BY STAFF REPORTER
Today’s guest, Ambassador Eshete Tilahun is Director of Europe and American Affairs Directorate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ethiopian Press Agency has interviewed him about the recent Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) between the Government of Ethiopia and Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF). Have a nice read!
How do you see the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA) between the Federal Government and TPLF?
There were doubts because there were many comments from different sides towards the beginning of the negotiations. Of course, on the part of the federal government, everything was clear. In other words, it announced readiness to negotiate at any time and place without any conditions. On the part of the TPLF, several conditions and stances changed now and then, so it is not surprising if people had doubts.
What matters is the willingness of the negotiating parties to meet when such negotiations take place. It is their willingness to cooperate to solve the problem through negotiations. When processes are seen, it can be understood that it is moving in a positive direction.
In my opinion, if the federal government and the TPLF had not been prepared to bring about change, it would not have been possible to achieve the results we witness now. In fact, contrary to what I mentioned, it appears that they want to understand each other’s situation. Since negotiation is based on give and take, it is not possible to agree on certain things by taking a rigid position. And by carrying this spirit and going prepared, there is a positive spirit so far.
If we raise the question “What did the deal come up with?” we can pick up many things. For example, we should consider it a diplomatic success for our country. No problems are solved by force. For the time being, it is possible to stop the conflict by force. But it is not possible to reverse the deterioration of peace and social relations. Again, it can only be resolved by conflict or force, and it is harmful. First of all, any conflict, especially such a severe and widespread war, consumes human life. It destroys the wealth of the country. It destroys infrastructure. It undermines social relationships. These problems can be avoided if they are resolved through diplomacy and dialogue. Therefore, even after Ethiopia suffered a lot of damage, the negotiation is a great diplomatic victory.
On the other hand, Ethiopia is not an island; since we live as part of the international community, I have to make sure that the international community agrees with this issue. They used different ways of influencing different messages saying that they are concerned about the situation in Ethiopia. This spirit is known to exist especially in the countries of the western world that I follow. It greatly simplifies that. If we do more work, it will help Ethiopia to return to the level of diplomacy it used to have. So we can see that it has diplomatic success.
The main issue is the needs in Ethiopia. In particular, we have been seeing that it is ineffective, and inefficient to implement a force with weapons. I think this situation is very educational. In negotiation politics; I believe that civilized political thinking is a factor in our transition. This, the whole society; I think will create an opportunity for all Ethiopians living abroad and Ethiopians to come together and tell our story of war and conflict. We all have to work for that. Because the benefit is for ourselves.
This is how all Ethiopians could win. There will be a situation where they can discuss and decide to sit around the table without destroying property. And it should be emphasized that the negotiation has brought good things in this regard as it is possible to solve the problems that are the cause of the conflict.
How successfully do you think Ethiopia has been in terms of its position that African problems should be solved by Africans?
I believe that the agreement is a good indication that Africans can solve their problems on their own. We have completed the first chapter. It was possible to attend with a political commitment to solve the issue by sitting down and talking. This is not visible, especially in East Africa and is affecting us. It can be a model of how to change the history of conflicts that have so far invited foreign intervention. I think it will follow this direction from now on. As I said, this negotiation started with a political commitment. Then there was a discussion between the military leaders. What remains is a matter of execution.
Regarding the political commitment first there are several structures that Africa has set up to solve its problems on its own. This is one pillar of that; solving problems through dialogue, discussion and negotiation. For this, the leaders have agreed that we can solve our problems by using the services provided by the continent’s great people, brokers and institutions, and they have organized the institutions to put them to work. But there are not many successful conflicts. Nor are they contemptible. It is important to realize that many conflicts have been resolved through negotiations. From this point of view, I believe that we all have to work hard for it to achieve results and be a demonstration in terms of institutions and our responsibility to Pan-Africanism.
Perhaps, due to previous experience, there is a lack of trust in the union. From this point of view, could you tell me the benefits of this negotiation in terms of changing this mindset and reaching the edge?
As you mentioned, Africans will solve their problems by themselves. Does the union have the capacity to solve it? Many member countries doubted this. There is also the question of how many of us know the structures organized by the African Union, the existing operating systems and the issues we want the citizens of the Union’s member countries to implement.
That means governments promoting; scholars; Civil society has its share of weaknesses that we all bear. That is what creates the spirit of doubt.
The second is related to competence, in connection with what you have initiated, Africa’s peace and security issues with the support of partners; It’s something I finance. Especially in peace and security issues, if you are supported by another power, there is always the interest of the supporters who are being dragged along. A peace fund is being established to get rid of it. But the continent still needs a lot of work to reach a level of self-sufficiency.
It cannot cover more than 25 per cent of the cost in the first phase. Because Africa is the leader, it can cover only the cost of sending peace envoys, as we have seen, and the costs are not too high. Six to eight billion dollars are budgeted for this purpose every year. In general, Africa has never been able to support the peacekeeping institutions it created on its own.
For this reason, it is not surprising that African conflict resolution is viewed with scepticism because it has foreign involvement. However, as Ethiopians, we should always appreciate and value the continent’s peace and Security Council, the commission, various organized structures, the political department, the council of ministers, and then there is the council of leaders. Within this framework, Africa is still capable of solving its problems. We should believe that it is a matter of process and put all our efforts into it.
What do you think the implications of the stability and peace of the northern part of the country will be for East Africa?
First, it is necessary to understand the importance of Ethiopia in East Africa. It is possible to list many other things from our population, the hope for the economy to grow, the people’s desire to protect their independence and dignity, our history and many others. In terms of these main parameters, it is a country that has a significant role in the region.
Therefore, the instability in Ethiopia is a long-standing conflict zone that we have known for a long time. There are reasons for this. It is a strategic transit that dates back to colonial times. It’s a region where the world’s powers want the competition. The conflict always has an impact in the region.
There are other problems of terrorism, and religious extremism. The main thing is that the capacity of the governments of the countries of the Horn of Africa, the location of public and government institutions, and the fact that our trade and economic ties with neighbouring countries are weak have made us vulnerable to conflicts.
Here, the interests that bind us the most are strong and the spirit of mutual support and cooperation to prevent conflict is strengthened. It will also eliminate immigration. The countries of the region should focus their full attention
on development, and fighting hunger, including their people. Avoiding a problem creates an opportunity for them to do so. And the implications of this agreement for the Horn of Africa are huge. This is not a controversial issue.
What role will Africans have in strengthening the pan-Africanist movement and the union with the members of the union if they can solve their problems?
This is a valid question. The basic premise of Pan-Africanism is that the framework of thought is that Africans can govern their affairs. It means that another party should not come and impose its needs on us. This is the thinking that came after the Adwa victory.
Creating the ability to do and maintain dignity; To be seen as an equal negotiator and equal in the international arena; There are elements of sharing the country’s agenda and making it emerge as a common position. The main thing is that we have the ability and readiness to manage our affairs.
Our government has worked hard for this. It was a very strong position that we would not accept a side or alternative line of negotiations other than the African Union’s chief negotiator. In the past, there was a dangerous situation when the TPLF started making some complaints against the former president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo. But when it came to the idea of adding others to it, what we said was unconditionally accepted. At all times and in all circumstances, the existing government has kept its word. And this is putting faith in African institutions and Africans. This one is related to the African brotherhood and preserves the spirit of Pan-Africanism.
In this sense, the strengthening of Pan-Africanism is of great benefit. It will make him believe in the institutions of the African Union. Another thing is that Africans can solve our problems. Negotiating also has a message that we know. In Africa, without the influence and preconditions of other parties, its citizens can talk and solve their problems. On the contrary, it is significant that the agreement was made possible in a country which is the headquarters of the union and which is a fan of pan-Africanism and has inspired others and played a leading role in this thought.
What is the feeling of the countries of the world after the agreement? Especially in this country’s case, how do the powerful countries that have been extending their hands accept this agreement?
One thing we should always know is that any country in the world is always receptive in its diplomatic relations with other countries and the framework of partnership. For example, Ethiopia has something it needs from Africa and Europe. There is something they want as well.
What the rich countries want is democracy, human rights support, and good governance, which they claim to be their values, but we also want this. They passed through it for 150 years and said, “Accept it and implement it”, because we don’t have enabling conditions like institutions and community readiness, so it is difficult to move forward according to the standards they set. This problem is seen not only in Ethiopia but in all African countries. Even the countries that are said to have a better structure and foundation are not able to manage their political economy according to the standards set by the West.
Second, they want Ethiopia to follow them due to their international pressure and position. And Ethiopia, as we know from our history, if issues are against our national interests, our independence, or our spirit of equality, we have a hard time agreeing. It cannot be expected that this position will please them. This contradicts what I said earlier. So there was a sense of wanting our affairs to go in the direction they wanted. The reaction that came after the agreement almost reflects this. But from what I’ve observed, it’s mostly positive.
Especially the big and influential countries have looked at it positively. They promised to support its effectiveness. Of course, the issue of keeping promises is seen in the process.
Secondly, there is a desire to align in terms of the impact they want to have both internationally and in our country. So it is always relative. There is mostly support. It is especially necessary to take the one from the big countries. And the second ones were doubtful; “This matter is so difficult until the military leaders sit down and talk about it. Disarmament is impossible. So let’s wait and see,” there are those who are sceptical. This is not surprising. The good thing is that most of them are not.
Others are upset. “Those who claim to be thinkers and writers; know the local geo-political situation very well, only our analysis should be taken as truth. These are what many of us know as conflict traders. It is appropriate to see Ethiopians who have another wrong position. If they don’t accept the message they convey, society will take it and say, “These people did not agree; the trend is not to agree. Again there is something else to be seen.”
Even so, what we are looking for and seeing in ourselves is what the citizens in the areas affected by the conflict feel. In what condition are they leading their lives? I believe that the political leaders have understood what the people say and are committed to peace. What follows after that is the support factor. Doubting, questioning that there is something else when we get one result, will continue for a certain period due to the basic needs of influence that I mentioned earlier.
Humanitarian aid is still not being delivered in the required amount. Basic services are not provided; some claim that human rights violations have not been dealt with, and they raise questions as if they happen daily. However, just as democracy is not built overnight, nothing happens overnight. Even so, Ethiopia has to move forward by tolerating everyone.
Can’t it be seen as a diplomatic success that the countries that were previously putting pressure on the Ethiopian government and the United Nations are now showing their support?
It is good to see that we have had the most subtle and harmful effects ever caused by this organization. Did those who made this impact think for Ethiopia? Did they want the problem to be resolved without their significant influence and hand in the situation it is currently being resolved? What he says is something we should all ponder. On the one hand, they argue that the war has brought humanitarian aid and human rights. On the other hand, many women and mothers were working in the development negotiations of American and Ethiopian descent in a manufacturing company that was established within the framework of AGOA. The ban left those people without economic support.
One of the human rights issues is the right to economic and people’s development. Unfortunately, in developed countries, there is always something of a double standard. When the right to development is put to a vote at the United Nations General Assembly, they oppose it. There is a need to argue about this. This is what the leaders of our institutions, our diplomats and the diaspora are always arguing about.
The second is about development aid and direct budget support. Loans and grants available through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been affected. So the conflict that they used as a criterion for all this influence is to stop. There is an issue of individual accountability of countries for disbursing resources in conflict situations. “Our taxpayers ask us; at the international level, the resources should not be wasted.
Although this seems to be true, it has a political motive behind it. As it is being resolved, it is being eased and resolved through the negotiations of the institutions that are stakeholders and responsible for it. It will undoubtedly pave the way. I think it’s good to have a positive response.
But in general, there is a spirit of change. A positive voice is being heard. But its implementation is a matter of process.
What our people should know is that it will not change overnight. It should be understood that it is something that is changing in the process and that is passed in the procedures of their institutions when making the decision. So there will be a certain time gap. This requires effort. It requires diplomacy. And this does not stop for 24 hours; we monitor everything with our diplomatic presence in every corner of the world.
Is it possible to raise the threat that the position of the countries that supported the agreement will be eroded by the protests of the Tigray diaspora members who did not support the agreement?
First of all, not all members of the Tigray diaspora have such a desire and spirit. They are specific. I think we should understand this from the beginning. There can be different types of thinking in times of conflict and peace. For example, if we take the issue of peace, firstly, there is a situation of not focusing on the purpose of the negotiations. Some wish that it should be all I ever wanted. Second, there will be something paid to meet a need that existed during the conflict. There is an expectation for that. Therefore, we should not be surprised if the first phase of the agreement, especially the first chapter, is controversial because there is a multi-category interest.
Therefore, it is better to leave the ends and edges and focus on the context that most of us want in the middle. I don’t believe that the disturbance of these limited bodies will attract the attention of the world governments. As I said, we do not ignore the existence of conflict traders. Second, due to various hidden interests, some take this as a starting point and say, “It does not involve everyone.” In my opinion, governments and big institutions take this kind of thing and put it into their policies; I am not afraid that they will translate it. It’s not something that happens now and then.
The main thing that all Ethiopians must understand is that the aggressors should not win. They will continue to have their corner. There will always be an edge. There will be people who do something shameful that will go down in history. The issue of reversing such types requires effort. Their thinking needs to be checked so that it does not prevail. If the noise disrupts the deal, it can cause a little demoralization. But the negotiating power has a higher agenda than this. It is to save human life. What can replace human life? Saving life and the country cannot be replaced by anything. The big agendas called sovereignty, peace, stability and unity are gradually overturning our spirit of living together. There are big issues of how to carry forward the spirit of democracy and change.
Therefore, we must not lose sight of our main agenda while protecting the rights of others to speak and make noise. So many noises can be disturbing, But I also don’t think they will have that much impact.
It is necessary to endure the situations of venting frustration. Another thing that these parties should understand is that if they accept the concept of a country, that of maintaining peace in a country it is the government that fulfills the needs of justice and basic development. If he says that he will impose the opinion given by everyone without interest, the understanding of the country will not come. Discipline leads to the loss of human life. Let Ethiopia’s borders be respected; For its internal peace to be stable, citizens should live and work freely according to their abilities and capabilities. Above all, it is important to know that the peace agreement will sooth our social relations.
What do you think needs to be done in diplomacy so that this peace agreement can finally be reached?
The message we are sending to the international community in terms of diplomacy is that the resolution of the conflict creates an opportunity for humanitarian aid to be provided without problems, for human rights violations to be rectified and for accountability to exist. We also go to our national agreement and ask you to help us in its implementation so that Ethiopia can confirm its peace and progress. We will have a lot of rebuilding to do. We will work on it.
The international community is not critical to our internal affairs. But it has a responsibility to provide positive support and encouragement. Diplomatic work is not only the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or certain diplomats, it is a matter that everyone should participate in and be vigilant about. Ethiopians living abroad and Ethiopians of birth must continue their efforts for the lasting peace of the country as they have been doing until now.
Thank you very much!
You are most welcome!
The Ethiopian Herald November 26/2022
