The Eritrean Mereb advocates for constitutional liberalism, the respect of the rule of law, the protection of property rights, peace and free trade in Eritrea. This blog adheres to Abraham MIT's views and vision.
(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
Canada has issued a plan of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Appendix O deals with Eritrea. See the Canada plan.
Lately, the top guns of the Eritrean regime have been travelling the globe. This appears to be to avert the UNSC Resolution 1907 from taking effect; though their engagements include only nations who are not members of the UNSC – be it permanent or non permanent members. President Isaias went to Qatar and Egypt, and the foreign minster of Eritrea was dispatched to South Africa. This is an excursion in futility, too late for such kind of detours. Such maneuvers are ill advised, since they do not answer the underlying requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Globe trotting will not change anything. Qatar, Egypt and South Africa cannot overturn the UNSC Resolution 1907; on the contrary like all other members of the United Nations they are duty bound to abide by the UNSC Resolution 1907. (Resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charters are mandatory legal requirements on all members.)
It appears that the major powers that have significant impact on Eritrea -- in terms of financial aid to and trade with Eritrea -- have already issued their plans on how they plan to implement the resolution in their respective jurisdictions. These include Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and the European Union. (I assume the plan of the European Union covers for such big nations as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and so forth.)
As far as I know, the only important Western power that has as of yet not issued its plan is the USA. The questions are: Will there be any surprise when the USA issues its plan? Is the USA contemplating the suspension of its diplomatic relationship with Eritrea? Will the USA outlaw the PFDJ from operating in the USA?
Terrorism is not taken lightly in the USA. We now that for all intents and purposes the USA has already branded the top political guru of the PFDJ as a terrorist. The implication of such an acknowledgement is that the very organization that such a top rabbi leads itself must be a terrorist one too. This is an external recognition. As far as the Eritrean people are concerned, the PFDJ is an organization that is terrorizing them everyday, and Eritrea under the PFDJ is hell on earth. That the USA is now approximately in the same wavelength with the Eritrean people regarding the nature of the PFDJ is a godsend. Currently, the USA includes Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria in its list of states that sponsor terrorism. In all likelihood, Eritrea may join this infamous list. In that case, what follows next will be the suspension of diplomatic relationship between Eritrea and the USA. And then real pain will be inflicted on those Diaspora supporters of the PFDJ who reside in the USA, who are the lifeline of the oppressive organization. That will help in heralding the quick downfall of the Eritrean regime.
Eritrea under the PFDJ is an abnormal nation. The abnormality emanates from the inherent nature of the Eritrean regime to act outside the laws. In the international arena, one of the results of the lawless nature of the Eritrean regime is that it brought upon itself the UNSC Resolution 1907, and it is in direct combat with the USA -- and of all things issues that deal with terrorism. The relationship between the USA and the Eritrean regime cannot continue as is. I believe the USA will have an ordinary and customary relationship with Eritrea only when Eritrea becomes a normal nation -- that is a nation that subscribes to the rule of law internally and respects international law externally.
These days one is forced to recollect the fates of Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and Ian Smith; such villains lived outside normal laws and acted as if they were omnipotent and supreme in their days; are the actions of Isaias that different?
(*** first published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
The deadline of the submission of the implementation plans of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1907 by member states in their respective jurisdiction is by April 23, 2010.
The following note is a brief recap of where we are as of April 22, 2010.
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907, adopted on December 23, 2009, imposed an arms embargo on Eritrea, travel bans on its leaders, and froze the assets of some of the country's political and military officials as punishment for aiding anti-government rebels in Somalia and refusing to withdraw troops from its disputed border with Djibouti, following a conflict in 2008.” Source: UNSC Resolution 1907
The UNSC Resolution 1907 Paragraph 20 “calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution on steps they have taken to implement the measures outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 of the resolution. The reports of Member States are expected to be submitted by 23 April 2010.” Source: UNSC April 2010 Forecast
As of April 22, 2010, I believe the European Union, Switzerland, Australia and Japan have issued their plans of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. It is expected that by April 23, 2010 all member states will present their plans of the implementation of the resolution 1907 in their respective jurisdictions. This is a legal requirement.
How about the Eritrean regime, will it buckle and shamefacedly comply with all the requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907, despite all its bravados and boastings? Will the Eritrean regime present its plan of complying with the UNSC Resolution 1907? If not, then the clock starts ticking for the UNSC to go up to the extent of the use of military force to compel the Eritrean regime to abide by its orders since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations charters.
The Eritrean regime has been slandering, bad mouthing and accusing the USA for allegedly instigating the UNSC sanctions against Eritrea. In essence, the Eritrean regime has implied that all members of the UNSC including Russia and China toe the line of the USA, at least when it comes to the case of Eritrea. In addition, the Eritrean president accused the USA for setting off the Eritrean-Ethiopian border war and for all intents and purposes has branded the USA as an archenemy of Eritrea.
The question is how will the USA take such accusations? Will it ignore all the tantrums and stick to what the UNSC sanctions on the Eritrean regime call upon or will the USA go beyond what the minimum requirements stipulate when it issues its implementation plan of the UNSC Resolution 1907?
The time of reckoning has approached. It is April 23, 2010.
The People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) is set to demonstrate against the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) Resolution 1907 through massive showings of its followers in the streets of Washington DC, San Francisco, Melbourne and Geneva on February 22, 2010.The questions that arise are: what are the demonstrations for and why are they not set in New York City?
Background
The UNSC is composed of five veto-wielding permanent and ten non veto-wielding non-permanent nations. The five veto-wielding members are: (1) the USA; (2) the UK; (3) France; (4) Russia and (5) China, and for the 2009-term, the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council were: (1)Burkina Faso;(2) Libya; (3) Uganda;(4)Vietnam; (5) Japan;(6)Costa Rica; (7) Mexico; (8) Turkey;(9)Austria; and (10) Croatia. Source: 2009 SC
The UNSC’s Resolution 1907 is a legal verdict, under Chapter VII and it complied with article 27 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which states that:“Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote or veto … by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9).”Source: Security Council. The resolution was adopted by a 13 “yes” votes, 1 “no” vote by a non-veto wielding member, and 1 “abstention.”This means there is no other higher international legal authority that Eritrea can appeal to in order to annul the resolution.The only thing left for Eritrea is to strictly comply with all the directives and requirements of the resolution, and at best only then will the sanctions be lifted.The time for petitions, street demonstrations and politics are already gone.
Why not New York City?
Of all places the PFDJ has no plans to demonstrate its displeasure of the Resolution 1907 in front of the UN headquarters in New York City -- the very city where the sanctions against Eritrea took place. And yet there are plans of demonstrations in places as odd as Melbourne, Australia – a nation that is not a permanent member of the UNSC nor a non-permanent member of the 2010 term, and San Francisco, California – it looks just for the heck of it. There seems to be no rationale and logic.
New York City is the permanent home of the UNSC, and since its inception the UNSC is in a continuous secession.“Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to a crisis.” Source: Security Council.
The Resolution 1907 cannot be annulled through a show of demonstration. Still, if the PFDJ wants to demonstrate, then it is illogical to avoid New York City. The plan to demonstrate in Washington DC and not in New York City may have originated from several misconceptions.
First, by going to Washington DC the PFDJ may believe that it can influence the State Department, president Obama and Congress, all, at the same time on the necessity of the “annulment” of the Resolution 1907. It is wrong on all counts.
Congress has oversight but no direct and active role on the conduct of the foreign policy of the USA – that role strictly resides with the executive branch of the government. The State Department though it has overall coordination of the foreign policy of the USA, when it comes to the UN and UNSC, the permanent representative of the USA to the UN has complete control.
The ambassador of the USA to the UN directly reports to the president bypassing the State Department.This is not the Bush Administration whose disrespect for international institutions had no bounds. The PFDJ may have wrongly assumed that the representative of the USA to the UN in the Obama Administration continues as is without qualitative reporting changes from that of the Bush Administration. How wrong they are.This is extremely elementary, yet the PFDJ does not have a grasp even of basic facts. Susan Rice who is head of the USA mission to the UN has a cabinet post just like Hillary Clinton of the State Department, and both of them directly report to president Obama. This means that Susan Rice has complete control of the Resolution 1907 as far as the USA is concerned. See Susan Rice.
Second, dictators assume that all leaders are like them, and that they wrongly believe that even democratic leaders may overturn a carefully studied decision willy-nilly. President Isaias may have assumed that president Obama behaves like the way the president of Eritrea behaves – that is contradict and overturn a policy today despite the fact the very same policy was initiated by him only yesterday. Moreover, in the USA the president respects the wisdom of his cabinet secretaries (ministers), unlike the ministers in Eritrea. The cabinet secretaries have complete freedom to pursue policies that advance the national interests of the USA. A decision is achieved basically through a methodical serious study by cabinet ministers in their respective jurisdictions with the final blessings and tweaking of the president. There is a delegation of responsibilities.This is not a nation ruled by one man. More, it is “a nation of laws and not men.” And the Resolution 1907 is a law.
Third, even if we assume that president Obama were going to have second thoughts about the wisdom of the Resolution 1907, there is nothing he or the USA can do now. The Resolution 1907 has become a law. And a president cannot overturn a law be it in his own national jurisdiction or otherwise.
The Resolution 1907 is in the international jurisdiction and is owned by all members of the UN and UNSC; the USA has no longer full control of it. That is why New York City is more important than Washington DC. France and the UK compared to the USA are economically small nations; they cannot have a strong influence as the USA has in the international arena; the only place they are on equal footing with the USA is in the UNSC; the veto powers of France and the UK are as strong as the veto power of the USA. The same goes with Russia and China; in addition historically they had always been at odds with the USA in the UNSC. All this seems to be lost among the supporters of the PFDJ regime. Influencing only the USA will not do. The other four veto-wielding power nations at the UNSC are as influential as the USA. Staging demonstrations against the Resolution 1907 in Washington DC, Geneva, Melbourne and San Francisco is nothing but a fool’s errand.
Ineptitude in Diplomacy
The PFDJ alleges that it is not guilty as charged by the Resolution 1907. If so then how was it unable to extricate itself from the “trap?” Does this mean that the PFDJ is openly admitting that it is not capable to legally and diplomatically defend itself in the international arena? To speak for myself, yes it is true that the PFDJ is incompetent in the fields of international law and diplomacy and most of its practices at home and abroad are illegal. The PFDJ’s inherent nature of illegality had more to do with its undoing at the UNSC than its diplomatic awkwardness.
Still, an elaboration of the PFDJ’s diplomatic ineptitude using a very simplistic possible scenario (many other scenarios could be proposed) is necessary to illustrate that the PFDJ does not do any wise calculation ahead of time before it suddenly finds itself into a quandary. Out of the ten non-permanent nations of the UNSC only Uganda, if at all, may be antagonistic to Eritrea, since its role in Somalia is opposite to that of Eritrea.The rest, at most, are neutral to what is going on in the Horn of Africa. Since Eritrea was assured of a “no” vote from Libya, it only needed to convince the other eight non-permanent members of the UNSC to simply take a neutral stand of abstention (this is ignoring Uganda); they do not even have to cast a “no” vote to the Resolution 1907. In that case, the Resolution 1907 would not have passed.The result would have been: five “yes,” one “no” and nine “abstentions;” and this would not have fulfilled the requirements of Article 27 of the Charter. Not only is the PFDJ diplomatically inept, but it is also clueless about figures and numbers.Simple common sense dictates that one does such a calculation and gets assurances from some nations before the Resolution 1907 come to the casting of votes. One is not supposed to leave it to simple chance. This was in the air for a very long time. That the PFDJ could not get abstentions from Burkina Faso, Japan, Costa Rica, Mexico, Turkey, Austria, and Croatia is astounding.
The PFDJ is isolated from the power shakers and movers of the world – the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. It is also isolated from the rest of the world as the votes of the non-permanent nations of the UNSC clearly show. This is a teaching moment for those Eritreans who are still sitting in the fence instead of opposing the PFDJ regime.
The Ramification of Chapter VII
The Resolution 1907 was passed under Chapter VII. This is the most serious legal penalty that the UNSC can impose on a nation. To put this in perspective, “from 1967 to 1989 the UNSC passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab-Israel conflict,” none was passed explicitly stating Chapter VII, despite the fact that the Arab-Israel conflict is a very serious matter. See: Resolution on Israel
Resolutions passed under Chapter VII are also legally binding on all members of the UN. The UNSC gave Eritrea ample time to mend its erroneous ways. We, Eritreans, have to understand the gravity and ramifications of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII in part is as follows:
·“Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving ‘threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression’. In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’. This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.” [emphasis mine] Source: Security Council.
·“The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World II: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.” Source: Chapter VII
The implementation of the Resolution 1907 is “within 120 days of the adoption” of the resolution. See Paragraph 20 of the Resolution 1907. According to my calculation, the drop date of the implementation is by April 21, 2010 or thereabouts. By April 21, 2010, all members of the UN have to report to the UNSC and show clearly how they plan to implement the Resolution 1907 in their respective jurisdictions. As for Eritrea, it has to prove to the UNSC that it has completely complied with all the directives.
Absent of that, on top of the economic sanctions, the UNSC has now a legal cover under Chapter VII to use the threat of a military force, if it so desires, to compel Eritrea to abide by its orders. This is an extremely grim situation for Eritrea. The remedy is not though by a show of a mob and cult followers aka Hitler in the streets, nor is it by conducting petitions, nor is it by appealing to president Obama, as the followers of the PFDJ plan to do on February 22, 2010. Since it is a legal requirement, and there is no other superior legal organ that one can appeal to, one is left with a single recourse -- simply comply with all the directives in their entirety.This is akin to the situation when the Supreme Court of the USA passes a verdict on a certain issue; once the verdict is issued, then it is not appealable, one is forced to abide by the decision. The question that follows then what comes next?
On the surface, it may appear that once Eritrea complies with the Resolution 1907 then everything will return back to normal. I believe the reality is yes and no. At its best, the sanctions will be lifted from Eritrea, and in that case, yes, everything will be back to normal.
When it comes to the fates of the Eritrean leaders though it is a completely different matter, based on the Resolution 1907, the UNSC has already tacitly charged the Eritrean leaders as guilty in the destruction of properties and the loss of lives in both Somalia and Djibouti either as auxiliaries or as active and direct participants. This is an important concealed message in the resolution. This verdict of guilty will hover over the Eritrean leaders’ heads. This means that the UNSC has already done all the important leg works and indispensable documentation for any international lawyer or human rights activist to bring those said leaders in a court of law to be charged for crimes against humanity.The Eritrean leaders will not be able to avoid this, and it appears that finally they are legally caught for all their bad deeds not in Eritrea but in the international arena. Charles Taylor of Liberia was brought to detention legally not for his crimes against his own people, but in the role he played outside his nation in Sierra Leone. It appears there are some similarities here. See Charles Taylor
Maybe this tacit charge that is embedded in the Resolution 1907 is haunting the Eritrean leaders that from their perspective whether they comply with the 1907 resolution or not become irrelevant, since they have already put themselves in a no win situation. Consequently, they may have cruelly decided to take the whole Eritrean nation to the ditch with them. The only wise thing we, Eritreans, have to do, particularly those of us who are also American citizens, is to distance ourselves from the PFDJ and completely wash our hands from its sins.
(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
This is a follow up to the “Eritrea Walks into the Sanction Trap.” It is to be remembered that on December 23, 2009, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “its role in Somalia” and over “its refusal to withdraw its troops following conflict with Djibouti.” Instead of showing remorse and mending their erroneous ways, the People’s Front for Democracy & Justice (PFDJ) and its supporters in their non-stop “Mekete” meetings both inside and outside of Eritrea, appear to have irrationally decided to entrap themselves more, and in their resistance have come up with badly informed words and arguments. Is their behavior that crude? Or is there something else also at play here? Considering its insatiable appetite for hard currency, it is possible that the PFDJ is trying to milk the sanctions for what they are worth, before they take effect by appealing to “Eritrean patriotism.” It so happens that we have among us, some Eritreans who are still easily hoodwinked by the PFDJ. These gullible Eritreans will lose their hard earned money; it appears that they have not yet wizened up from bitter experience. Once the PFDJ replenishes its coffers of hard currency, it may take a roundabout turn and may completely comply with all the directives of the UNSC’s resolutions. There is a very strong possibility that this scenario may be at play here. In its appeal to “patriotism,” the PFDJ is in the habit of referring to the sanctions as “the illegal and vicious US sanctions resolution adopted in the name of the Security Council.” So much so some naïve Eritreans have wrongly taken these to heart and assume that the sanctions are “illegal” and moreover they presume that the sanctions have nothing to do with United Nations and rather much to do with the USA. It is lost to them that once the UNSC imposes the sanctions then these punitive measures are not owned by a single nation like the USA. On the contrary, the sanctions are legally owned by all members of the United Nations – that includes Eritrea and I might add Ethiopia too. Also, the sanctions cannot be illegal (more of that later). Are the Sanctions Illegal? One can in principle argue that the sanctions are unjust or unfair, though to speak for myself, I do not believe so. However, based on the law, are the sanctions “illegal” as the PFDJ is claiming? The word illegal is a loaded word, and it boggles the mind that the PFDJ is suddenly in infatuation with the law. Can the PFDJ and its supporters pinpoint to us to a single rule of the United Nations that allege the sanctions imposed on Eritrea are illegal? According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “illegal” is defined as: “prohibited by law; against the law; unlawful; illicit; also, not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules.” Is the UNSC “prohibited by law,” to pass the sanctions it imposed on Eritrea? To understand whether the sanctions on Eritrea are legal, we need to cover some elementary and basic facts about the UNSC pertaining to our issues. The following are the most important points.
·“The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
·There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and ten elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter.
·Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, also known as the rule of "great Power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9).
·Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.”
As the words above denote the UNSC is legally designated to maintain peace and security in the world. As to our subject in question: sanctions – what are the procedural requirements that the UNSC has to follow when it orders resolutions on sanctions? And on what rules are those sanctions based?
First and foremost, it may be necessary to draw attention to the fact that it is not routine for the UNSC to impose sanctions. For sanctions to be imposed there are two tests that need to be met. The first requirement is that a veto-wielding power nation should not oppose the sanctions; this hurdle is very difficult to clear, since the five veto-wielding power nations are usually not in the same wavelength, bearing in mind that they have varied national interests that are in variance with each other. That the first hurdle was cleared so easily in the case of Eritrea is something that we, Eritreans, have to seriously contemplate of the gravity of the sanctions, and that we have to come to terms with the fact that we are harboring a rogue regime in our midst. Once the first hurdle is cleared, the second test requires yes votes of nine out of the total fifteen members of the UNSC. The second test is a very easy requirement to fulfill; for all intents and purposes, the second requirement appears to be only a formality. And only when the two tests are met do sanctions take effect. In simplistic terms, these are how the procedural rules of the UNSC work regarding sanctions and other resolutions of great consequence.
That the UNSC imposed sanctions on Eritrea is either an aberration, or that Eritrea is now internationally recognized as a pariah nation. If it were an anomaly, how come such an incongruity was unrevealed to Russia, China, France, the UK and even the USA? I for one believe that Eritrea is not a normal nation, where the rule of law be it internal or external is respected; the lawless nature of the PFDJ regime finally caught up with it in the world arena.
The sanctions have placed Eritrea in the same bad company of such nations -- Rhodesia during Ian Smith, South Africa during the apartheid leaders, Iraq during Saddam Hussein, and Liberia during Charles Taylor. There is no other name for this except disgrace and humiliation.
There is also a need to clarify that as it is very difficult for a nation to be sanctioned, it is also knotty for the sanctions to be lifted once they are imposed. In order for the sanctions to be lifted, a nation in such a quagmire has to satisfy the requirements that are asked of her by the five veto-wielding power nations; in essence there are five Kings lording over a poor nation, who invariably have divergent requirements as stated above.
Strangely enough, some in the opposition are captivated by this tricky prospective lifting of the sanctions that so much so they opted to oppose the arms embargo sanction (more of this later). It does not make sense to me. I believe we have to cross the bridge of liberty first, instead of unnecessarily wracking our brains of what will transpire in a post PFDJ. If we are fortunate enough to arrive at our destination of freedom, then we tackle the lifting of the arms embargo sanctions from our back, when such mundane issues stare us straight in the face. For now, the lifting of the arms embargo sanction, sometime in the future, should be the least of our worries, since we do not even know how the PFDJ will behave when the time of reckoning arrives. For all I know, the PFDJ, when cornered and consistent with its past behavior, may shamefacedly comply with all the UNSC’s directives and requirements; in the final analysis, all its bravados and boastings may amount to nothing.
From the legal perspective, the UNSC is the highest international authority where its resolutions and rules become part of the international law. “Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.” The sanctions on Eritrea were passed under Chapter VII, and thus are legally binding. We simply have to examine the text. The resolution in part states as follows:
·“Adopting resolution 1907 (2009) by a vote of 13 in favour to 1 against (Libya), with 1 abstention (China) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, [emphasis mine] the Council reiterated its demand that Eritrea withdraw its forces to the positions of the status quo ante in the area where its conflict with Djibouti had occurred, acknowledge its border dispute and cooperate fully with the Secretary-General’s good offices. It further demanded that the country cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.” Source: S/C 9833
Impact of the Arms Embargo Sanction on the Military Balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia
As to be expected the supporters of the PFDJ try to link the arms embargo sanction with the yet unresolved Eritrea-Ethiopia border conflict, though the text of the sanctions do not bring Ethiopia into the equation. In a nutshell, they allege that the arms embargo will create a military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia and that this will favor Ethiopia to the disadvantage of Eritrea. It is unfortunate that some in the opposition, who incidentally I have tremendous respect of, have also accepted such a maxim, though coming from a different angle. I believe this emanates from having an exaggerated and embellished view of Eritrea’s economy and the size of its population in comparison with that of Ethiopia. Such people assume Eritrea to be in par with Ethiopia in all matters of economies. Is that so?
To do a real service on this important matter of military balance, one has to examine and compare the size of the economies and demographics of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Arms embargo sanction or not, this significant issue will be with us for ever. Once armed with such facts and figures a reasonable person will recognize that the attainment of a military balance between the two nations, absent of bankrupting the Eritrean nation, is a self-delusion and fantasy.
Table 1
Comparisons of the Sizes of Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and Populations
Note: (“The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory uses the long-term equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize their purchasing power… Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison.” Source: Purchasing Power Parity In lay man’s terms the PPP is nothing but a one USA dollar buys more goods and services in Eritrea and Ethiopia for example, than the same dollar does in the USA.)
(In order to avoid superfluous misunderstanding, I need to put certain things out of the way. I believe that a comparison of military balance between two nations can be accomplished by comparing total GDP and not GDP per capita. For example, the GDP per capita of Luxembourg ($79,600) is higher than that of the USA ($46,300). However, this does not mean that Luxembourg is militarily more powerful than the USA. If one uses the total GDP one finds that the USA’s economy is $ 13,820 billions, while that of Luxembourg is only $37.78 billions. In other words, the USA’s economy is equivalent to 365 Luxembourgs, hence the superiority of the military power of the USA.)
Based on Table 1 above, the GDP of Ethiopia is equivalent to the GDPs of about 14 Eritreas of the world. Or to put it differently, the Eritrean economy is as small as 6.9% of the Ethiopian economy. Since the PFDJ is pretending to compete with the USA, it may be necessary to bring to light that the economy of the USA is comparable to the economies of about 3,608 Eritreas of the world. Knowing one’s limitation is a sign of wisdom. In boxing terms, Eritrea will be fortunate to be in the class of economic featherweight, while the USA is in the class of the economic heavyweight; the PFDJ should not try to punch beyond its economic weight, otherwise it is lethal to its health.
Again based on Table 1, the population of Ethiopia is about 15 times larger than that of the population of Eritrea. In other words, for a one Eritrean soldier, Ethiopia if it so desires can field 15 Ethiopian soldiers just in order to keep the relative balance between the two nations unaffected. While that the population of the USA is about 54 times larger than the population of Eritrea.
Naturally, from this follows a vital truth -- there never will be a military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia that is in tune with the respective size of their economies and the numbers of their populations. Parity in a military balance can be only imprudently achieved by bankrupting Eritrea and driving the Eritrean people into a wretchedly poor level of existence. Otherwise the numbers do not favor Eritrea to match Ethiopia’s military capacity. An asymmetrical military balance that favors Ethiopia is a natural result that Eritrea cannot avoid.
Eritrea cannot compensate for its relative weakness in its demographics and its economy through a relatively superior technology. Right now, the technology of Ethiopia, if not equal to that of Eritrea, may be even higher than that possessed by Eritrea, since I surmise that unlike Eritrea, Ethiopia has a relatively stable and adequate educational system of a long standing. In other words, there is no way Eritrea can play the role in the Horn of Africa akin to the role that the technologically advanced Israel plays in the Middle East.
Right off the bat, this means that there is already a big military imbalance between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Just because of its relative large size, Ethiopia already has an upper hand over Eritrea in military matters. The marginal impact of the arms embargo sanction on Eritrea in the military balance between Eritrea and Ethiopia is almost zero and negligible. People who believe that such an embargo will suddenly put Ethiopia militarily on top in the Horn of Africa are hallucinating, since Ethiopia is already relatively a giant in the Horn of Africa. The sad part is that we may have among us still people who harbor war mongering mentality. The PFDJ is seriously afflicted with such malady.
To elaborate more, for example, there is a huge military imbalance between Canada and the USA. There is nothing Canada can do about that, since it is relatively much smaller in terms of its economy and its population compared to the USA. The economy of the USA is equivalent to the economies of about 11 Canadas of the world; and the population of the USA is about 9 times larger than Canada. The only thing Canada can do is to learn to live in peace and harmony with its giant neighbor. In fact, the USA and Canada are the best trading partners and that their economies are so interlinked and harmonized that it is almost impossible that war can erupt between these two nations. Eritrea and Ethiopia should learn such valuable lessons from the Canadian-American friendly relationship.
Free Trade is one of the Engines of Prosperity and Peace
Eritrea should have an army that is commensurate with its economic size and its demographics. To maintain parity in military balance with Ethiopia will result in enslaving the whole Eritrean youth in unproductive service in the army. This is a big drag to the economy. There is another road Eritrea can take. It should be in the forefront of peace. One of the best historical proven roads of salvation from poverty and towards the advancement of economic prosperity is to have free trade. Eritrea should pursue unfettered trade and the movement of capital and labor with all its neighbors in the Horn of Africa, and in particular with Ethiopia. Eritrea under the PFDJ is an extremely abnormal nation that does not trade at all with its neighbors since it is at odds of one sort or another with all of them. The economy of Eritrea is nothing but autarky – hence tremendous poverty. Nations whose economies are intimately interlinked do not resort to war to solve misunderstandings unless led by unstable and paranoid leaders. This is one of the best ways of avoiding wars, conflicts and large armies. First things first though -- all peace loving and democratic Eritreans should hope that the UNSC’s sanctions get more tightened and help in finishing off the PFDJ from its existence in Eritrea.
