60–136 CC 1999

THE ETHIOPIS-ERITREA WAR: U.S. POLICY

OPTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

MAY 25, 1999

Serial No. 106–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

TOM SHEEHY, Subcommittee Staff Director

MALIK M. CHAKA, Professional Staff Member

CHARISSE GLASSMAN, Democratic Professional Staff Member

CHARMAINE V. HOUSEMAN, Staff Associate
(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Page

Ms. Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, United States Department of State ................................................................................................. 6

Edmond J. Keller, Director, James S. Coleman Center for African Studies,

UCLA .................................................................................................................... 17

Melvin P. Foote, Executive Director, Constituency for Africa ............................. 18

Adotei Akwei, Advocacy Director for Africa, Amnesty International .................. 20

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements

Hon. Edward Royce, A U.S. Representative from the State of California .......... 30

Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, A U.S. Representative from the State of New

York ....................................................................................................................... 32

Ms. Susan Rice ......................................................................................................... 34

Mr. Edmond J. Keller .............................................................................................. 43

Mr. Melvin P. Foote ................................................................................................. 47

Mr. Adotei Akwei ..................................................................................................... 52

Additional material received

Organization of African Unity (OAU) peace framework for Ethiopia and Eritrea ........................................................................................................................ 33

Response by Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative

Affairs to Congressman Campbell ...................................................................... 63
(1)

THE ETHIOPIA-ERITREA WAR: U.S. POLICY

OPTIONS

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (Chairman of

the Subcommittee) presiding.

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa

will come to order. The subject is the Ethiopian Eritrean war and

U.S. policy options.

Again, there is a crisis in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Eritrea have mobilized one half million troops against one another in

a war that has already cost tens of thousands of lives and threatens the stability of the region. The human suffering goes beyond

those dying in the trenches. Civilians have also suffered greatly.

Ethiopia has expelled 53,000 ethnic Eritreans, often under inhumane conditions ostensibly for security reasons. Tens of thousands

of Ethiopians have fled Eritrea. Also, over 300,000 Ethiopians who

are mostly farmers in the Badme area, and more than 120,000 Eritreans have been displaced as a result of the fighting. Meanwhile,

hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by both countries

on armaments.

To compound this tragedy, these are two of the poorest countries

in the world. Hopes for economic progress that were fostered over

the last several years have been snuffed out. It is certainly hard

to be supportive of debt relief and other aid for these two countries

under present circumstances as each are involved in an arms buildup.

The outbreak of hostilities last May caught many offguard. Most

observers, including the State Department, assumed that relations

between these two countries were sound. However, there were all

too evident factors, clear with the benefit of hindsight, that sparked

and now fuel the war.

There were real economic tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Border disputes were allowed to linger, and there is no escaping

the fact that internal political dynamics are at play.

Both governments have shown indifference toward the development of democracy, individual liberties, and impartial justice.

These shortcomings undoubtedly have led each country into this

spiral of violence.

Time is running out on the Ethiopian and Eritrean people’s

hopes for a better future. A recent Associated Press (AP) account

quoted an Eritrean soldier saying, ‘‘I feel bad because we were

neighbors and in the future we will have to work together to develop.’’
2

As nationalistic passions are flamed through propaganda and as

battlefield losses mount, this soldier’s vision of development is slipping through his hands like sand. Another AP story quoted an Eritrean woman who, having had her house destroyed by bombing,

said, ‘‘I never expected this war to last so long. Maybe my own children will grow up to fight also.’’

With every day that passes, the cycle of animosity deepens and

the prospects for peace and development grow dimmer. The United

States should play an active role in attempts to resolve this conflict. For one, the winner in this conflict is the Sudanese Government and its further involvement would subtract from any real investment the U.S. has made in these countries over the last several

years.

With battlefield losses at a hundred thousand now, there is no

excuse for us not to be fully engaged, and the Subcommittee is

looking forward to hearing about the Administration’s efforts. Ultimately, though, assuming there is a desire for a responsible and

fundamental resolution, a resolution and an end to this conflict will

require leadership on the part of Eritrea and Ethiopia, leadership

to temper nationalistic passions and it will require compromise.

Only then will the Eritrean and Ethiopian leaders have lived up

to their high reputations.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Royce referred to appears in

the appendix.]

I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

calling this very important hearing today the prospects for peace.

And let me also thank the Assistant Secretary, the Honorable

Susan Rice, for the work that she has been doing as it relates to

this tragedy early on, spending many days there at the inception

of the conflict attempting to solve it at that time, and the continued

work that she has been doing as relates to this issue.

Of course, it is certainly clear that we are all extremely disappointed with this very tragic issue. We are very disappointed because many of us here know President Isaias and Prime Minister

Meles. Many of us here have visited both countries on numerous

occasions, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Royce.

We are very troubled because these two leaders were persons

that we pointed to. As we said, new winds were blowing across Africa with democracy coming with a new set of leaders in Africa. We

went through the colonial period with Jomo Kenyatta and leaders

like Mr. Mandela, the persons that moved Africa into independence, Herman Cohen, but we said we have new leaders now.

We have young men, who are educated, and interested with a lot

of integrity. And so when this conflict broke out, it actually was a

very troubling and disappointing effort to many of us who were so

pleased at their potential. And so as many innocent people—the

bombing is killing innocent people on both sides, have engaged in

bombing. I think that one agreement that was made initially said

there would be no air strikes, but there have been.

I am also concerned about the situation in the Horn and the

long-standing impact on Sudan and Somalia. We know that there

are people in Somalia that are friendly with both sides. The worst
3

thing that we can see happening now is that this conflict would

then start to involve Adeed, Egal, and other members of IGAD. So

that makes it similar to the problem in the Congo where we see

many countries involved in a conflict between two countries which

makes it more difficult to keep and bring this tragedy to an end.

The fact that we must respect one’s sovereignty and the maintenance of territorial integrity is very important. However, border

disputes have been around for many years. Especially with Ethiopia and Eritrea it was felt that border disputes would be something that eventually would be dealt with, but they were not the

primary issues.

It was always acknowledged that the border was still questionable. For a conflict to begin based upon an issue that everyone has

agreed to was something that we could sit down at the table. It is

extremely troubling. We have had special envoy, Tony Lake, attempting to work in the region, as well as many others. But I will

submit my entire opening statement for the record, but I would

just like to say that we are hoping, still hoping, that there can be

some way that we can bring these two leaders, these two great potentials together so that we can have a cease-fire. Then we can

move on to deal with the problems at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Chairman ROYCE. We will turn now to the chairman of the Full

Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Chairman Royce. I want to thank you

for arranging this hearing.

It comes at an appropriate time for us to consider what is happening in Eritrea and Ethiopia. This war between Ethiopia and

Eritrea is the largest war in the world today. Most of us forget

that.

With half a million men and women under arms and more than

40,000 have lost their lives makes the crisis in Kosovo pale in comparison. Of all the conflicts in Africa and around the world, this

war between Ethiopia and Eritrea is one of the most tragic. It is

tragic not just because of the huge numbers involved, although any

conflict in which a single battle consumes 10,000 precious irreplaceable lives is certainly a tragedy. It is tragic also because of the

aspect of two of Africa’s shining lights, two brothers struggling

each other at the very time they should be building their wealth,

their liberty, and prosperity.

For 30-years people of Eritrea fought a bitter struggle for independence, and for 13-years people of Ethiopia fought to overthrow

a brutal totalitarian regime. Eventually through tenacity, courage,

and will they succeeded. It is outstanding now that leaders who already sacrificed so much and who know what true suffering is cannot find some way to resolve their differences without massive

bloodshed.

It is honorable to fight and die for one’s country. Of course, it is.

Is it to be encouraged and gloried in? Most of us think not. I don’t

pretend to understand all the complexities of this conflict. But I do

know that Thomas Keneally, author of Schindler’s List and other

works of literature, discovered in the rocky hills of Eritrea of northern Ethiopia, some of the finest people in the world. To think that
4

they are murdering each other by the tens of thousands is a human

tragedy beyond measure.

I don’t believe this vast apparatus of our government can focus

on only one international conflict at a time. We would like to know

why the President, after a stirring and long overdue trip to Africa

last year, has been unable to direct greater high level efforts to try

to pursue a lasting peace in that part of the world.

So I commend our colleagues and Chairman Royce and Mr.

Payne, Chairman and Ranking Members of our Subcommittee, for

directing their attention to this struggle and perhaps we can find

a way to do more. I believe we should.

Thank you.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Gilman.

We will turn to Mr. Meeks of New York.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are here today to discuss viable solutions to a peaceful end

to the Ethiopian Eritrean war. Mr. Chairman, this conflict is of

great interest to me because of the human rights violations that

are taking place by both sides and the impact that this conflict is

and will continue to have on neighboring countries throughout the

continent of Africa.

While I support a peaceful resolution to this conflict, more should

be done to alleviate the impact of these types of conflicts early on

in the process. Africa seems to be put on a back burner and we

have to hold the Administration and the Members of Congress accountable to end the patterns of double standards and neglect

when it comes to foreign policy in Africa. Over the past few weeks

we have seen just how effective NATO and intervention can be

with respect to the humanitarian relief effort provided to the refugees in Kosovo.

While compliance by both countries with the proposed peace

agreement—that is a starting point, I respectfully submit that we

can pursue the same kind of relief to the people of Ethiopia and

Eritrea. We need to call upon President Clinton and his special

envoy to step up the peace negotiations in the Ethiopian and Eritrean war.

Additionally, we should call on the United Nations Human

Rights Commission to step in and provide the requested relief and

observation of human rights violations. I think that if we use a concerted effort to make a difference, we can make a difference in this

conflict and in other conflicts that are going on through the continent of Africa.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Now we will go to Mr.

Campbell of New York—of California.

Mr. GILMAN. He looks like a New Yorker, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CAMPBELL. We Californians have northern California and

southern California. I never had this degree of distance put between us.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Really particularly personal thanks to

you for holding this hearing. I am so glad that you have. I believe

this attention is beneficial. My comments are personal so they are

equally heartfelt as they are personal.
5

A year and a half ago, my wife and I and Don Payne spent

Thanksgiving in Asmara. We went up to Kerin, Massawa in Eritrea. Then in Ethiopia, to Addis, Mekele, Yabelo, Aksum.

Gosh, what optimism we had, didn’t we, Don. It was such a great

feeling that folks were making such progress, such pride and such

an accomplishment. I even had favorable words for the attitude

that maybe they didn’t need so much assistance from NGO’s. They

would do it on their own. That was an attitude I thought showed

some self-reliance.

I know the witnesses today are not going to be from those two

countries. They are going to be Americans. That is as it should be,

but there are representatives of those countries in the audience.

Let me just speak to you from my heart.

You, both countries, have utterly destroyed my efforts to focus attention of the American people on the good that could be done

through partnership here. You have. And now we are focused on

other parts of the world, aren’t we? And I don’t know what it is

going to take to get the attention back, and it was in our hand. It

was in our grasp. So I am so sorry, and I am here because I hope

that it can be remedied, but I want you to know how touched I am,

my wife and I are personally that our dream has been shattered

by both countries.

And last, Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for hate, radio-hate

broadcasts. The building up of the animosities through the hate

propaganda will take decades to remedy. Neighbors have to live

with neighbors.

So thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to learning

from it, but I do want my colleagues and friends from the two countries involved to know that this is as close to personal as anything

I have ever dealt with in Congress.

Thanks.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Chabot of Ohio.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for

holding this hearing and for your leadership.

I think all of us on the Committee appreciate your efforts to encourage a peaceful solution to this unfortunate and tragic situation

between two friends of the United States, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Both of these nations have assisted us in our efforts to oppose terrorism and radical fundamentalism in the region. Both have every

potential to be shining examples of political and economic reform

on the continent of Africa.

This conflict should indeed matter to us, matter to the United

States. And it should be addressed, I believe, at the highest levels

of our government. I think it is fair to say at this point that the

international efforts and efforts by our own government to encourage a peaceful settlement have clearly been insufficient.

I believe, however, that personal involvement by President Clinton in this matter just might help to bring an end to the hostilities.

I hope that when we conclude this hearing today, we are able to

send a message to the President urging him to do a number of

things.

First, publicly insist on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. Second, make it clear that any party to the agreement that
6

violates the cease-fire would incur serious consequences such as the

suspension of all U.S. assistance. Third, invite President Isaias and

Prime Minister Meles to meet with him in Washington. Fourth,

strongly encourage both countries to begin immediate negotiations

on the implementation of the OAU framework. And finally, have

the Administration set up a mechanism to followup on all of these

efforts.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you personally for your

hard work on this issue and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.

Before our Subcommittee to testify today we have Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice. Dr. Rice earned her

Ph.D. from Oxford University, served as the White House Special

Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs

among other positions, and we are delighted that she is with us

today.

Mr. GILMAN. Dr. Rice.

STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

AFRICAN AFFAIRS DR. SUSAN RICE

Dr. RICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me

to testify today on the conflict in the Horn of Africa. I would like

to thank Mr. Payne for his very kind words about my personal efforts and those of my colleagues in trying to resolve this conflict.

The war in the Horn of Africa threatens a broad swath of Africa

as well as United States’ interests in the region as a whole. The

Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict which began in May 1998 has substantially damaged the economic growth and development of Ethiopia

and Eritrea and has led to humanitarian suffering on both sides of

the border. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost and thousands

more have been maimed.

The United States and others in the international community

have consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities

and speedy implementation of the OAU’s framework agreement.

We continue to work with the United Nations and the Organization

of African Unity to secure a lasting peace.

The origins of the war are complex. In the year leading to the

outbreak of fighting, relations between the two former allies deteriorated, exacerbated by economic tensions. A border skirmish occurred on May 6, 1998, at Badme. A week later, Eritrea sent troops

and armor into and beyond Badme into territory administered by

Ethiopia. After several weeks of fighting, several areas previously

administered by Ethiopia fell under Eritrean control.

As the ground fighting escalated in June 1998, Ethiopia launched

air strikes against Asmara airport. Eritrea made retaliatory strikes

against the Ethiopian towns of Mekele and Adigrat, south of Zela

Ambessa and in the process hit a school. Both sides then agreed

to a U.S.-brokered air strike moratorium and fighting decreased to

occasional exchanges of artillery and small arms fire over a 9-

month period.

Both Ethiopia and Eritrea used the intervening months to acquire new military stockpiles including state-of-the art fighter aircraft and artillery and to recruit, train, and deploy tens of thousands of new soldiers. The United States actively discouraged sup-
7

plies to both parties and the U.N. Security Council urged governments not to provide weapons to exacerbate the problem.

Publicly, Ethiopia continued to demand a complete and absolute

return to the status quo ante of May 6, 1998. Eritrea insisted that

some of the area it occupied after May 6, 1998, was Eritrean territory. Fighting resumed on February 6, 1999, when Ethiopian forces

attacked, eventually displacing Eritrean forces from the disputed

area of Badme. Ethiopia later launched an unsuccessful counteroffensive on the Zela Ambessa front in mid-March. Eritrea failed

to retake Badme in subsequent fighting at the end of March.

In April, Ethiopia struck an Eritrean military training facility

and other targets deep within Eritrea. A week and a half ago Ethiopian aircraft bombed sites at Zela Ambessa, Badme and the port

of Massawa. Although there has been a lull on the ground fighting

over the past few weeks, press reports yesterday indicate that

there were clashes between ground forces this past weekend at

Badme.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has significant interest in ending the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea as soon as possible. The

current conflict threatens region stability and to reverse Ethiopian

and Eritrean progress in political and economic development. The

United States has important national security interests in the

Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Eritrea’s neighbor, Sudan, has long

supported international terrorism, fostered the spread of Islamic

extremism beyond its borders, actively worked to destabilize neighboring states, including Ethiopia and Eritrea, and perpetrated massive human rights violations against its own citizens.

Since the conflict began last year, Sudan has increasingly benefited from the hostilities between its former adversaries. Eritrea recently signed an accord with Sudan to normalize relations. Ethiopia has renewed air service to Khartoum and made overtures to

Sudan for improved relations as well. And both sides have moved

to reduce support to Sudanese opposition groups.

Eritrea’s President Isaias has made several trips to Libya for frequent consultations with Colonel Qadhafi and has joined Qadhafi’s

community of Saharan and Sahelian states.

We are also very concerned by credible reports that Eritrea has

delivered large quantities of weapons and munitions to self-proclaimed Somalia President Hussein Aideed for the use of a violent

faction of the Oromo Liberation Front. The terrorist organization

Al-Ittihad may also be an indirect recipient of these arms.

Ethiopia is also shipping arms to factions in Somalia. The recent

upsurge in violence in Somalia is, in part, related to these new developments.

The security costs of the conflict are matched if not exceeded by

the grave humanitarian consequences of the war. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost, hundreds of thousands displaced. Approximately 300,000 Ethiopians and 100,000 to 200,000 Eritrean civilians have been forced from their homes and fields near the border by the conflict. An estimated 60,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians

of Eritrean descent have been deported from Ethiopia to Eritrea

and an estimated 20,000 Ethiopians have left Eritrea under duress.

We have made clear that we consider the practice of deportation

to be a fundamental violation of individual rights. Moreover, the
8

nature of these expulsions and the arrangements made for transfer

and holding of property were clearly susceptible to abuse.

Immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities in May, 1998, I led

two interagency missions to Ethiopia and Eritrea to facilitate a

peaceful resolution of the dispute. Working with the government of

Rwanda, we proposed a series of steps to end the conflict in accordance with both sides’ shared principles and international law.

These recommendations, endorsed by the OAU and the U.N. Security Council, later informed development by the OAU of its

framework agreement. These initial missions also resulted in

agreement by the two parties to the air strike moratorium which

remained in effect until February 6, 1998.

Beginning in October, President Clinton sent former National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, and an interagency team from the

State Department, the National Security Council and the Defense

Department on four missions to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the most recent occurring early this year. We are grateful for Mr. Lake’s tireless work on behalf of the President and his Secretary of State.

His intensive efforts which still continue have been aimed at

helping both sides find a mutually agreed basis for resolving the

dispute without further loss of life. Working closely with the OAU

and the U.N. Security Council, Mr. Lake and our team put forth

numerous proposals to both sides consistent with the OAU framework.

In December, Ethiopia formally accepted the framework agreement. Eritrea did not at that time, requesting further clarification

on numerous specific questions.

Fighting resumed on February 6, while U.N. Envoy Ambassador

Mohammed Sahnoun was in the region still seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Following this first phase of fighting, Eritrean troops were compelled to withdraw from Badme, an important element of the OAU framework agreement. Subsequent Eritrean acceptance of the framework agreement was welcomed by the

United States and the Security Council but greeted with skepticism

by Ethiopia. Ethiopia instead demanded Eritrea’s unconditional

unilateral withdrawal from all contested areas that Ethiopia had

administered prior to last May.

On April 14 of this year, Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia offered a cease-fire in return for an explicit commitment by Eritrea

to remove its forces unilaterally from contested areas. He later

added that Eritrean withdrawal must occur within an undefined

but short period of time.

Eritrea continues to demand a cease-fire prior to committing to

withdrawal from disputed territories. Ethiopia insists that a ceasefire and implementation of the OAU framework agreement can

only follow an explicit Eritrean commitment to withdraw from all

territories occupied since the conflict erupted on May 6. A joint

OAU/United Nations effort to urge both sides to accept a cease-fire

and begin implementing the framework agreement continues. The

U.S. Government remains actively engaged in support of the OAU

with both Ethiopia and Eritrea to secure a peace settlement.

Here, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in response to some of

the opening statements that have been made, in particular Mr. Gilman’s, that the United States has been active from the outset, from
9

the very day this conflict began. President Clinton has personally

and repeatedly talked to both these leaders and has sent letters to

them.

Secretary Albright and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger

also have spoken with these two leaders repeatedly. The decision

to involve former National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, one of

our nation’s most distinguished experts in foreign policy, was a consequence of this Administration’s high commitment to seeing this

conflict resolved peacefully.

The President has made clear to both leaders that the United

States is prepared to do its utmost in offering our good offices to

resolve this conflict. And I will say that the reason this conflict is

not resolved has nothing to do with the United States or the extent

of our efforts. We have done and will continue to do all that we

can, but this conflict will not be resolved unless and until there is

the will on both sides for that to happen.

Let me finally say that there is a need not only to end this conflict as quickly as possible but also ultimately to repair over the

long term strained relations in the Horn. A resolution of the border

war may be attainable. The task of rebuilding both countries and

mending ties between Ethiopia and Eritrea to ensure long-term

sustained peace and mutual security will be especially difficult. It

will require due attention and support from the United States in

the international community.

Mr. Chairman, other Members of the Subcommittee, I personally

look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members as

we continue to pursue our shared interest in forging a peaceful resolution to this tragic conflict.

Thank you very much.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Secretary Rice.

The Prepared statement of Dr. Susan E. Rice appears in the appendix.]

Chairman ROYCE. One of the questions I would like to begin by

asking has to do with the fact that we see this military buildup and

at the same time the U.S. Treasury Department is planning to forgive 90 million of Ethiopias debt in 1999. It is my understanding

that the notification sent to this Committee indicated that this

would happen on April 27.

On the symbolic level, is this the right message to be sending?

More generally, how are our bilateral and multilateral aid efforts

towards these two countries being shaped by this conflict? Do we

want to look at the question of forgiving $90 million at a time when

several hundred million is being used to purchase armaments on

the world market?

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, the United States Administration, in

consultation with Congress, took the decision many months back

that we would not provide direct financial assistance to either government in the wake of the outbreak of hostilities.

We have continued assistance through NGO’s and project-based

assistance, but we have suspended non-project assistance for the

time being.

On the question of debt relief, we had, prior to the outbreak of

the conflict, planned to provide debt relief to a number of countries

that met the Administration’s criteria. This is bilateral
10

concessional debt. There have been staff consultations on this issue

over the course of the last week. And the Administration has committed to consult further with Congress before moving forward on

the debt relief that you described.

Chairman ROYCE. If we don’t see an end to this conflict soon, I

would very much appreciate those consultations. At the same time,

Congressman Campbell and myself have been very interested in

the issue of hate broadcasts.

Hate radio is a tool that was utilized in back Rwanda with Mille

Collines on Congolese radio. The question that I have is we see a

pitched propaganda battle between both governments. Do we see

broadcasting that is approximating hate radio? Is there an element

of ethnic hatred in either side’s broadcasting? This is an issue that

we are interested in monitoring, given the experiences in Congo

and given the experience in Rwanda.

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in either of the two

predominant languages in Ethiopia or Eritrea so I can’t say with

confidence that there have not been any broadcasts that you might

consider hate in nature. But I think in general, while certainly the

rhetoric on both sides has been considerable, I am not aware of

broadcasts of the sort that we would call hate radio in the traditional sense. Certainly I am not aware of anything that would approach what tragically occurred in Rwanda in 1994.

Chairman ROYCE. I would urge that we monitor the broadcasts,

and I would also urge that if we find that this methodology is being

used, that this information be made available to the Members of

the Committee.

The last question I will ask you is will this war, when it ends,

affect U.S. democracy promotion efforts toward Ethiopia and toward Eritrea?

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, I think there are several imponderables

about the nature of our relationship with these two countries in the

wake of what we hope will be a swift conclusion of the conflict.

The sooner the conflict ends, the greater our ability to play a constructive role in helping these two countries rebuild and reconcile.

It is in our interest to have stable growing Democratic partners in

the Horn of Africa, and for that reason it is my expectation that

we will do all we can to promote that outcome.

Chairman ROYCE. I thank you, Secretary Rice. We will now turn

to Mr. Payne, the Ranking Member, for questioning.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.

As Representative Campbell said so eloquently, we have been

very, very disappointed at the momentum that was being developed

for Africa in general. One of the great accomplishments, to address

a black caucus and I and others in the State Department, felt was

a great achievement was to have President Clinton take a historic

12-day six-country trip to Africa to highlight the positive things

that are going on in Africa. To get an opportunity to have the U.S.

press visit, to see many of the positive programs, games and

achievements that have been going on. And as I indicated that—

as you know, Ethiopia and—Eritrea, with the ending of the

Mengistu regime and the coming together of Eritrea finally as an

independent country, that country was really on its way.
11

It has been extremely disappointing to the point where—one of

the things that is very confusing to me is that early on I thought

that we could do some diplomatic work in the office and would

meet often with the Ambassadors and the embassy Representatives

from both Ethiopia and Eritrea attempting to try to get to the bottom of this. But the problem that I found was that the two Representatives of the governments here in the U.S. seemed to interpret everything differently from the point of Badme itself, who

went in, who didn’t go in, who was there first, who was there second.

When you talk to each embassy, it would be just the opposite.

And so after 4 or 5-months, we have simply found that it serves

no useful purpose, I suppose, to meet with either side because we

get very little accomplished.

There was a peace plan drawn up by the OAU that was presented after they did the study. They had an impartial group.

Could you tell me what the OAU agreement said? It appears that

there may have been misinterpretations by each country about

what the OAU suggested happened, or at one point I think Ethiopia initially said it would accept it later after Badme was retaken.

I think Eritrea said they would accept it, but Ethiopia, I believe,

at that time said that it was off the table.

So is there some fundamental difference to the way each country,

to your knowledge, view this OAU doctrine which I thought would

be the way to go since it was an African document drawn up by

African leaders impartial to each country?

Dr. RICE. Mr. Payne, the OAU framework agreement is a rather

extensive document, and I am happy to share a copy with the Committee for the record if that would be useful.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Dr. RICE. It recommends, in the first instance, the two parties

commit themselves to immediate cessation of hostilities upon acceptance by both sides of the agreement. It then calls for an end

to use a short-hand statement or other forms of expression that

might exacerbate the conflict.

It then says, in order to create conditions for delimitation and demarcation of the border, the armed forces presently in Badme

Town and its environs should be re-deployed to the positions they

held before May 6, as a mark of goodwill and consideration for our

continental organization.

It says that the re-deployment would be supervised by observers

deployed by the OAU. It notes that any re-deployment in this regard would not, should not, and would not be construed as in any

way prejudicing the question of the sovereignty of this territory.

And then it goes on to envision re-deployment from other contested

areas along the common border within the framework of demilitarization of the border and then on to delimitation, demarcation.

Now, both countries have now formally stated their acceptance of

the OAU framework agreement as I described in my testimony.

Ethiopia’s acceptance first and then followed some time later by

Eritrea’s. Both countries continue to maintain that they accept this

agreement. There does seem to be some difference of interpretation

over the question of Badme Town and its environs.
12

Nevertheless, we in the U.S. Government think that the principals of the OAU framework remain sound and remain valid and

can form a basis for a peaceful settlement of this conflict.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

I see my time has expired. But that is one of the puzzling positions for me. The first part of the OAU document evidently is that

there be a cease-fire, that be the framework or the basis. Then to

both say, we accept it and bombing continues and fighting continues. If you accept it, it seems to me the first premise and then

all of the details would follow the cease-fire would occur.

We accept it, we accept it; then cease and desist the hostilities

and move toward the thing. So it is the confusing semantics that

I have found as I have tried to engage myself with this issue. If

they both agree, it would seem like there would be no fighting

going on and that is a part of, I think, the frustration I know we,

on this side, and I am sure you have experienced in your work.

Thank you very much.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you.

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thanks.

Secretary Rice, I have applause for your efforts. I hope you know

that, and I want to say that publicly. I think you are trying your

very best. And I think you are a woman, an individual, of exceptional skills so your very best is better than virtually anybody

else’s. I mean that sincerely. I do not, therefore, criticize you.

I do have this question, though. I am thinking Rambouillet. You

get all the leaders together in a French chateaux outside of Yugoslavia. I am thinking Dayton, probably Rambouillet is more pleasant than Dayton. I hope I don’t lose any votes in Ohio if I ever run

there. But you see my point. The Camp David, bring over the head

of Egypt, the head of Israel.

Why has that not been proposed? Again, I am sure you are doing

your best, but why not invite Prime Minister Meles, President

Isaias over to the United States or to a neutral location and try to

broker it with the two of them in the same place?

Dr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Campbell, especially for your kind

words of my own efforts and those of my colleagues to try to bring

this to a peaceful resolution. I appreciate them.

I will not want to get into great detail on this in a public forum.

I am happy to brief you and any other Members in further depth

in a closed session if you wish. But I hope you will take me at my

word when I say, as I said in my testimony, that President Clinton

personally, Secretary Albright, and National Security Advisor

Sandy Berger have made it very clear to both sides that we are

committed to doing our utmost in the use of our good offices to

bring this to a peaceful resolution.

We have not been reluctant to make those good offices available.

But both sides need to be ready and willing to take constructive advantage of those good offices, and we will continue our efforts but

our efforts will bear fruit when and only when the two sides have

come to the conclusion that they are ready for a peaceful resolution.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate your answer.
13

I repeat, I think you are doing your best but take a look at Rambouillet. Milosevic didn’t come. Nevertheless we held a Rambouillet. We had an empty space for him. So occasionally it appears

as though it is in our diplomatic interest to bring parties together

or to invite them together whether they always show up or not.

Again, I am not asking you to go beyond—I realize that you are

an employee in a large organization.

I have a specific question which I would have given you advanced

warning on had I known myself, but I did not. I hope this isn’t unfair. I just learned of an American named Bruhana Mikiyel, a U.S.

citizen of Ethiopian birth, Eritrean ethnicity, but apparently an

Ethiopian citizen who was detained in Ethiopia for 2-months, November and December, subjected to imprisonment, and I am informed tortured as well, all the while not being the subject of any

inquiry by our embassy and Addis.

If you know anything about this, I would like to hear it. If you

do not, I would welcome a letter from you as a follow-up, with

apologies again for not giving you advanced word but I just heard

about it as I was coming into the meeting.

Dr. RICE. I think it would be most constructive for us to send you

a letter as a follow-up. There are two cases, at least, that Members

of this Subcommittee have brought to the attention of the State Department. The details on both, quite honestly, are not completely

clearcut, and I wouldn’t want to step into the details of those and

be mistaken.

So let me simply say that we stand ready in the State Department and through our embassies to be as responsive as we possibly

can. We have welcomed you and Congressman Royce and others

bringing to our attention some of the facts behind these cases. In

one instance, as the Chairman is aware, our lawyers in the State

Department are looking into it and we will continue to do our best.

Correspondence and staff consultations on these cases are continuing between the State Department and the African Subcommittee. Regarding one of these cases, Mr. Petros Berhana’s father has promised the State Department additional information

about his case. As of August 18, 1999 the State Department has

not received the data. Mr. Petros Berhana’s father is not a U.S. citizen.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Could you kindly send me a letter at your convenience on that. The gentleman’s name is Bruhana Nikiyel.

And last, the expulsions concern me greatly and I will ask the

next panel about it as well. Tell me kindly which—this may not be

constructive. You certainly have freedom to tell me that, but, if you

can, is there a justification—strike that. Which side is engaging in

expulsions of ethnics of the other side to a degree that you would

say constitutes a human right violation, if any?

Dr. RICE. We have expressed our concern publicly and privately

over the human rights implications of the conflict. They include

both the deportations and expulsions, as I mentioned in my testimony, as well as the impact of the conflict on displaced people on

both sides of the border.

On August 5, the State Department released a detailed statement expressing our great concern about the expulsion of ethnic

Eritreans from Ethiopia. That statement went into some consider-
14

able detail about the nature of our concerns. As I said in my testimony, we estimate some 60,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean descent have been deported from Ethiopia and some 20,000

Ethiopians have left Eritrea under duress.

We are obviously concerned about both sets of developments, but

I think your private panel expert from Amnesty International will

be able to shed greater light on this since Amnesty International

having just published a study on the issue.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We appreciate the attention to

Petros Bruhana, Bruhana Mikiyel, and others who have been

caught in this conflict.

We will turn now to Mr. Meeks of New York. If we could ask one

question each, and then we will have time to reconvene.

Go ahead, Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Rice, just continuing with the theme of trying to have diplomatic efforts to have peace between both sides, I understand that

not too long ago the President of Eritrea was to meet with the

President of Egypt in Cairo with the President of Ethiopia to join

them a few days later.

I was wondering if you know anything of that meeting and what,

if anything, took place as a result of the meeting?

Did the meeting in fact take place?

Dr. RICE. Mr. Meeks, my understanding is that President Isaias

has had contact regularly with the President of Egypt; Prime Minister Meles was not long ago in Egypt.

It is my understanding they were not there at the same time. I

am not aware of an effort to bring them together in Egypt. Egypt

has stated publicly that it shares the international community’s interest in bringing about a peaceful resolution of the dispute on the

basis of the OAU framework agreement, but I am not aware of any

further effort by Egypt to mediate or to push this further on the

basis of the mutual agreement of both parties.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you.

Chairman ROYCE. Barbara Lee of California, and then we will

come back.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say to Dr. Rice, I thank you for taking the lead to try

to bring peace and stability not only in this war-stricken region but

all over the continent of Africa. You have been a true leader, and

I truly appreciate everything that you have done, as all of us have

said.

Dr. RICE. Thank you very much.

Ms. LEE. I am new to this Committee this term, and I would like

to get a bit of clarity in terms of what the State Department believes this war is really about. I know some of the root causes have

to do with the fight over currency. From the U.S. perspective, what

is the basic reason for this war?

Dr. RICE. Congresswoman, I wish I had a simple and pat answer

to that, and while I think we could share with you some elements

of our analysis and I think that would be best done in private, I

think at the end of the day only the two governments of the countries can answer that question definitively.
15

As the Chairman said in his opening statement and as many others have echoed, these were two countries with which the United

States had strong relationships, shared strategic interests, and

which were among the more promising success stories in Africa. No

two countries, bilateral relationship however close they may be, are

without complications. Nevertheless, the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea had seemed, at least for many years, to be one

that would not be prone to the sort of conflict that we have unfortunately since seen.

I think it will be sometime after the end of the conflict, once the

dust settles, when both sides are able to look back and review the

developments themselves and ask themselves to their own satisfaction that very same question. I hope, that out of it will come the

means for the countries to reconstruct the essence of a once good

bilateral relationship.

Obviously, that will take a great deal of time. Our interest will

be in trying to help bring peace to the Horn and, as I said earlier,

to promote growth in security and democracy, an important area

for the United States.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

We are going to return to one last question from Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My other question was just a concern about the IGAD peace

process with the fact that Uganda, Eritrea, and Ethiopia are all

embattled in their own regional conflicts.

What is the status of the peace process?

Dr. RICE. Well, IGAD is engaged in two peace processes, one is

Sudan and the other is Somalia.

The Sudan one has obviously been the more active of the two.

The IGAD peace process with respect to Sudan has been slow and

complex. We in the U.S. Government and other donors have recently sought to energize the IGAD peace process by putting forth

a number of suggestions for how to improve the process by which

that peace process works, for example setting up a permanent secretary to deal with the Sudan issue, setting up technical Committees that can work full-time on the difficult substantive issues that

divide the two sides and proposing the establishment or appointment of a full-time envoy from the government of Kenya on behalf

of IGAD to work this issue.

Those proposals have been well received by IGAD, by the government in Kenya which is chairing the IGAD process. I don’t think

that the actual IGAD mediation process has been particularly dramatically affected by the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. As

I said in my statement, obviously circumstances in Sudan have

been. But I think the peace process can continue to move forward

provided that the IGAD institution is able and willing to push it

and that the two sides are willing to deal constructively.

Let me just reiterate an important point which I hope Members

of the Committee will take on board. There are many conflicts in

Africa at present and around the world. And I spend, as do all of

my colleagues in the Africa bureau and the National Security

Council, Defense Department, USAID, and others who work on Africa, a great deal of our time and energy working on these conflicts.

We have the attention and support of the highest levels of the U.S.
16

Government, including the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and President Clinton.

I want this Committee to be assured that even as the United

States focuses on crises and conflicts in other parts of the world in

my judgment, we do not do so, to the detriment of our efforts to

promote a peaceful resolution to any of the conflicts in Africa.

Those resources and that support has been there, and our principals have been very active collectively and individually on these

issues as we need them.

Chairman ROYCE. We thank you, Secretary Rice.

I will mention one other thing. Congresswoman Barbra Lee had

the opportunity, along with Mr. Meeks, Don Payne, our Ranking

Member, and myself to lead a delegation to be election observers

in the Nigerian election along with General Powell.

As you know, this is a important country in Africa. The transition is critical. It is in 4-days, and I would hope that we have a

high level delegation that will be involved in this historic transition

process in Nigeria.

I want to thank you again for your testimony here today.

Dr. RICE. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

Chairman ROYCE. We will stand in recess through the quorum

call and through the two votes and return in approximately 20-

minutes when our second panel will testify.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Chairman ROYCE. We will now reconvene with our second panel.

Dr. Edmond Keller is a professor in the Political Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles. Professor Keller

is the author of Revolutionary Ethiopia: From Empire to People’s

Republic. He has written extensively on Ethiopia and Eritrea. Dr.

Keller earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is the past President of the African Studies

Association.

Melvin Foote is the Executive Director of Constituency for Africa,

an emerging council of organizations, groups, and individuals with

an interest in Africa. He has worked on development and relief

issues in Africa for more than 25-years. Mr. Foote has extensive experience in the Horn region, having worked in Eritrea, Somalia,

and Ethiopia. He is presently involved in a peace initiative on the

Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict being developed by former Peace Corps

Volunteers. Mr. Foote earned a B.A. in sociology from Western

State University in Colorado. He holds an M.A. degree in public

Administration from the University of Colorado.

Mr. Adotei Akwei, a native of Ghana, is the Director of Advocacy

for Africa with Amnesty International. Mr. Adotei previously

worked on African issues for the Lawyers Committee for Human

Rights, the American Committee on Africa, and the Africa Fund.

Mr. Adotei earned a B.A. in political science from the State University of New York. He holds an M.A. degree in government from the

College of William and Mary. We will begin with Dr. Edmond J.

Keller. Mr. Keller, please.
17

STATEMENT OF DR. EDMOND J. KELLER , DIRECTOR

Dr. KELLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman.

I understand that I have 5-minute so I am going to keep my comments brief. You have my statement. I am going to concentrate on

the first part of the statement in which I discuss the policy recommendations.

In the first place, the United States has to recognize that this is

a complicated situation and the United States carries some baggage that would make it difficult in the long run for this country

to appear to be an impartial, honest broker in the conflict. Each

side claims that the U.S. favors the other. However, the conflict

has such potential to spread in terms of its scope and intensity that

the U.S. must attempt to play a proactive role, especially in the

international diplomatic arena.

Now, bearing this in mind, let me offer the following policy actions:

The U.S. should continue to press for an unconditional cease-fire,

a withdrawal of troops from both sides in the contested area—this

would include all of the various fronts that have opened up since

the initial front at Badame—the creation of a demilitarized zone

that would be occupied in a robust manner by an OAU/U.N. peacekeeping force. This should be followed as rapidly as possibly by the

demarcation of the disputed territory by an international team of

cartographers.

Second, rather than taking a role in mediating and facilitating

the negotiation between the warring parties, the U.S. should vigorously support the efforts of the OAU and the United Nations in

this regard. It is commonly agreed that regional and subregional

organizations in Africa are going to have to become more proficient

in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-building. And countries like the United States, rather than being necessarily directly involved on the Continent should provide the material and technical expertise that would ultimately be needed to

make African leadership in this regard happen in an effective manner.

Third, the U.S. should be praised for speaking out about the

massive amounts of arms being exported into the contested area.

But much more needs to be done. There needs to be a policy introduced that is very similar to the one that imposes sanctions on

countries that are not making serious efforts to stem the flow of

drugs from and through their countries. U.S. foreign assistance

represents leverage that could be used against countries like

China, Russia, Ukraine, and others who themselves are involved in

arms trade in this war or who allow their nationals to be involved

in that trade. I can’t emphasize strongly enough how important

such a policy could be. I shudder to think what the impact would

be for Africa when weapons of mass destruction that have been recently introduced into the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict begin to find

their way into other zones of conflict such as central and southern

Africa. I don’t think that the United States should allow this to

happen.

Eritrea and Ethiopia are two of the poorest countries in the

world. At the same time, they are countries with enormous potential. As is made clear by the large numbers of Eritreans and Ethio-
18

pians who are well educated and highly trained citizens that reside

in this country, the human capital that would be needed to rapidly

build the economies of the two countries are well within reach.

What stands in the way, of course, is war. A return to peace would

set the stage for economic takeoff.

The U.S. should do its best to promote the reestablishment of

trust between the leaders of the two countries. There is little doubt

that this would be difficult, but an effort has to be made. Thank

you very much.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Dr. Keller. We also thank you for

taking the long trek from Los Angeles out here.

Dr. KELLER. It is nice to be with you.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, and we will put your full report

into the record.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Edmond J. Keller appears in the

appendix.]

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Foote.

STATEMENT OF MELVIN P. FOOTE , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CONSTITUENCY FOR AFRICA

Mr. FOOTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to

be here and I want to commend you for the outstanding work you

are doing in leading the Africa Subcommittee. I also want to identify with much that I have heard today from Dr. Rice and others

and Dr. Keller.

Tens of thousands of young combatants on both sides of this conflict have already been sacrificed in the border war. Sluggish economies have now become even more stagnant and hard-won political

capital has been severely compromised. I fully associate myself

with the many friends of Ethiopia and Eritrea in the U.S. who cannot understand why these great people have decided to settle their

differences through force of arms. Not only has this conflict done

harm for the east Africa region as a whole, but it has already damaged the unprecedented goodwill and commitment that had been

building between the United States and Africa during the 6-years

of the Clinton Adminiatration. In no uncertain terms we must do

all we can to bring this truly unnecessary conflict to an end.

I am also a part—I spent many years in Africa, about 7-years

total—I am part of a group of former Peace Corps volunteers who

served in Ethiopia or Eritrea who are working to end the war and

bring peace between the two countries. Tomorrow we are holding

a forum at Howard University with many recognized experts and

leaders from both countries to explore the path to peace. We are

hopeful of coming out of this meeting with a number of creative

ideas and viewpoints which we would like to pursue on our upcoming mission to the region, which we expect would take place in the

very near future.

Perhaps the time has come for a multitrack approach toward

seeking diplomatic solutions to this problem. In addition to the efforts of the U.S. Government, OAU, the United Nations, and other

concerned nations, it seemed to us to be a constructive role for

groups like our former Peace Corps delegation, non-governmental

organizations and eminent personalities in promoting the road to

peace.
19

I want to emphasize here that while our group is pursuing our

effort independent of the U.S. Government, including the Peace

Corps, still we are making every effort to seek our government’s

counsel and also keep them well informed of our activities.

While the Clinton Adminiatration, under the astute leadership of

Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Dr. Susan Rice, has done

much to seek an end to the war, it is clearly not the time for a letup from the U.S. Government. The situation is very explosive. Tensions remain extremely high on the war front and throughout both

countries. Obviously fratricidal war cannot be allowed to continue.

Generally, the U.S. should work closely and in a partnership

with the organization of African Unity and the U.N. to mediate this

tragic dispute and to seek lasting solutions. The OAU’s December

report is an excellent framework for mediation and contains much

that both sides could agree with. This report contains an important

11-point proposal that has received a strong endorsement from the

international community.

The OAU proposal calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities

so that a peaceful resolution of the conflict may occur through the

elimination and demarcation of their common border. In connection

with the cease-fire, I understand that the OAU requires a withdrawal of forces from Badame and other areas in Ethiopia to the

position held before May 6, 1998. While it can be argued and debated as to who did what to start the war, I sincerely believe that

the best posture for our government is to maintain friendly ties

with both countries and to find ways to provide additional support

to the OAU framework in order to resolve the immediate border

issues and other pressing issues which have been spawned as a result of the border conflict.

Once border hostilities are ceased, the U.S. should give serious

consideration to holding a ‘‘Dayton-style’’ conference in which President Clinton is fully involved, as Representative Campbell has suggested. I fully endorse that. That not only paves the way for a

peaceful and longstanding settlement of this dispute, but also

sends a powerful message to other African countries and to the

American people that Africa truly matters. Holding this conference

in the U.S. would provide an appropriate environment far away

from the area of conflict to lessen the tension and bluster which

now exists in the region. It would also allow American political scientists such as Dr. Keller, scholars, and political policymakers and

others the opportunity to play a constructive role in bringing an

end to the war and set the basis for economic development.

In the region, the U.S. should be prepared to provide financial

and technical assistance to the two countries to formally define the

borders. Beyond that, the U.S. should embark on a strategy in cooperation with such nonprofit groups as the Corporate Council in

Africa and the Constituency for Africa to encourage American and

other investment in the region as a way of ‘‘jump-starting’’ economic development. Many American companies were in fact prepared to enter into the business relationships in the region but

have since shied away because of the instability. Investor confidence cannot be restored so long as the war continues.

Thank you again for having me as part of this hearing.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Foote.
20

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melvin P. Foote appears in the

appendix.]

Chairman ROYCE. Earlier I missed a vote. So I am going to take

the opportunity to recess for a minute, if I could, so that I could

catch this vote. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I am going to turn the gavel

over to you at this point.

Mr. Adotei, thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF ADOTEI AKWEI, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR

AFRICA, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Mr. AKWEI. Thank you, Mr. Payne, and thank you, Congressman

Royce, for allowing Amnesty International to take part in these

proceedings. Like my colleagues, I am going to be very brief because we have been here a while and I think quite a lot of what

we would have stated has already been said by a number of people.

Our testimony accompanies our latest report which was released

last Friday. I would just ask that that report be entered into the

record.

Mr. PAYNE [Presiding.] Without objection.

Mr. AKWEI. What I would like to do basically is just restate what

is in the short testimony. We looked at the human rights condition

in both Eritrea and Ethiopia which we feel will have to be addressed for long-term resolution and the sort of consolidation of democracy in both countries. Then we also looked at the human

rights violations that resulted as a result of the conflict. I would

just like to read the conclusions again and the recommendations,

and hopefully we will have a question and answer period.

Amnesty International is not here to endorse one country or to

condemn the other as being guilty of more heinous abuses. All

human rights violations are unacceptable, even those committed

during a conflict situation. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia have used

the allegations of human rights abuses against their nationals in

the other country as justification for their own actions in this conflict. However, both countries have a responsibility to protect

human rights within their jurisdictions and to ensure that the protection of human rights is a part of any negotiated settlements between the two countries. It is imperative that the steps to redress

the issues of human rights violations by both sides be established,

as both sides have widely publicized allegations against their own

citizens. Amnesty International believes that unless this is done,

the tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea will continue, with the

possibility of further conflict and human rights violations even if

this current border dispute is resolved satisfactorily.

Amnesty International is also aware of the energy and effort that

has been expended by the United States to try and resolve the conflicts peacefully by both the Clinton Adminiatration and Members

of Congress like yourselves who have appealed, implored, and

begged both governments to resolve the conflict peacefully. You

should be commended, but you should also be encouraged to do

more because the bottom line is that we have not succeeded.

Until we do succeed, reports like ours and hearings like this will

be, by necessity, focused on wasted potential as opposed to documenting positive change in Ethiopia and Eritrea or the region in

general. It is past time for maximum diplomatic and political pres-
21

sure to be brought to bear on both governments. Pressure is needed

from foreign governments with links to either country, from institutions which both countries are a member to, and perhaps, most importantly, from their support bases outside of Africa.

It is essential that the Ethiopian and Eritrean communities living here in the United States—who seem to be waging an even

more vociferous war against each other than are the Asmara and

Addis Ababa—be reminded of the lives that are being lost, the resources that are being wasted, and the suffering of the people in

the region. Perhaps when there is no more support for the fighting

and when there are stark costs to pay, both diplomatically and politically, both sides or even one side will have the courage to say

enough is enough and stop fighting. In that regard we would make

the following recommendations:

We call upon the Clinton Adminiatration and Congress to insist

that human rights be at the top of any agenda to negotiate an end

to the settlement. The U.S. Government should insist that both

governments give full and unrestricted access to the International

Commission of the Red Cross to visit all prisoners of war, not political prisoners. The Administration should also publicly call on both

governments to publicly announce that Ethiopians and Eritreans

who were forced to leave each country as a result of the conflict

will be free to return to their former homes and places of work and

that an independent review panel to address issues of ownership,

property disputes, will be established and, where appropriate, compensation for Ethiopians resident in Eritrea and Eritreans resident

in Ethiopia at the time will be addressed.

Finally, we urge and appeal to Congress and Senior Members of

the Administration to speak out forcefully against all human rights

violations, be they internment of civilians, deportations and expulsions, or indiscriminate bombings. In particular, crackdowns

against civil society, including the independent press which could

have acted as a break in the slide into war, should be publicly challenged and condemned.

The United States has close ties with both governments and both

governments look to it for leadership, but that doesn’t preclude it

from condemning actions and policies that are wrong. Both countries are waiting for leadership and looking for inspiration to resolve the conflicts. Thank you.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adotei Akwei appears in the appendix.]

Mr. PAYNE. And now we will hear from Mr. Mel Foote? Oh, you

did? The entire panel. Well, very good.

First of all, let me thank each of you for coming here to testify.

It is good to see you again, Dr. Keller. And, of course, the other

Members I see more regularly. They are local, and so we really appreciate it.

Let me perhaps ask just some questions and perhaps any one

can attempt to answer that. As you have already heard and I know

all of you, especially the two of you that spent time in Ethiopia,

and of course Amnesty International also, were all very, very disappointed, because we looked to Ethiopia and Eritrea as the new

leaders of Africa with the democracy coming into South Africa and
22

now into Nigeria. We were just under the opinion that Ethiopia

and Eritrea would be further ahead.

I really don’t think that the leadership of either country realized

the damage, not only for Ethiopia or Eritrea, but as I was mentioning earlier when we finally got the Administration focused on

Africa, we had newspapers writing positive stories. We saw elections happening. We saw democracy coming on, but both Prime

Minister Meles and President Isaias, have done more to set Africa

policy back in this country than any two people I know of in the

recent past.

There was not a positive attitude towards Africa. We found two

great leaders because, as you know, Africa policy has always been

on the back burner. The Administration did not care about Africa.

We could tell by the lack of assistance, the lack of attention. Finally, we had Secretaries of State, Presidents, the First Lady, Vice

Presidents, people going to Africa continually.

Then these two men we talked to as the future of Africa, the

‘‘poster men,’’ so to speak, the trailblazers, had done more to the

700 million Africans. So those of you from each of those countries,

be sure that you say that, that’s what I said, Congressman Payne,

who has been visiting Ethiopia for 35-years, has said. Those two

men have set Africa back. It would be all right if it was just their

own country, but Africa has been set back by us pointing to them

and having high hopes for them and for them turning their backs

and destroying everything that has been built up. It is wrong. They

don’t have the right to do it. And I really don’t understand who

they really think they are to be able to do that to the continent.

Let me ask you,—I have heard you give recommendations, but

what do you think different or what more could have been done,

since what we have done up to now has not worked? Is there any—

I know that you made conclusions, but is there any conversation

that you may have or, second, can any of you try to put your finger

on the real problem? It is not Badame, that is for sure. If it was

awarded to one or the other and there was no dispute, I am sure

they would argue about—well, let me just say, let me just ask you,

do you know what the real issues may be in any of your opinions

since you all have been associated with both countries?

Dr. KELLER. Well, this is a very delicate question. I am going to

try to be as diplomatic as I possibly can. In the first place, it is

complex. The reason that it is complex is because this particular

war did not need to happen, but it happened because of what I consider to be an accident in a border zone. That happens in many

places. You could go back to Sarajevo, way back to the period before the First World War.

It seems to me this thing has gotten out of hand. We have a government in Addis which is predominantly comprised of people from

the Tigray region. There are other ethnic groups there, some of

whom feel that government does not represent their point of view.

There is tension there. But there are some Ethiopian nationalists

who really feel that this minority government sold them out when

it agreed to a referendum in Eritrea.

So when a dispute erupts between Meles Zenawi and Isaias

Afworki, because there is the prospect of getting Eritrea back or

paying Eritrea back, there is a groundswell of support for the war
23

effort. But still underneath it all, there is a great deal of tension

and it has to do with the internal politics of Ethiopia but also it

has to do with the personalities.

Both leaders are very proud men. You and I have been in situations where we have seen that. And it is a matter of national honor

for both sides. It seems to me that Eritrea feels that it is justified

in building up this massive capacity, military capacity, simply because it feels like the very survival of the Eritrean nation is at

stake. On the other hand, there are Ethiopians who feel that Ethiopia must recapture its lost pride. I think that is the political underpinning of it. But, of course, you can talk about economics too.

Mr. FOOTE. I just want to add to that. I have always felt that

there was a culture of war and a culture of tension in the region.

There is pride in being the victor. In some respects this war goes

back to Haile Selassie. It goes back to really hundreds if not thousands of years.

Somehow the issue of how you resolve conflict has not been dealt

with there. It is very easy and very quick to pick up a gun and very

easy to pick up a stick, very easy to find as your first response to

a problem.

I would also add that poverty certainly plays a role in all of this

and I think the lack of opportunity for individual people and

groups also exacerbates greatly the potential for conflict in the region.

Mr. AKWEI. I think it is ironic that many people were referring

to the two leaders as role models for democracy for Africa in the

next millenium because both of them didn’t come to power from the

ballot box. That is something that people need to be very conscious

of when they look at what was going on internally in both countries

prior to the conflict. Whether it was because of economics, whether

it was because of a sense of national pride and honor, or whether

it was, as my colleague Mel just said, because of a culture of violence, all of which are debatable.

But the question of whether there were institutions in both countries that could have applied brakes to the outbreak of conflict, as

happens in other countries—like, for example here in the United

States, you have dissent, you have questions about policy, you have

challenges. I guess the axiom is that democracies don’t go to war

or they don’t go to war often, because there are checks and balances that they need to go through. Both countries still haven’t developed that. If there had been perhaps more of a focus in developing institutions as opposed to making allegiances with the individuals, no matter how charismatic they were, we might not be in

this situation.

Mr. PAYNE. That is true. There was an attempt in Ethiopia. Dr.

Keller was the chair of the elections monitoring group, and there

were institutions that were developed in Ethiopia, for the election.

It was a multiparty election. It was relatively fair, although there

was a group that decided during the latter part, near the election

date, that they were going to boycott the election. There seemed to

have been attempts.

At least in Ethiopia we tried to work on Eritrea on this single

party state we were sort of having discussions about. But Uganda,
24

that has the single party. Mr. Museveni says it is no party rather

than the single party.

But I do think there were beginnings that had started, at least

as I said in Ethiopia. Some of the discussion that we had with both

of them were certainly about the fact that institutions needed to be

developed. They were both well read persons. I think the Prime

Minister had read more books about John Kennedy and I had

never finished the first one. He had three or four of them on his

desk. It is not that there was an absence of the right stuff, the

right material, the right direction to go. So that is probably why

it was more disappointing.

In the new wave, it wasn’t so much the individual, but the fact

that there is a new group of leaders that have been emerging, who

are relatively young for African standards. As I mentioned, the

Kenneth Colanders and the Jomo Kenyatta, and the revolutionary

people had sort of left the scene or were leaving the scene. So these

were the younger, and relatively educated. The West and Europeans thought was the right thing to do in order to have positive

relations.

Actually, the growth in the GDP in Ethiopia had started to move

to 6, 7-percent annually. Eritrea was moving forward with public

works projects that rolled from the airport into the city that were

redone. There were so many visible signs of progress that I think

that is where the hope was. I could agree with you; institutions

should build on institutions not individuals.

I yield back to the Chairman. We certainly apologize for this unusual kind of event that we have today with votes being called so

closely together. I am glad that we were able to keep it going. Mr.

Chairman, I would yield back to you.

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Payne. We will turn to Mr.

Meeks if he wishes at this time to ask some questions.

Mr. MEEKS. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I missed the

testimony, I am going to refrain.

Chairman ROYCE. Will continue because I have some questions

that I was going to ask. Mr. Adotei, you mentioned in your testimony that 53,000 people of Eritrea origin were deported from Ethiopia between June 1998 and today. This is being done in the name

of national security. The government in Ethiopia early on announced that officials of the ruling party in Eritrea, or those found

spying or mobilizing resources for the Eritrea war effort, would be

deported. Clearly 53,000 people is a large number of people to put

into this category. Should I take it from your testimony that you

believe these deportations were illegitimate?

Mr. AKWEI. Yes. The Ethiopian Government has since acknowledged that in the process of trying to keep families together,

spouses, dependents, children, were all shipped out. But we certainly feel that the—first of all, the deportation process itself violates international law to which the Ethiopian Government is a

party to. As we mentioned here, the International Covenants on

Civil and Political Rights basically has a very clear procedure

under which you appeal to be able to derogate from your responsibilities. We feel that did not happen. But we also would think

that the people who were detained did not necessarily meet all of

these categories or criteria for deportation.
25

That is why one of our key recommendations is that all of those

that were deported be given the right to return home and the right

to regain their property.

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate your observations. Mr. Foote, in

your testimony you referred to ethnic friction and longstanding

vendettas. Is there an ethnic dimension to the present conflict, and

what do you mean by longstanding vendettas?

Mr. FOOTE. I think in the case of the war, like in the border war,

it didn’t start with Badame. I think it goes way back. I think Dr.

Keller touched on it in terms of internal politics of Ethiopia which

fostered an environment for conflict. I am sure the same thing

could be said in Eritrea. But I think the end of the war, the official

war, the 30-year war, was not completely ended by everybody.

Some people felt bad about that and would love to see another conflict in which perhaps the Ethiopia regime would be toppled and

another regime would come in. It is so complex as to be almost

amazing.

I think one has to look beyond the surface to see who called for

this war. I think that this whole inference of trying to resolve conflict and reduce the friction must be a permanent part of the discussion. I personally think that Ethiopia and Eritrea, for instance,

must learn to work together. They are dependent on each other

economically, politically, and otherwise. It is dumb to have two

countries, quite frankly. We need to be talking about several countries regionally coming together economically and politically. The

rest of the world is grouping up; why is Africa becoming smaller

and smaller? And so those are my remarks.

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate that. Dr. Keller, we haven’t seen

troops amassed behind trenches and this type of infantry assault

into machine gun nests and through mine fields since the first

world war. The type of slaughter that we are seeing is divisions

just being mowed down like we read about in the paper. There are

500,000 men lined up on this border engaged in this trench warfare.

What are the domestic political consequences of this many deaths

occurring and this type of horrific carnage that we read about in

the newspapers and which you also reported on in your paper?

Dr. KELLER. The domestic consequences are quite apparent, but

you have to look beyond what the domestic consequences might be.

It is not as if this battle was taking place in Louisiana and you

could flip on the TV and see on CNN what happened on this front

or that front. I don’t think that we will see the consequence, the

domestic, the true impact of it until this war goes on longer. I am

afraid that it seems to me that this war will go on longer.

The kind of tactics that are being used now are the ones which

were traditionally used, and it is just that the two sides have not

been able to gear up in a high-tech sense fast enough to begin to

use all of these other weapons that they have. That is what I am

more concerned with. If this war spills over, and arms that were

brought in for this conflict get to central Africa or southern Africa,

we could really be in a fix. I am very concerned about that.

I would just like to say one quick thing about the ethnic dimension. In Ethiopia in 1995, Ethiopia after this new government came

in created these ethically based states. Many people objected to
26

that. They said that compromised Ethiopian national unity. But

the government was committed to working with it. But what the

government put in place were elements of procedural democracy

rather than a democracy based upon the legitimacy of the strategy

that it had chosen.

This continues to be a problem. You have elections that are ostensibly free and fair, but there are so many people and groups

that are left out of these elections until the tensions continue. And

that is feeding the sort of arms buildup in Somalia with opposition

groups in Kenya, in Sudan. We are yet to really see the true dimensions, and that is why we need to try to urgently try to stop

the conflict right now and begin to work on peace-building and

peacemaking.

Chairman ROYCE. Dr. Keller, I thank you for testimony, and Mr.

Foote and Mr. Adotei. We have a question from Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to find out,

I didn’t want to be repetitive, but I know that we had asked Dr.

Rice when she testified and she was really perplexed as to what

was the cause of the conflict. In other words, to get a diplomatic

resolution, generally you need to know what is the cause of the

conflict. I have heard some say it is stubbornness, I have heard

some say that it is trying to prove that one’s army is stronger than

the other. One wants access to water, et cetera.

Can either one of you give us your opinion what is at the heart

of the conflict so that we can try to figure out what we are trying

to resolve here?

Mr. FOOTE. My view is that the cultural war is one major factor.

These are real proud people. When you look at the people of the

world and the tougher folks and the ones who are really, really on

top of their game, you find some of the sharpest people in the world

in the Horn of Africa. I find them very resilient but very, very

proud. I was saying I wish that African-Americans would have a

certain sense of that pride. But it almost goes overboard to a certain extent that this creates a negative: When it comes down to a

fight, I am going to fight you to the finish; I don’t care whether it

is over a popsicle or over a gold mine. We are going to fight. That

is one area that has got to be dealt with.

I think also this overall poverty in the region plays a problem because you have got lots of people out there. Unfortunately, a lot of

people who are dying in the war are peasants from rural areas who

have very little going for them anyway economically, so it is almost

as if they are expendable or they are being perceived as expendable

by these governments. I think the culture of war and poverty are

major factors exacerbating this problem.

Dr. KELLER. I would like the Congress, this Committee, to really

think about Ethiopian politics in sort of a nuanced way. You have

a government headed up by Meles Zenawi from the EPRDF. He is

trying to pursue a policy or sets of policies which other people don’t

agree with. There is no way for them to express themselves except

in bellicose language and whatnot. So you have tensions that develop as a consequence of that.

I have on many occasions in Addis since 1991 heard people refer

to the EPRDF as being a puppet of Isaias Afworki. And so in a situation like that, there is a lot of warlike tendencies that are in a
27

society to begin with. Then if you have a precipitant incident like

the one at Badame, you could see how this thing could quickly get

out of hand.

What I have been amazed at is the level of buildup, not only in

terms of military personnel but in terms of the amount of money

being spent on this conflict. I am really afraid of this. I am afraid

of it for Ethiopia and Eritrea, but afraid of it also for Africa.

Mr. AKWEI. I would just like to say that without offering a definitive answer, I don’t think that you will get one, I think there are

three key elements that are important in trying to solve the problem, in trying to solve the conflict, and that is pride, trust, and respect. My colleagues have already referred to the fact that the region has an enormous heritage and a great pride in itself. That is

why I think the recommendations for high-level interventions by

the President or a Dayton-type conference or a Rambouillet-type

conference are extremely appropriate. If that is what it is going to

take, that is what we need to get.

At the same time, respect for the opposing side, for the country

on the other side of the border. Eritrea is going to exist. The Ethiopians, who are not happy with it, must learn to live with it and

that means respect for it, the Eritrean existence, just as the Eritreans must learn to respect that Ethiopia has its own legitimate

interests and its sense of sovereignty over the areas that are being

fought over.

The final thing I think will be trust. Any kind of agreement is

going to have to get the buy-in not only of the leadership and the

military but of the people on both sides of the border who have

been fed massive amounts of information, falsely accusing the other

of being the worst demons in the world. Until you actually get that,

get to the root of that—and I think Congressman Royce was touching on that. It may not be hate radio yet, but it is very bad.

When we were there, there was an absolute fear and terror of

the opposing side. That is going to take years to correct. So there

is going to have to be some kind of mechanism that ensures trust.

That is where you get into the whole issue of human rights. How

do you make sure that people are accountable for what they did;

how do you establish an accurate record of what they did; and how

do you build from there? Those are the elements that should be

part of any U.S. policy.

Chairman ROYCE. I wonder what the people of both these nations

would think of their respective governments if we were broadcasting all of the information from both sides into the people and

they had the full information. What would the people of Ethiopia

and Eritrea think of their respective governments not resolving

this conflict, but instead wasting these resources that are so necessary for health and education and infrastructure on a military

buildup which is going to cost, another 100,000 lives?

I know that you had something to close on, Mr. Foote, and I believe Congressman Payne had one last question. So we will go to

you, and then Congressman Payne will ask his question.

Mr. FOOTE. I just wanted to add that the Ethiopians and the Eritreans who are in the United States, who are outside of the region,

have a unique opportunity to also play a role in fostering peace for

their own countries back home and also help mobilize us over here.
28

I find that the same friction over there seems to permeate among

the Ethiopians and Eritreans who are here. They also need to be

challenged to be more constructive in helping to bring about a

peaceful——

Chairman ROYCE. I think that is a fair criticism. I will say that

I have been approached by both Ethiopians and Eritreans who

have decried their respective governments for doing this. I think

that it can be observed inside both communities here in America

that they wish this had never happened, and that they fault their

respective leaders for not being able to avoid this conflict. That is

based upon conversations that I have had both back in my district

and out here with quite a few people. But, Mr. Payne——

Mr. PAYNE. Just the involvement by both the leaders in Somalia

is really what concerns me a great deal. I am made to understand

that they have picked sides. If these newly acquired weapons get

into Somalia, with the lack of a government in Somalia already, it

certainly is going to create more of a problem.

I do have a question about Sudan, which once again Sudan being

involved in the north of Uganda with the Lords Resistance Movement, Uganda being allied with Rwanda; the question even moving

over into the other side of that conflict with Angola and Namibia

and Zimbabwe, Urundi indirectly, and Zambia, also. These connections, it becomes almost a world war in Africa. Could any of you

explain to me why both sides have sort of gone to Sudan for better

relations?

Dr. KELLER. My answer would have to do with the fact that

when you are fighting a war, Mengistu did it when he was fighting

Aideed. If he was having internal problems and having border

problems, that meant that he had more fronts than he could

adequatly cover. It seems to me that Sudan would like to shore up

its borders by making peace with Ethiopia and Eritrea so that

rebels would not be threatening Sudan from those regions. It

makes perfect sense to Bashir. I would think that is only temporary. I would think also that it is probably not very enforceable.

I think that the SPLA is stronger than it has been in years and

that conflict will continue. I guess that we should be having a hearing on that at some point because that is really a tragedy.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.

Chairman ROYCE. Again, we are going to thank our witnesses

and the Members of this panel. We are going to adjourn at this

time. Thanks for coming all of this way.

[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
29

A P P E N D I X

MAY 25, 1999
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64