I do not think Mr. Cohen is recommending such ideas simply because he

January 7, 2014

I do not think Mr. Cohen is recommending such ideas simply because he
hates Ethiopian. I think it is because he found the current Ethiopian leaders
more susceptible to external pressure and to accept his recommendations than
does Issayas of Eritrea. Hence, he pushes where he
feels his agenda will get him more traction.

Clearly, Mr Cohen underestimates the determination of Ethiopians to
defend the integrity of their nation’s history and its territories. This
I believe is a very serious misjudgement .

There is no question that the then Meles-led
TPLF/EPRDF has done so many damages that undermined the unity and territorial
integrity of Ethiopia. But to assume that the same will continue with no
resistance is a misreading of the current reality on the ground.

We all know that Herman Cohen was the person who looked into the Camera
in 1991 and said, “No democracy, no aid”. In other words, he was
the person who promised Ethiopians that if the TPLF/EPRDF did not practice
Democracy, the US would not provide any assistance.

At the time, Mr. Cohen as well as the US government knew very well that
a Stalinist Meles and Issayas
would not allow democracy to take hold in their “respective countries”.
But Mr. Cohen had to say those words in order to appease the Ethiopianists who were completely left out of the decision
making process about their own country. And he meant to provide a “face
saving promise” so that any possible resistance to the TPLF would be
minimized, if not diminished.

22 years after he uttered those lofty words, there is still no
democracy, no human rights, no justice, and no representative governance.
Thousands are killed, jailed, disappeared, tortured and exiled. However, all
along, the aid originating from the US government continues to pour to the
TPLF/EPRDF regime. Throughout this time, Mt Cohan has not, even once, reflected
and even recommended that his country suspend aid to the Ruling TPLF EPRDF as
he promised in 1991. So, what does this say about Mr. Cohen’s own
integrity? One can simply say that when it comes to Ethiopia, one can never
take his words at face value for they failed the test of time and credibility.

22 years ago, Mr. Cohen mediated the surrender and disbanding of the
Ethiopian army, the exclusion of any unity force from the political process and
the formation of a regime of Ethno-centrists (TPLF, EPLF and OLF) who were
determined to keep Ethiopia weak and divided. Every thing that happened then
had the blessing of Mr. Cohen. As the top US diplomat on Africa, he knew that the
exclusion of all pro Ethiopian forces was not in any way going to help Ethiopians’
long term interest. However, he also knew that it was not going to affect his
interest. So he supported it without any regard about the negative effect of
such decision on Ethiopia for generations to come. Clearly, this too shows that
Mr Cohen is there to protect other interests and not that of Ethiopia.

“What does England mean by destroying Hewett’s treaty and allowing the Italians to take my country from me? …Did I not relieve the Egyptian garrison in the Bogos country? Did I not fight at Cassala when it was too late? Have I not done everything I could? You English used us to do what you wanted and then left us8, Ras Allula Aba Nega. (In the Hewett Treaty, concluded in 1884, the United Kingdom recognized Bogos and Massawa as possessions of Ethiopia).

These facts show that Ethiopians, not Mr. Cohen or the country he
represented, are responsible to protect Ethiopian rights and to stand for our
own best interests. No one else but we are responsible for our own destiny.
This applies on a personal as well as a national psych level.

In fact, the more we look for others’ support to protect our
rights as individuals and as a nation, the more they feel that we do not have a
strong self-esteem and sense of self and they push us around in the direction
of their choosing.

Therefore, the issue now is less about what Mr. Cohen and more about
what we the Ethiopian public, the rulers in Addis and the political opposition
would do.

Mr. Cohen’s current proposal revolves around the following key
issues:-

1. Bringing TPLF/EPRDF and the EPLF to the pre 1998 situation. For Mr
Cohen this is acceptable. But for Ethiopians, including many within the ruling
TPLF/EPRDF regime, it is not. Every one know that pre 1998, Issays
was dominating the Ethiopian political scene. Also he was direct beneficiary of
all of the resources of Ethiopia. No Ethiopian is willing to see that happen
again.

2. Mr Cohen, in a passive remark, acknowledges that both regimes were
involved in the repression of rights. However, as far as he is concerned that
is a secondary issue. The key is just bringing about “peace”
between the two rulers. In a way, the interest of the people, the idea of human
rights and democracy are again secondary as far as he is concerned.

This too is ill conceived, short sighted and against the long term
interest of Ethiopia.  For Ethiopia
to have a long lasting stability, the country needs to move more in the
direction of respecting Human and Democratic Rights, inclusiveness and creating
national consensus. Therefore, deferring the issue of rights will only perpetuate
unnecessary conflict among Ethiopians and complicate the already existing
contradictions. This will work against Ethiopia’s interest both in the
short and long term.

3. Mr Cohen’s recommendation is to accept the Algiers Agreement
as is. Avery one clearly knows that the Algers
agreement gives Bademe to Issayas
and never considers   allowing Ethiopia to regain its
historical and legal rights including the full right to Assab.
It is interesting to note that Mr Cohan himself has said in the past that
Ethiopia had both the legal and historical rights to Assab.
The people of Affars are Ethiopians forcefully pushed
out by Meles. The residents of Badme
never considered themselves anything but Ethiopians.

Again, it is disappointing that Mr Cohan disregards Ethiopias interest although he knows how unfair his
own recommendation is. For what ever reason, all he wants is “peace
“between the two even at the permanent cost of Ethiopia.

4. One of the most disappointing points in Mr Cohen’s proposal is
his recommendation that reads “To break the stalemate between Eritrea and
Ethiopia over the implementation of the EEBC boundary decision, there needs to
be a mutually face-saving solution. I propose that Ethiopia offer to accept
a symbolic initial takeover by Eritrea of territory awarded by the EEBC,
followed by the same day opening of dialogue with a totally open agenda”

In my opinion, this is the most insulting part of Mr Cohen’s
proposal. How is this proposal different from what Issayas
has been saying ever since the so called EEBC decision? Why would Ethiopia give
up its own territory just to get to talk to the EPLF? Is it not EPLF, if any
that should concede in order to get Ethiopia to the discussion table? What is
there to be gained, why would one give such a huge concession just to sit and
start conversation with EPLF?

“Even our camels know how to follow the Green Yellow and Red flag … Even our camels salute the Ethiopian flag.” There is no question that Afar is Ethiopia as is Assab. Bitwoded Alimirah Hanfare, a great Ethiopian patriot leader and sultan of Aussa, which includes Assab.

In any negotiation, give and take or a win-win situation is a common
and acceptable phenomenon. This happens in proportionality without harming one
and benefitting another. One does not concede its own territory, its historical
and legal rights for no thing. This is not “give- and- take” but
surrender.

Mr Cohan’s recommendation that “Ethiopia offer to accept
a symbolic initial takeover by Eritrea of territory awarded by the EEBC,
followed by the same day opening of dialogue with a totally open agenda”
is a major trap that will completely disarm Ethiopia for good. Clearly
there will be no return once Ethiopia surrenders the contested territory to
Eritrea.

To summarise, Ethiopia is not just a piece of real-estate. For others,
there are no historical, psychological, social, and emotional factors involved
in throwing away a national territory and disintegrating a nation. For them, it
may be as simple as selling property and exchanging ownership certificate. Over
all, Mr Cohen’s proposal is a non-starter. This proposal should be
rejected outright and without delay.

I urge all Ethiopians to put the maximum pressure on the ruling party
in Ethiopia to stand for Ethiopia’s historical and legal rights and
regain Ethiopian full rights in every way.

The struggle of the late PM Aklilu Habtewold to safeguard the rights of Ethiopia, especially
in relation to Eritrea, has lots to teach us in this regard.

If our great leaders Ras Allula
Aba Nega and Bitweded Ali Mirah were alive today, they would have felt insulted by Mr
Cohen’s so called “recommendation” and would have told him to
stay out of Ethiopian affairs.

To conclude, I would like to challenge my fellow Ethiopians if you are
ready to give up part of Tigray (which is again the
integral part of Ethiopia) to Issayas? Are you ready
to make Ethiopia landlocked forever? Is this in the best interest of Ethiopia
including Tigray, the Erob,
the Afar or the rest of Ethiopia? 
How would you like to be judged by history? As
defender of Ethiopia’s interests including its territorial integrity or
as a real estate dealer who saw benefits in selling the land piecemeal?