainbow coalition of unholy alliance with Eritrea.
All the above groupings, of course, don’t
represent organizations, but they are engaged in
politics fraught with drawbacks and
contradictions. Just few years ago, they adamantly
opposed the secession and/or independence of
Eritrea to the extent of rejecting the new
Ethiopian map without Eritrea and continued to
uphold the old Ethiopian map that includes Eritrea
in all their illustrious flyers, memos, circulars,
websites, street demonstrations, and conferences.
These flag-waving demagogues and charlatans have
now turned 360⁰ and began to recognize
Eritrean sovereignty, but they use to condemn some
of us who supported Eritrean independence and the
self-determination of Ethiopian nationalities.
Surprisingly, these newly born politicians have
now become advocates for Eritrean nationhood.
I very well understand that
principles and political expediency conflict and
political actors could careless of moral
principles. Writing on ‘courage and
resistance’, Susan Sontag once wrote, “while
everyone one professes to have them [the perennial
destiny of principles], they are likely to have
sacrificed when they become inconveniencing.
Generally a moral principle is something that puts
at variance with accepted practice.”1
So, it looks that the Ethiopian
destabilizing marauding forces that have now
forged unholy alliance with Eritrea, have
encountered tremendous impediment and
inconvenience in their attempt to attack or unseat
the EPRDF Government, and resorted to trampling
over principles, and wittingly or unwittingly,
they have chosen to undermine the unity and
territorial integrity of Ethiopia.
Some of these charlatans are
extremely naďve and they suffer from the paradox
of mental vision. Their presentations are full of
incongruous and infantile texts, for I can see
their limited scope in understanding the complex
Horn of Africa politics. Some of them, who just
yesteryear use to tell us that Isaias Afeworki was
the number one enemy of Ethiopia, are now telling
us that he is the best friend of Ethiopia. Some of
them have gone further against all powers of
reason and history and explicitly stated that
Ethiopia is dependent on foreign (Western) powers
while Eritrea remains independent, and for her
stance she is paying a price.
Do these people understand the
political history of our modern world? If they do,
they must have some sense of the essence of
contemporary world history. They must grapple with
the hard fact that only China (and to some extent
India and Brazil that are staggering to become
fully independent) has escaped Western dominance,
and the rest of the Third World countries, in one
form or another, are dependent on the still
powerful European nations and the United States.
This unfortunate global political phenomenon
continues in the form of hegemony (as opposed to
naked colonialism) and it does not uniquely affect
Ethiopia; it affects it in conjunction with all
other countries that are collectively known as
developing countries, and most certainly Eritrea
could not escape this fate and encounter of
history. In fact, just recently Eritrea got
financial aid from the European Union and the
latter’s gesture definitely has strings attached
to it and that entails Eritrea’s dependence on
European powers.
As far as I am concerned, the
chauvinists’ admiration of the Eritrean leader
is meant to demonstrate their nascent friendship
to him in return for a favor, but they will not be
successful. They don’t know Isaias, but he has
studied them carefully and craftily. He is that
good! He may offer them some material and moral
support but he knows too well that they are not in
a position to overthrow the Ethiopian government
by means of armed struggle, a guerrilla warfare
that he himself mastered in the past but knows
that it is outmoded and antiquated now. Thus,
whatever admiration the chauvinists extend to the
Eritrean head of state, he will not be impressed.
In the ESAT sponsored conference of
“Ethiopia-Eritrea Relations”, in light of the
presentations and arguments the panelists
forwarded to their audience, I have come to
conclude that the speakers have constructed their
own political world behind a wall of intellectual
detachment.
To further elaborate the above
rationale, I like to involve Michael G. Schatzberg,
who, in no uncertain terms, tells us that
sometimes we can confuse our mental perception
with reality and enter into the realm of delusion.
This is how Schatzberg puts it: “at the risk of
vast oversimplification, people can and do
construct a phenomenon, believe in its existence
and then act on their perceptions and beliefs,
then – at least for them – the phenomenon in
question is very much a reality.”2
When these so-called Ethiopian
opposition groupings realize that their perception
is a mere mental construct that does not
correspond to reality, they will understand that
the paradox they have entered into is a
self-negating condition; and they will also
recognize that they have reached a vanishing
point; a dead end. That will be the day!
I may have indigestible differences
with the panel of chauvinists, but I believe they
are entitled to their opinion and ideas, although
I still maintain they are on the wrong track of
history. I also believe that they will not
accomplish any meaningful goal given their present
political agenda, and as a result they could
neither redeem nor mend the damaged
Ethiopian-Eritrean relations. Contrary to their
agenda that ring hollow, I strongly believe the
Ethiopian and Eritrean relations could be repaired
if the following criteria are met:
1.
Conflict resolution
between Ethiopia and Eritrea could be realized
only via peaceful means and not through armed
struggle or violence.
2.
Negotiations and
dialogue should be conducted between the Ethiopian
and Eritrean governments by their own initiative
or with the help of a third party, preferably the
United States or the US and China. The African
Union (AU) would have been an ideal mediator, but
given the complex global scenario and Africa’s
disadvantaged position in the global arena, the AU
would continue to countenance a weak political
role even in resolving African problems. This is
not to justify Africa’s own weaknesses but to
contextually highlight Africa’s paradoxical
position in global affairs.
3.
Preliminary talks
between Ethiopian and Eritrean authorities should
take place before a full-fledged Negotiation and
dialogue involve the Eritrean and Ethiopian
governments; more specifically between the two
delegations led by Prime Minister HaileMariam of
Ethiopia and President Isaias Afeworki of Eritrea.
4.
If possible, talks
between the Ethiopian and Eritrean people should
be conducted in order to reinforce official
negotiations. Involving the people could have two
advantages: a) the people will have a chance in
determining their future in due course of the
official dialogue; b) the people-to-people talks
could create a fertile ground for a meaningful and
constructive negotiation.
5.
The negotiation and
dialogue should take place in a neutral country
and/or city for the comfort and confidence of the
two parties. By way of suggestion, the ideal venue
could be Nairobi, Khartoum, or Cairo; or any other
venue (e.g. Abidjan, Dakar, Pretoria etc.) of the
two parties choosing.
6.
The Ethiopian and
Eritrean negotiating diplomats should not create
unnecessary preconditions and lame excuses, if
indeed they will commit themselves to a meaningful
and lasting peace for Ethiopia and Eritrea and for
the Horn of Africa region, a troubled region whose
peoples desperately yearn for peace.
7.
The negotiating
Ethiopian and Eritrean diplomats should use the
dialogue and negotiation roundtable as a golden
opportunity to seize the moment and go beyond mere
peaceful talks and agree rather on joint
development agendas, trade exchanges, regional
security etc.
8.
Both Ethiopian and
Eritrean negotiating delegations should ignore and
avoid the so-called pandering opposition and
initiate a genuine dialogue in an effort to once
and for all resolve the antagonistic &
inimical relationship between the two countries.
As I
have discussed in my book, peaceful coexistence
begins with the principle of negotiation, and
that, in turn, “entails group discussion and
collective plan based on mutual respect and
benefit. …In the event of a problem, a common
discussion platform is employed to overcome any
real or perceived encounter. The principle of
negotiation is followed by the cooperation game
and the ultimate objective is to benefit equally,
win concurrently even after some exchange of
propaganda and/or satire.”3
It
is in this spirit that the Ethiopian and Eritrean
peace dialogue and negotiation should be
initiated.
Recommendation
for Ethiopia and Eritrea dialogue and round table
negotiations may imply hope against hope for
cynics, but we cannot dismiss it as an impossible
deadlock. Anything is possible, and if at all the
negotiation is ushered between the two countries,
their respective negotiating diplomats are best
advised to explore “topics such as
hard-bargaining vs. problem-solving approaches,
interests vs. positions, coercive leverage vs.
normative leverage, short-term agreements vs.
long-term agreements,”4
as
the US Peace Institute aptly puts it.
Finally,
I just want to express my concerns in regards to
the overall unstable Horn of Africa region and
convey my modest message to the peoples in the
region. I have written several articles on
conflict resolution in relation to Ethiopia and
Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Mali, and
Zimbabwe, and the leitmotif in all these articles
was the significance of alternative perspectives
of the negotiating parties, but most importantly I
have underscored what the dynamics of negotiations
should be, and that they must also lead toward
constructive outcomes via collaboration and peace
engaging political language.
Notes:
1.
Susan Sontag, “Courage
and Resistance”, The
Nation, May 5, 2003, p. 12
2.
Michael G. Schatzberg, Political Legitimacy in Middle Africa, Indiana University Press,
2001, p. 3
3.
Ghelawdewos Araia, Ethiopia: Democracy, Devolution of Power, and the Developmental State,
Institute of Development and Education for Africa
(IDEA), 2013, p. 40
4.
United States Institute
of Peace, “Negotiation: Shaping the Conflict
Landscape,” online course.
All
Rights Reserved. Copyright © Institute of
Development and Education for Africa (IDEA) 2015.
Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for
educational and constructive feedback via dr.garaia@africanidea.org
|