Open letter to Lord Avebury, 
 House of Lords, 
London SW1A 0AA

BY GAIL WARDEN

Judging by recent Eritrean propaganda – Ethiopia hindering peace, says member of British House of Lords – you have taken sides with Eritrea in the  current conflict with Ethiopia. Why?

Is this your first interjection in the conflict? I do not recall you chastising Eritrea for having invaded Ethiopia. Did you publicly criticise Eritrea for rejecting the US/Rwanda proposals from June 1998 onwards?

Did you condemn Eritrea for rejecting the Framework Agreement for so long i.e. until it was defeated at Badme in February 1999? Were you urging Eritrea, from June 1998, to come to the peace table? If the answer is 'no', why has Your Lordship decided to step in at this late stage?

Have you held lengthy meetings with Ethiopian government representatives, as you clearly have with Eritrean ones? Has Your Lordship considered both sides to the conflict?

Did Your Lordship interview ordinary men and women on his recent trip to Eritrea? Did you talk to any of the Eritreans - over 1.5 million - who have taken refuge in neighboring countries? Did you have the opportunity of interviewing Somalis, Djiboutians and Yemenis and indeed Ethiopians? If not, you cannot possibly have an idea of the full picture.

While in Eritrea did Your Lordship raise the issue of the Eritrean government's undemocratic practices? Its failure to hold elections of any kind since independence, its persecution of other Eritrean fronts, the assassinations and kidnappings it has carried out in neighboring countries as well as in Eritrea, the huge number of political prisoners – calculated at over 40,000 (when the total population is only 3.4m) - held in at least six prisons throughout Eritrea, the denial of basic rights of self expression to ethnic minorities such as the Afar and Kunama?

Does Your Lordship believe that international law should always be upheld?

If so, why do you make an exception in this case? In compliance with international law Eritrea must withdraw from Ethiopian territory before the peace process can continue. The OAU and UN agreed that this was the case in June 1998 but the Technical Arrangements proposed in 1999 are inconsistent with the Framework Agreement and its Modalities, and allow an opponent acting in bad faith to hinder their implementation. The Technical Arrangements do not even make it clear from which areas Eritrea is to withdraw - Eritrea has already amply exploited this failing. Every diplomat you  speak to will confirm this though, of course, off the record because they wouldn't want to damage their country's relations with Eritrea. The self-interest of others has dogged this conflict and is the main cause of its prolongation. The US misreading of the situation and meddling in the Horn has also contributed to its lengthening.

Unlike Your Lordship, Ethiopia will not be satisfied with Isaias's signature on a flawed peace agreement. Like everyone else who lives in the Horn, Ethiopians desire lasting peace. Your Lordship does not have to live next door to the Isaias regime as do the people of Ethiopia, Djibouti, the Yemen and Sudan. Perhaps you would think differently if you did. Certainly you would understand better just what is going on.

Ethiopia's territory is as sovereign as Britain's or anyone else's. Ethiopia is responsible for the defence and security of its territory and people and can best judge what should be done in this regard. It does not need unhelpful lectures from the ill-informed who do not have to live with the consequences.

It is sad and ironic that a member of the House of Lords - who are not elected by the British people – has taken to lecturing Ethiopia on what it must and must not do. The idea of Ethiopia lecturing Britain on how it should solve the Northern Ireland conflict or the Kosovan crisis would be considered ridiculous. Why? Is it because Britain and other Western countries are rich and therefore think they can throw their weight around?

That is certainly the impression given.

I campaigned for six years in the UK for what Ethiopia already has - a written constitution with guaranteed rights (and soon a human rights ombudsman to help ensure those rights are upheld); real devolution of power, not the mere decentralisation of power that Scotland and Wales is currently stuck with. Unlike the USA, Sweden and many others Britain has no Freedom of Information Act. Britain's Home Secretary is currently fighting off calls for such an Act, at least, one that would be really effective. The previous chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality retired early because of the British government's alleged 'lack of will to work for racial equality', the police force has been found to be institutionally racist. And so on and so on.

As concerns the recent 'reform' of the House of Lords, though hundreds of your colleagues the hereditary peers (but not all of them) have been banished, they are to be replaced with large numbers of the government's own men (and, if we're lucky, a few women) - 'Tony's cronies' as some call them - who will not be elected by us the voters. How democratic is that?

Ethiopia is not a perfect democracy but then neither is Britain which has had centuries to get it right. In contrast, Ethiopia has had only 8 years, in which a tremendous amount has been achieved, of which Ethiopians are rightly proud.

So, let us have more understanding and less chastisement. Less stick and more carrot. Let us resist the temptation to interfere in situations that we do not fully understand, lest we be accused of highhandedness and colonial attitudes; old habits die hard but should be resisted nevertheless.

When asked what he thought of western civilisation Mahatma Ghandi said he thought it 'would be a good idea'. It seems that, in some instances, nothing has changed much since his day.