Beyond kidnapping: the quest for relevance

By Medhane Tadesse

Following the release of the European hostages last week, fears are growing for the remaining eight Ethiopians who are still held captive by the Eritrea regime. The five Europeans were released last week in the Eritrean capital after a 12-day ordeal, but there has been no word on the fate of eight Ethiopians who ‘vanished’ while traveling with them. The Ethiopian drivers and guides were abducted with a British embassy-linked group of three men and two women on March 1 in the Afar region in northeast Ethiopia. The taking of hostages during a civil conflict has a lengthy history. The current wave of kidnappings of foreigners in Iraq is only the most recent example of this tactic. But it is uncommon for a government to involve in and facilitate hostage taking. As I said the Europeans were released a week ago. This triggers a series of questions all of which may lead to unhappy answers.

Given the Eritrean regime’s monopoly of violence over much of Eritrea, and its tight control over the rebel movements that it organizes and supports against its neighbors, not least Ethiopia, it is almost impossible for an Ethiopian rebel movement to take an action of this level with out the support of the Eritrean army as well as the consent of the Eritrean leadership. The Eritrean government saying that separatist rebel movement kidnapped the group, ARDUF, which opposes the division of the Afar people among Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti. This is not surprising at all. Everyone knows now that the ruling clique in Asmara or the PFDJ stands for blatant lies, omissions and outright denials. While doing something it tries to tell the public the exact opposite. There is no body to hold them accountable. This problem has deep roots. The nature of the new Eritrean ‘state’, the difficult behavior and increasing frustration of the Eritrean leader, the increasing isolation of the country and the downward spiral of intensifying isolation and resentment, have all produced a regime difficult to deal with. Coming to independence after a long and bitter liberation struggle, Eritrea’s existence as an independent state has been deeply affected by the attitudes, which this experience entrenched in the mentalities of its leadership. This is not the place to go into the tangled and extremely depressing history of the problem of transition from a liberation movement in to a state.

The Eritrean leadership feels ignored by the world, particularly the major powers. Isolation breeds frustration, and the need for attention. The issue of relevance has become central to the mentality of the Eritrean leadership. Having failed to become a regional hegemon, the Eritrean leadership is dying for attention by becoming a spoiler. The only way to become relevant in the sub-region is by destabilizing its neighbours and consistently seeking the role of a mediator. This has disastrously failed as can be seen through the recent developments in Somalia. Asmara’s attempt to play a similar role in Sudan, has also been frustrated by its failure to secure the trust of the major Darfurian movements. The only options remaining for Eritrea to draw some attention is by way of erratic behavior; restrictions on UNMEE personnel and hostage taking. Eritrea has now expelled the head of the United Nations mine clearance team for what it called “repeated violations of Eritrean laws and regulations” in the latest action against the UN mission.The Eritrean move follows the ban it imposed on UN helicopters in October 2005, the expulsion in December 2005 of over 180 UNMEE staff on the basis of their nationality, and restrictions on the freedom of
movement of UNMEE patrols on the Eritrean side of the border. More serious is that it is maintaining its troop presence in the TSZ along the border and its restrictions on UNMEE.

Angered by the positions taken by the major powers, mainly the US, hurtled by Ethiopia’s military victory in Somalia and distasteful of the repeated criticisms of its policy and modus operandi by intellectuals, the Eritrean leadership seems ready to take up any disastrous course to show to the world it is still relevant and can cause damage of some sort. This will, I would argue, become the main pattern of behavior of the Eritrean leadership in the coming one or two years. Tell me, anyone, is there a government anywhere in the world who would facilitate kidnapping, release some of them and order the continued captivity of the rest. This reminds me of the Ugandan dictator. In 1977 Angered by denunciations from U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Uganda strongman Idi Amin takes 240 Americans hostage, sending a letter to Carter telling him to stop interfering in Ugandan affairs. Six days later, Amin frees his hostages (mostly pilots and airline workers) and assures Carter that they are in no danger. If a ‘government’ becomes irresponsible to the extent that it involves in hostage taking and kidnapping, it means it is begging those who can see and hear, “please do something about me? The international community should seriously consider preparing for the worse. The policy implications of this unfortunate development are as follows. First, the problem in Eritrea is mainly the problem of transition, hence it is structural. Second, self-inflicted isolation is breeding a violent foreign policy of a different nature, and we will see a lot of similar incidents. To hope that the situation would change or give way for a better future is like, as one puts it, waiting for a mule to bear a foal. It is too late to expect change of heart or policy from the Eritrean leadership. Three, the international community has the obligation to put pressure on Eritrea and ensure the safe release of the remaining hostages. After all hostage-taking constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is also a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. •

March 23, 2007

Medhane Tadesse of CPRD is a long time specialist on issues of peace and security in the Horn of Africa. He can be reached at mt3002et@yahoo.com