Biddho.com Eritrea - Rising To The Challenges! - Peace Process Essentially Means War: A look at UN Peacekeeping & Eritrea Ethiopia Case

Home

Opinion

Editorials

Peace Process Essentially Means War: A look at UN Peacekeeping & Eritrea Ethiopia Case

Written by Sam B.

Monday, 25 February 2008

Few of us seriously scrutinize or even question “Peace Processes” and associated diplomatic maneuvers.

It is something that automatically implies a benevolent and/or benign respectable endeavor. At a time when Africa and many parts of the world is dotted with “Peacekeeping” missions and foreign armies under one pretext or another it is high time to consider the true nature of some of these endeavors.

Clearly the United Nation is “occasionally useful in specific crisis,” however when used “inappropriately, it risks internationalization and prolonging local conflicts.” (Ernest W. Lefever, Foreign Affairs, 1993) UN’s failures and the subsequent “internationalization and prolonging” of the conflict in the Darfur, Congo, Somalia, Palestine, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Rwanda, to name but few, requires little elaborations. The failure of the Eritrea- Ethiopia peace process is therefore not unique, even its failure by design. It is among many notable UN sponsored peace processes that have come short of their stated goal - intentionally or otherwise. However, before considering the Eritrea Ethiopia peace process it is useful to consider other affairs, in the region in particular. For instance, in a detailed study of the Rwanda genocide, R. Philpot, ascribes primary culpability for the genocide on “Peace Process” sponsored by the UN, US and UK. Which he contends was designed to undermine and isolate the Rwandan government of the time.

“Peace process essentially means war,” writes R. Philpot, “a war in which the sponsors of the process choose the winner before the meeting they call take place. They then pretend to be neutral during negotiations. Having bought time, they tighten the noose on the designated loser and prepare the ground to install a government that is totally subject to their will.”

R. Philpot condemns the sponsors of the “Peace Process” for deliberately exacerbating the genocide in Rwanda, if not causing it in an attempt to “prepare the ground to install a government that is totally subject to their will.” Obviously he is not alone, the former UN Secretary General (UNSG), Boutros Boutros Ghali, hold similar views. In an interview regarding the behavior of the United States within the UN Security Council he stated, “that the Americans were 100 percent responsible for the Rwandan genocide.”

Moreover, Yamin Zakaria, recalls that “after the genocide started, [Kofi] Annan oversaw the reduction of the peacekeeping force from 2,500 to 450”, curiously, over the protests of the peacekeepers' top commander Canadian Romeo Dallaire.” (Al-Jazeerah, September 22, 2004) The fmr. UNSG, Mr. Ghali, contends that the genocide was “the responsibility of the Americans who were aided by England.” It would be important to underscore that the US policy toward Rwanda at the time was regime change.

Many prominent political commentators have stressed the fact that the UN is basically “a reliable instrument of U.S. foreign policy”(Noam Chomsky). A position echoed by Boutros Boutros Ghali in 2003: “the United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy.” Naturally UN peacekeeping missions and forces are an extension of this “instrument”. The assertion may be an open secret, however, among the overwhelming evidence it suffices to point out two examples; the Mehlis Commission and the UN Mission in Haiti – MINUSTAH.

Commenting on the ever-changing mission of the Mehils’ Commission, T. Ramih writes; “The mission of judicial assistance for Lebanese justice, which the UN Security Council had entrusted to Detlev Mehlis, turned into an international investigating commission and later, into an international prosecuting entity. It also became an instrument used by the neoconservatives to blame Syria for the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Mehlis’s maneuvers have been uncovered and he has been forced to present his resignation. Although it was proved that the accusations against Syria were baseless, Washington has assumed an attitude similar to the one it had towards the reports presented by Hans Blix, which showed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” (T. Ramih, Voltaire, Paris)

In Haiti, after the coup d'état orchestrated by the U.S. State department a UN “peacekeeping” force was sent into Haiti to “keep the peace”. MINUSTAH however, is detested by Haitians and is accused by politicians, reporters, human right organizations as well as Haitian public figures for the heinous crimes MINUSTAH participated in.

A US Labor/Human Rights Delegation to Haiti, 20 July 2005, investigated eyewitness accounts of “massacre” committed by UN Peacekeeping Forces in Haiti. In their investigation the Human Right delegation “uncovered extensive evidence that indicates there was indeed a massacre conducted by UN military forces in Cite Soleil”.

The delegation concluded its investigation by reinforcing that “the evidence of a massacre by UN military forces in Cite Soleil is substantial and compelling. The eyewitness account of the operation, and the film footage shot by Haitian human rights workers who were on the scene during the operation; the extensive videotaped testimony by community members themselves on July 7th, coupled with tangible, physical damage to their homes and infrastructure; the bodies still on the scene that we have on video; the intense fear of the UN military forces evidenced by hundreds of residents of Cite Soleil; the statements by the local Red Cross; and finally the registry records of the relevant hospital -- all of these pieces of evidence indicate that UN military forces in Haiti today are not engaged in the work of ‘peacekeeping’ as much as they are in the business of repression.” (US Labor/Human Rights Delegation to Haiti)

In a similarly condemning report Rob Lyon in a 10 November 2004 article writes: “If there was ever any doubt as to the nature of UN ‘peacekeeping’ there can be no doubt now. The UN has completely revealed its reactionary nature in Haiti”. He adds: “It has become obvious that the majority of the population is opposed to … the presence of foreign troops, which are being used to prop up the new regime – the UN troops are simply an occupation force.”

Sherene Razack detailed study of the torturing and killing innocent Somalies by Canadian “peacekeeping” forces, which culminated into her 2004 book, “Dark Threats and White Nights: The Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping, and the New Imperialism”, writes: "modern peacekeeping revealed its sordid colonial origins. Soldiers had acted more like conquerors than humanitarians."

Conceivably there are many lessons we can learn from Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and other experience with UN “peacekeeping forces”. One thing however is definite and cannot be overlooked is that “if there was ever any doubt as to the nature of UN “peacekeeping” there can be no doubt now”. UN’s “peacekeeping forces” on many occasions are used as “an occupation force” and as “an instrument at the service of American policy”.

To address UN’s failure in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the eventual “internationalization and prolonging” of the conflict it is crucial to consider the main influencing factors, namely the policies of the powers-that-be towards the countries involved. Particularly US policy toward Eritrea and US influence and design for the region needs to be appreciated.

US Policy in Eritrea

US State Department’s own documents state: the US strategy in Eritrea is “designed to contribute to political and economic devolution” and that the US Embassy in Asmera (“Asmara”) “has implemented programs that promote the devolution of political power and economic resources” of Eritrea, over what “the Government of Eritrea perceives as unacceptable meddling in its internal affairs by foreign powers.” (United States State Department, March 28, 2005) Furthermore, according to Congressman Rohrabacher, the US policy towards the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), and the border ruling appears to be “to apply political pressure on Eritrea until there is war--and then blame Eritrea for not compromising with Ethiopia—or continuously pressure Eritrea until they agree to renegotiate the final and binding decision of the EEBC.”

The US policy in Africa is to divide the continent into four spheres of influence and designate one country in each sphere as a lynchpin for its policy and interest. Ethiopia is such country, and as such the hostility toward the Government of Eritrea, and “the injustice being committed against Eritrea is the outcome of the misguided US policy.” (MOI Eritrea)

The US State Department insistence to instill itself as a mediator in the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict despite one of the parties reservations was curious to say the least. After US Assistant Secretary for Africa, J. Frazer attempt to undermine the EEBC ruling by injecting “human geography” as a pretext and renaming guarantors of the Algiers Agreement as “Witness” little was left to the imagination as to where the US stood. Given such stand and US policy towards Eritrea - specifically its policy “to apply political pressure on Eritrea until there is war” - it would be vital reassess the true nature of the process and deal with it accordingly.

Part of the reason for the failures to enforce the UN and US sponsored Eritrea-Ethiopia peace process may be found in the fact that the process did not play out as anticipated by the sponsors. Initially there was opinion that the EEBC finding would not be to the liking of Eritrea. To insure that Eritrea accepts the ruling the UN sent its delegates to Asmera (“Asmara”) to insure the Government of Eritrea complies. However, Eritrea’s acceptance of the EEBC ruling and Eritrea’s victory and vindication in court of international law the ‘chosen winner’, Ethiopia, is painted into a corner - along with the sponsors. In essence this has been the dilemma for the architects of the Algiers Agreement. The mechanisms they created in anticipation that the “designated loser” will back out of the arrangement backfired and became a noose on the designated winner instead.

However, Ethiopia and its masters had perceived an opportunity on prolonging a no-war no-peace situation, expecting if sustained it would cause the eventual collapse of Eritrea politically and economically. Eritrean people’s steadfastness has thwarted the anticipated result and the preparing of “the ground to install a government that is totally subject to their will”. This plan has failed completely. In fact, Eritrea took the challenge to its advantage and created the ground for acceleration of development projects to improving Eritrea’s infrastructures, food security and self-reliance.

UNMEE: Occupying Force

Eritrean Defense Forces and the government’s determination to protect its population and the country’s sovereignty impeded many ambitious adventures by foreign elements that operate under one mandate or another. Nonetheless, the United Nations Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) presence in Eritrea presents a dilemma. UNMEE mandate is “to assist the Boundary Commission in the expeditious and orderly implementation of its Delimitation Decision” and includes, “administrative and logistical support for the Field Offices of the Boundary Commission.”

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, the President of EEBC, in a January 7, 2008 report to the UNSG clearly reasserts:

“In stipulating that the boundary now automatically stands as demarcated by the boundary points listed in the annex to the 27 November 2006 Statement, the Commission considers that it has fulfilled the mandate given to it.”

Now that the EEBC has “fulfilled the mandate given to it”, UNMEE’s mandate which was “to assist the Boundary Commission” has expired. The Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) is now irrelevant. Maintaining any of the two any longer may in fact be dangerous, as it means maintaining the status quo of no-war no-peace, which was designed to strangulate Eritrea socio-economically by preventing Eritrea from properly administering its sovereign territories. Moreover, UNMEE and the TSZ are serving as an extension of the Ethiopian army that is occupying sovereign Eritrean territory. UNMEE and the TSZ are providing a comfort and buffer zone from where the Ethiopian army can unleash its next war. For all practical purposes UNMEE has effectively become an extension of the Ethiopian Army, an occupation force itself. As such, it is within a nations inalienable right for self defense, it is the responsibility of the people of Eritrea to rid themselves of all foreign occupying forces currently in Eritrean territory.

The notion that if Eritrea plays international diplomatic games it will eventually win or find a win-win solution can no longer be entertained. For most part all the maneuvering in international diplomacy arena thus far has been to setup traps into which Eritrea would fall in. Even when Eritrea skillfully played the game and nearly scored big the goal posts were continually moved, and they will continue to be moved until such time that Eritrea is ready to insure its security and sovereignty. It has to prepared for any eventuality while presenting a clear and credible danger to its adversaries and their interest if they chose to continue to miscalculate. Otherwise, they will be more than happy to keep managing the status quo.

It would be important to keep in mind that a “peace process essentially means war, a war in which the sponsors of the process choose the winner before the meeting they call take place. They then pretend to be neutral during negotiations. Having bought time, they tighten the noose on the designated loser and prepare the ground to install a government that is totally subject to their will.”

One thing is for sure, Eritrea has effectively quashed the dream of the ‘pretend neutral negotiators’ to “install a government that is totally subject to their will” in Eritrea. Eritrea is daily proving it can withstand the assault, survive and move itself further into self reliance. Eritrea will continue to prevail in its quest for justice as its case is deeply rooted in a just, fair and moral stand.

SAM B

Comments

Add New

RSS

Only registered users can write comments!