In Solidarity With the Forces of Good
(Part 19 of 24)
By Yonas Araya

(First Published on Asmarino.com on July 2nd, 2002)

Ethiopia’s Access to the Red Sea
Of all the comments and proposals I have presented in this series of articles and essays, I admit this one might be the most controversial.

Here goes: in 1985, a strange idea, which I believed then was phenomenal, popped into my head and refused to leave me. Hence, after mulling over the idea for a few days, at that time, I became convinced that if the leadership of Eritrea could present that idea as a gesture of peace to Ethiopia, it might change world opinion, including that of African, European, American, and maybe even that of the U.S.S.R., Ethiopia’s main ally at that time, in favor of the Eritrean revolution.

I don’t know if all Eritreans deny this, but I believed then, and I still do, that many good-intentioned nations, organizations, heads of state, individuals, and statesmen opposed the very idea of an independent Eritrea, mainly:

1. They did not believe Ethiopia would accept the reality of remaining landlocked.
2. They did not think the region would be peaceful once Eritrea became independent and Ethiopia became landlocked.
3. They did not believe that Italian colonialism did justice to the ancient nation by denying it access to the sea.

Therefore, I became convinced that if Eritrea could address the valid concerns of the good-intentioned nations, organizations, individuals, and leaders, it could win their support and sympathy for its fight for self-determination. I also thought the gesture might, to some degree, divide public opinion in Ethiopia. Anyway, after keeping the idea to myself and sleeping on it for about four years, I prepared to present it directly to Issayas in 1989, when he came to the U.S. and invited all Eritreans to Washington, D.C.

Nevertheless, for unexpected reasons, I failed to attend the gathering. In retrospect, I don’t know whether I would have dared to voice my idea in front of so many angry Eritreans; I also don’t know how Issayas would have reacted. In any case, while I kept mulling over the idea and waited for an opportune time, Eritrea became independent. After that, I saw no reason to put the idea forward to Eritrea’s leaders anymore. Since then, I casually mentioned this idea to a few Eritreans, but they either outright rejected it, stayed silent, or were indifferent.

I am not aware of anyone who had this idea, nor do I know whether Eritrea or Ethiopia ever had such a plan. I never heard about it from anyone, but ideas are in the air, as the great inventor Thomas Edison once said. True, ideas are in the air, readily available to anyone who tunes in and seeks them earnestly. Therefore, if you readers have heard of it from someone with whom I had never conversed, it could only mean a coincidence, or it could mean that there was such a plan of action that I was not aware of, or it could mean that there was such a plan that authorities did not make public.

I know every one of you readers is now waiting anxiously to read what I am about to present. I know that at the hint of any plan or gesture, every Eritrean’s first thought is Assab, and the first reaction is, no way, we are not going to give the Assab port away to Ethiopia.

Over the years, Eritreans have grown sentimental about Assab, especially during their 30-year struggle. Therefore, Eritreans should recognize that the port of Assab holds not only sentimental value but also nostalgia for Ethiopians, too, because of their 40-year rule over it. Hence, my proposal seeks a middle ground that addresses both peoples’ needs and emotional feelings.

I have never been to the port of Assab, but on the paper map, I see about 40 kilometers of coastal land, and sometimes even more depending on the map, between the port of Assab and Djibouti. My proposal calls on Eritrea’s democratically elected future government to consider leasing a piece of that coastal land to Ethiopia. It also advises Eritrea’s post-Issayas government to invite peace-loving communities worldwide to witness the deal’s signing.

Details:

1. Eritrea shall lease 10-15 kilometers of coastal land between Assab and Djibouti to Ethiopia for $1 per year for 50 years.
2. The lease shall be signed before the following witnesses:

1. • The U.N. (United Nations);
   • The O.A.U. (Organization of African Unity);
   • The E.U. (European Union);
   • All neighbors and present and future regional and international major powers, and democracies, such as the USA, Italy, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Norway, Sweden, Sudan, Australia, South Africa, and Iran.
2. The parties shall review the lease in 2052 before all the witnesses and decide whether to renew it for additional years or permanently hand the coastal land over to Ethiopia.
3. Ethiopia shall build a port on the leased coastal territory.
4. The World Bank, the IMF, and all well-meaning, peace-loving nations and organizations are appealed to help Ethiopia with any technical difficulties in building a port in that part of the coastal land.
5. If constructing a port on that coastal land proves technically impossible, then other alternatives, which I will unveil in the future, must be explored to meet Ethiopia’s needs.
6. Ethiopia may name the newly constructed port Assab if it wishes.
7. Ethiopia’s military presence in the leased land will be limited to the police force.
8. Eritrea will maintain naval and maritime security.
9. The coastal land shall be entrusted to all Ethiopians as a nation, not to any particular Ethiopian nationality or tribe.

One of the major thoughts that tormented me when mulling over this idea was how to deal with the fate of the native Eritreans who live in that particular pocket of land. I could not find proper compensation for the natives because I knew no compensation would redress the change they had to experience. I only wished they would understand the bigger picture: the contribution they would make to regional harmony. But they also need to realize that when peace does not prevail in that part of the region, they could become the first victims.

Regarding the native Eritreans who live on the said seashore:

1. The local inhabitants will be compensated fully by Ethiopia financially.
2. The local inhabitants will hold full (dual) citizenship of both nations.

I will present some detailed guidelines, including the decisions to make if and when natural resources are discovered on the leased land. Moreover, the post-Issayas Eritrean government must seek advice from, and consult, international lawyers with expertise in treaty drafting before signing an agreement.

Again, I cannot stress enough that a democratically elected Eritrean government must put forward and sign the deal, not Issayas and his rubber-stamp “legislators.”

Why this Arrangement?
I came up with this compromise because I believe the two countries cannot achieve true, lasting peace unless Ethiopia’s needs are fully addressed.

As long as Ethiopia remains landlocked, tensions and animosity will remain between the peoples of the two nations, even if and when Ethiopia and Eritrea become democracies governed by democratically elected leaders.

I believe it takes real Eritreans to call Ethiopians our brothers and sisters; therefore, I call on all open-minded, real Eritreans to discuss this issue freely. Also, I believe it would be selfish and even silly for Eritreans to deny a corridor of sea outlet from their longer than 1,000-kilometer stretch of coastal land to their Ethiopian brothers and sisters.

Over the years, we Africans blamed the Europeans for all our problems, even after Europeans had been gone for more than 40 or 50 years; instead, we find ourselves fighting one another over petty quarrels. Recently, Eritreans and Ethiopians lost tens of thousands of their children’s lives over a piece of borderland that is not even worth paying for a single life.

Moreover, if Eritreans can have a sentimental attachment to Assab and fight for 30 years over a land they knew through colonialism, one should not dismiss the possibility that Ethiopians could also grow sentimental or nostalgic over Assab.

Even as I devise this plan, I understand that no law in this world, with or without this deal, can prevent both nations from going to war in the future. True, lasting peace can only be reached when the groundwork is laid. But for this to happen, both sides need to make gestures, and each must understand that the alternative will be astronomically costly in human and material resources for both nations. Eritrea has the timing and resources to make the first gesture, regardless of whether Ethiopia reciprocates.

I believe this gesture for peace will potentially bring lasting peace to the region. Furthermore, economically prosperous Ethiopia can be politically stable and a top trade partner for Eritrea. But that said, those Eritreans who are opposed to any gesture need to realize that the alternative will be costly; furthermore, they need to pledge to bear the full responsibility, including by committing to join the regular Eritrean Army with their children, and that their support should not be limited to a one-dollar-a-day, or to chanting that dreadfully sarcastic “Awet Nahafash” slogan, or other empty slogans like “we will not give an inch,” as it was during the Badme War.

During the recent War with Ethiopia, the Eritreans living in foreign countries, while living in free nations in comfort and sending their children to prestigious universities, bragged about a military solution and victory over the “border conflict.” However, their most significant contribution during the War was adding fuel to the fire, causing Issayas to become even more stubborn, particularly during the crucial early stages of talks for peace, eventually costing tens of thousands of precious lives of poor Eritrean families living in Eritrea. But it was ironic that during the War, those Eritreans who favored a military solution did not show the guts to visit their country, even as tourists, for fear of being stranded in the country they loved and of seeing the president they adored.

Having mentioned the gestures above, Ethiopians must be forewarned not to get the wrong idea. Both nations can live in harmony. The more the Ethiopians show their desire to live peacefully alongside Eritrea, the better a deal they will get.

>> Part 20 of  24

A new note:

When I wrote the statement above in July 2002, I said only Eritrea’s democratically elected post-Isaias government had to sign the treaty.

My reasoning was simple: I wanted the treaty to be signed in broad daylight. Eritreans watched Isaias deal only under the table, making up rules as he went along – rules that suited only him, because he did not want to be constrained by laws or a constitution.

But now, for the sake of peace, I want to retract that part of my statement: I not only support but urge President Isaias to sign a treaty with Ethiopia as a gesture of peace, but only if it is in front of the whole world and in broad daylight.

February 5, 2024;