Ethiopian Conspiracy against Eritrea

By Debessai

“Alluding to my impending departure for New York and the challenges now facing Ethiopia, he [the emperor] said to me: ‘When you go, you must remind the Americans that Ethiopia is a young country.” John Spencer (p253). Acknowledge young country for begging and flip to 3000 years old script when pumping chest.

Part one highlighted, using Haggai Erlich’s biography of Alula as primary source, the devastating effect of the constant invasions and raids by Ethiopian warlords while also coveringAlula’s “my horse will drink from Massawa” utterance that always serves as the rallying cry for expansionist, warmongering Ethiopians. Since Eritrea was treated only as a raiding zone by Ethiopian chiefs, the Eritrean population naturally viewed both the Ethiopians and Italians as foreign invading forces. This being the documented history, Ethiopian government agencies, media and affiliates busily promote revisionism and fabricated conspiracies to justify and repackage their war agenda. Today, the Abiy regime’s aggressive provocations echo their real agenda as carried by a famous quote attributed to Haile silasie: “what we want from Eritrea is the land, not its people”. They aspire and conspire to drive the Eritrean people from their homeland while taking possession of Eritrean land and maritime territory.

Here, I review snippets of John H. Spencer’s memoir titled “Ethiopia at Bay: A Personal Account of the Haile Selassie Years” that speaks to one conspiratorial crime perpetrated by Ethiopia on Eritrea. John was the chief architect of Ethiopian claims on Eritrea after WWII, having served as a powerful legal and foreign affairs advisor from late December 1935 to 1960. Even after 1960, he intermittently served in advisory roles until April 1974, hence spanning four decades of service to the Ethiopian crown. He was staunchly opposed to Eritrea’s independence until his death in 2005.

Using the same script as in the 1940s, the Abiy regime blamesinternal and external forces, especially Egypt, for their supposed role in depriving Ethiopia a coastline. But in reality, it has always been conspiracy against Eritrea, perpetrated by Ethiopia.We need not go further than letting Ethiopia’s point person during the 1940s to 1950s to shed some light on Ethiopian conspiracy and the conspirators of that time. Indeed, as I will quote him at length here, John very clearly credits the United States and Britain for playing the decisive role in the process that led to the federation scheme, not the strength of Ethiopian claims. I focus on this period’s conspiracy because that is the only period during which Ethiopia occupied Eritrea, including its coastline.

Expansions and diversification strategy, not conspiracy

Alluding to how he came to serve as an advisor for such a long time, John explains how Ethiopia’s “long tradition of foreign advisers was established in 1487 when Pedro de Covilham was sent by King John II of Portugal on the search for the Christian kingdom of the legendary Prester John. De Covilham served the emperor Iskender so well that he was never allowed to leave the country”. Similarly, John had an outsized role in Ethiopianaffairs, especially from 1936 to 1960. His work was soimportant that Ethiopian authorities hid the death of his fatherfor over a week so as not to interrupt his work in the summer of 1945. Unsurprisingly, John feared that they would repeat similar act in the future but continued his dedicated work nonetheless.

Both John and Haggai touched on how emperors Yohanes and Menelik used Eritrea and Ogaden as buffers against the Mahdist and European governments. John, for example, notes that Menelik’s “concern was for protection against Egyptian, British and Italian encroachments into the highlands of Ethiopia.” Regardless of the motivation, John goes on to explain that Menelik used intra-Europe competition to expand Ethiopia’s territory by two-fold. An an astonishing achievement that lays bare the absurdity of Ethiopian claims of conspiracy against them. Interestingly, after the victory at Adwa, where French weapons supplied to Ethiopia played a critical role, the European powers sought to complete boundary treaties with Ethiopia. Whereas France reserved itself a small radius of territory around Djibouti, John writes that “Menelik in person traced a line on the map between 50 and 60 kilometers further in from the coast, declaring “I wish to give you a bit more than what is generally recognized [as being French territory] to show my friendship towards France.” The boundary with Eritrea was similarly agreed to run about 70 KM inland, parallel to the coastline. So, you see, Menelik had no illusion of claiming the coastline. There was no conspiracy or duress involved for Menelik was militarily in a strong position!

For his part, the first time Hailesilasie sought a coastline was at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, during which he specifically requested France cede part of Djibouti. Subsequently, John, citing Hailesilasie’s autobiography, writesthat “from the time of his first visit to Europe in 1924, the emperor (then the Regent, Ras Teferi) had repeatedly sought access to the sea, specifically, outlets at Massawa, Assab, Djibouti, Zeila and Berbera. All his attempts were rebuffed.” One is left wondering what transpired during his 1924 visit that prompted him to lay claim to so many places. Much like stock investors try to minimize risk by holding a diversified portfolio, it appears a deliberate strategy by Hailesilasie to lay claim to as many ports as possible to increase his chances. Validity of claim be damned! Of particular note is that the Zeila claim was pursued along with Eritrea until it ultimately was dropped in 1949, with Ethiopia focusing solely on Eritrea.

Army of Foreign Advisors to acquire outlet less the people

John’s involvement on the Eritrean case is substantial and his memoir is full of various schemes towards that end. For instance, he claims that he prepared “the Green Memorandum”, listing out over 1600 Eritreans that were serving in various levels of the Ethiopian government as well as nearly 200 that fought Fascist Italy on the side of Ethiopia. But this should have been irrelevant as Ethiopian institutions and ministries werelargely run by foreign advisors due to lack of capable local resources. There were Greeks, Indians, British, French, Norwegian, Canadian, American, Swedes, Danish, Belgian and Swiss nationals serving in various levels and capacities. For instance, the governor of the National Bank was a Canadian, the Air Force was started by Swedish personnel while Ethiopian Airlines was launched by TWA through an agreement that John himself excruciatingly negotiated! Ethiopians today would be surprised to know that there were many “Egyptians in the Ethiopian government service (especially at the State Bank of Ethiopia, the Highway Authority and the Ethiopian Airlines)” up to late 1950s. So, it would have been abnormal for Eritreans not to be involved as well! And that is before we even confront the question of how that list of 1,600 Eritreans was concocted in the first place. Unfortunately, the Eritrean people did not have a dedicated army of lawyers and advisers to defend their interest in the international arena; no, their future was being determined without their participation in faraway capitals with Ethiopia left free to conspire and barter away our rights to advance its illegitimate ambitions!

John was actually forthcoming as far as the Ethiopian objectivewas concerned. According to him, “the crux of the matter for Ethiopia in arguing her claim to Eritrea was access to the sea;but the argument presented to the delegations at the Peace Conference was that of historic, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic ties, and the economic interdependence of Eritrea and Ethiopia.” In other words, the historic, ethnic, cultural links were merely smokescreen for their ultimate goal of acquiring Eritrea’s Red Sea coast. This is an incredible admission, by the chief architect no less! In describing support to their conspiracy against Eritrea, he adds that “the support which Ethiopia enjoyed at the peace conference came from five delegations: Greece, India, Canada, Yugoslavia and Britain…while Britain was more circumspect, without her support, Ethiopia’s case would’ve been a lost cause.” This is a serious reflection given that there is arguably no one better placed to make that assessment. A little further, he also admits that “Ethiopia had every interest in supporting the Bevin-Sforza proposals. Without the Western Province, she would be incorporating a distinctly Christian Eritrea.” Again, it was all about ports, not the people!

Powerful countries did not participate in Ethiopia’s conspiracy out of the goodness of their heart as the heightened fear of communism may have also played a role. For instance, John notes that “Ethiopia was invited to send a delegation [to the Deputies of Foreign Ministers meeting] because of concern on the part of the United States that refusal to permit Ethiopia to participate would allow the Soviet Union to exploit that refusal to its advantage.” It is worth noting here that Ethiopia had all the chances to present its case at every forum while Eritrea had no representation at all. For, it was merely on the chopping block for anyone to take!

Always in Company of contradictions and lies

Much like today under the Abiy regime, John and other Ethiopian officials were untroubled by the contradictions and ironies inherent in staking a claim on Eritrea. For instance, John tells us that in November 1947, at the Council of the Deputies of Foreign Ministers, Aklilou asked how could Italy “protest at the peace conference that it was incapable of shouldering the burden of reparations and, at the same time, demand the return of the colonies that had always required heavy subventions [i.e. financial aid] from the Italian state?” Though this argumentapplies even more strongly to Ethiopia, John reacts differently when it was broached. So, some pages later, John recounts howthe Pakistani delegate asked if it were fair to burden Ethiopia with a “wretched Eritrea”, if that was considered friendliness towards an Ethiopia that is itself in dire financial situation? Britain’s deliberate destruction of the Eritrean economy so as toprovide evidentiary support to the Ethiopian and British argument of Eritrea’s non-viability as an independent state is well documented. But John was incensed by the Pakistani delegate’s rhetoric. This was despite John’s own belief that Ethiopia was incapable of surviving without external assistance. In his own words, “at the time of negotiation of the 1944 agreement [with Britain], I had recommended acceptance of a British sterling subsidy, fearing that Ethiopia could not exist without it.”

Violence and Suppression

Ethiopia did all in its power to suppress the desire of the Eritrean people from being heard, including through violence. Perhaps oblivious to the tone-deafness of their arguments, John recounts Ethiopian opposition to the creation of the UN Commission of Investigation, recounting how Aklilou Habtewold “went on to observe that when Ethiopia could finally be heard on her case, she was told that she would have to wait until the wishes of the population had been consulted a second time…this was not the first time, Aklilou remarked, that Ethiopia had suffered at the hands of an organization piously dedicated to collective security and self-determination of peoples.” Ethiopia feared the UN committees would learn the true wishes of the Eritrean people. But Aklilou’s invocation of self-determination as a means of suppressing the inquiry speaks volumes about the moral bankruptcy of the Ethiopian regime. Aklilou again tried to use the self-determination argument in 1949, without a hint of shame. As John tells it, “in the hope of persuading some of the Latin American states to recognize the right of self-determination on the part of Somaliland and Eritrea in opposing the return of Italy to those territories, Aklilou made a tour of Latin America during the summer recess [of 1949 UNGA second half of third session]”. How audacious it must have appeared to the Latin American officials that Aklilou is able to essentially argue to suppress Eritrean right of self-determination and cloak Ethiopia illegitimate ambitions with self-determination. 

As their self-determination complaint was naturally unconvincing, Ethiopia used violence and intimidation to prevent the Commission from obtaining the true picture of the Eritrean people’s desire. Even John himself suspected Ethiopia of using violence. He notes that “although I was never able to establish proof of complicity on his part, I long suspected [the Crown Representative in Asmara] Colonel Negga Hailesilasie of having engineered certain convenient ‘disappearances’ in Eritrea. The British military administration, after a raid on the youth branch of the Unionist Party, claimed to have obtained documents confirming such activity.” Considering that his Ethiopian handlers hid the death of his father for more than a week, it would be impossible for him to obtain evidence of Ethiopia’s complicity in the violence and intimidation that was the hallmark of the Unionist Party’s operatives. It is telling, though, that John singles out Colonel Nega here. For such a good lawyer, I am sure he knows whose orders the colonel was carrying out, yet he conspicuously glosses over that fact. In any case, however, the litany of violence and intimidation is well documented so I will not rehash here.

Calculated Moves and Conspiracy partners

Ethiopia received immense help in its illegitimate claim on Eritrea. John notes cooly that “the Commission of Investigationbegan its inquiries in the spring of 1948. Appointed to that commission were my two friends, Colonel (later Brigadier) Frank Stafford for Britain, and John E. Utter for the United States, whom I had known well at the Paris Peace Conference.”To any reader of John’s memoir, it is clear that no one opposed to Ethiopia’s claims would be bestowed the honor of hisfriendship. Of particular note is that this is the same Frank Stafford that was instrumental in dismembering the Muslim League and the Liberal Progressive Party  in order to weaken the independence bloc (A People’s Quest for Freedom and Justice, p139-144). It was the same Frank Stafford who, just months before the Four Power Commission’s arrival in 1947, authored a detailed report indicating that the majority of Eritreans favored independence (Alemseged, p102-103). This report was kept secret, enabling Ethiopia to falsely assert that a majority of Eritreans favored union!

The Bevin-Sforza proposal of 1949 is another example that illustrates the conspiracies and calculated moves made by Ethiopia. This proposal included Italian trusteeship of Tripolitania (Libya) and Italian Somaliland while partitioning Eritrea into Sudan and Ethiopia. While the Ethiopian delegation supported this proposal, their vote at the UN was not without its complexity. As John recounts, “the Ethiopian delegation found it impossible to vote for the return of Italy to either Tripolitania or Somaliland. Based on a very close head count, I advised a highly distasteful compromise: an abstention on Tripolitania and a “No” on Somaliland. It was a totally unexpected vote switch by one member of the Latin American bloc – Haiti – in the vote on Tripolitania that led to the defeat of the entire Bevin-Sforza proposals.” Eritrea’s dismemberment came to within a single vote and was only defeated as the proposal was voted on as a package deal. That Ethiopia went as far as to abstain on a vote for the then archenemy Italy’s return to Libya so as to achieve its Eritrean agenda reflects Ethiopian calculations in pursuit of their ambition. But where was Eritrean agency? Who did the Eritrean people have representing them as Ethiopia was conspiring and engineering schemes in international forums that decidedEritrea’s future?

Secret Group’s Federation Scheme

Against the backdrop of Ethiopian opposition to Eritrean independence, even going as far as to threaten that they would stop at nothing if that were to happen, a shadowy group of men held secretive meetings to birth the ill-advised, unjust federal solution. Describing the workings of the secretive group (p232-233), John explains that “of far greater significance during the summer of 1950 were the behind-the-scenes consultations with Ethiopia initiated by Ambassador Muniz of Brazil, the president of the Interim Committee, assisted by Ambassador Padilla Nervo of Mexico. These talks developed into indirect negotiations with Italy with Muniz, Nervo, my friend Stafford of the British delegation, and Charles Noyes of the American delegation serving as intermediaries. While most of the talks with Muniz and Nervo were held at the UN headquarters, those with Stafford and Noyes took place in the suite reserved at the Waldorf by the Ethiopian delegation. In view of the heavy volume of telephone traffic generated by these negotiations, a separate line was installed.” This cabal alone, at the Ethiopian delegation’s hotel, decided the future of Eritrea, without the presence of any Eritrean representative! Though these conspirators labelled it as a federation, as John lays out in his book, in practice, it was clearly a back-door annexation of Eritrea.

John continues to detail how that flawed federation formula was born. ““Ambassadors Muniz and Nervo soon accepted the Ethiopian position that Ethiopia was not to be federated with Eritrea, but the converse, that Eritrea was to be federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown. In attaining that formula, we were greatly aided by Stafford [his friend] and Noyes. Charles Noyes, an excellent constitutional lawyer, was flexible enough in his mental processes to abandon the US constitutional model in favor of a federation wherein the Ethiopian government was, at the same time, the federal government. The same was the case with Ambassador Nervo.” John’s praise of the flexibility of his co-conspirators to abandon established model in the pursuit of achieving a back-door dominance and annexation should be applauded for its honesty. For it represents a clear confession of a conspirator! Though Italy and Britain had second thoughts about the formula and tried to stop it in its tracks as it was proceeding through various Committee votes, US defense secretary Acheson personally intervened to move it along. As John explains it in plain language, “had it not been for United States pressure on the Italians and the British, the Eritrea problem would have remained unresolved.” So, is it not the Ethiopian regime that benefited from the conspiracy, which has continued to bleed dry the peoples of both countries! 

John, the chief architect, is remarkably candid in reflecting on how the entire process unfolded and ultimately culminated in that fateful federal formula, acknowledging that “historical, cultural, ethnic and demographic arguments, self-determination, security needs, even the need for access to the sea, influenced, I am sure, not one vote.” He instead gave credit to the conspiratorial actions of the UK (for its own strategy as bargain for an Ogaden swap), United States and other powers for Ethiopia’s successful outcome on the Eritrean question.

After the federal resolution was passed, the work of implementing it on the ground was largely left to John from the Ethiopian side. As he notes, “almost the whole of my world during the next 18 months was taken up by the implementation of the federation…I spent more time in Asmara in negotiations with the UN commissioner and the British Military Administration than anyone else connected with the Ethiopian government.” In this process, he had high praises for commissioner Anze Matienzo and his friend, Frank Stafford, who represented the BMA. Stafford especially was instrumental in helping John convince Matienzo to accept the Ethiopian line of arguments: “Stafford, as the principal assistant to General Cummings, was instrumental in persuading the British authorities to accept many of the safeguards which I sought as legal adviser to the Ethiopian government. Without him, the negotiations might well have bogged down in the swamp of my arguments and tiresome legal distinctions.”

It is worth noting that that Frank Stafford initially served as a financial adviser to the Ethiopian government during the 1942 – 1944 period. He continued that financial adviser role immediately after commencement of federation too. During the 1954 negotiations with Britain on the Haud and Reserve Area (Ogaden), John notes that “as adviser with Aklilou and me was Frank Stafford, so helpful at the time of the hand-over of Eritrea from the BMA…Not only had he served as financial adviser in Ethiopia but, of course, had been closely involved in the settlement of the Eritrean question on the side of the British…in Addis Ababa, he was president of the S. George Society…He deserved far better treatment at the hands of the Ethiopian government than he ever received.” Indeed, I agree with John here, Ethiopia could have treated Frank Stafford far better for his integral role in their conspiracy against the Eritrean people. 

It also appears that Ethiopian officials leveraged the uncertain situation of Anze Matienzo to obtain concessions. John for example highlights Matienzo’s worry on his future employment potential due to political conditions in his homeland Bolivia and the fact that Matienzo did not have a law degree. As John notes, “on the eve of his departure from Eritrea, he was awarded an honorary Doctorate in law by the recently opened Dante School of Law in Asmara – a title, which, apparently, he successfully invoked in Argentina.” I have not been able to find any information on the Dante School of Law. It would be interesting to understand for how long it existed, who ran it, how it came to award Matienzo the honorary degree and if it influenced Matienzo’s decisions. 

Egypt card, déjà vu at Djibouti

Prosperity Party activists, copying from previous regimes, love to play the Egypt card. They incite their population by conjuring up Egyptian conspiracy for denying them Eritrea’s coastline. However, as John lays out in his memoir, this does not hold water as well. During Hailesilasie’s Cairo trip in June 1959 “his majesty was able to establish close personal relations with Nasser and subsequently with Sadat…Nasser adhered strictly to his promises and, until the fall of Hailesilasie, relations with Egypt remained cordial.” The story of how Tigrigna and Arabic radio broadcasts, by Weldeam Woldemariam and Safi Imam Musa from Cairo, respectively, lasted only nine months, until early 1957, is instructive. According to Weldeab Woldemariam, as told to him by Egyptian authorities, Aklilou Habtewold used the Suez Canal crisis to compromise with the Nasser government. Upon hearing that that Ethiopia’s “main demand is the closure of the Tigrigna programme of Radio Cairo, [the Egyptian authorities told Weldeab] that Nasser laughed. ‘We thought you would be after something bigger’” (p334, An African People’s Quest for Freedom and Justice, Alemseged Tesfai). This being the truth, Ethiopian revisionists assign blame on Egypt and other external forces so as to discredit and discount the Eritrean people’s aspirations! Although the Eritrean Liberation Front was founded in Cairo by exiled leaders and students, and Tigrigna- and Arabic-language radio broadcasts continued there until early 1957, for roughly ten months, Egypt was not a major player in the Eritrean struggle for independence.As attested by John himself, Egypt-Ethiopia relations were good until at least 1974!

If one peels at the history of grand Ethiopian territorial claims, one is bound to find that the script never changes. So it was déjà vu when, in relation to Djibouti, Haile Selassie used the exact same argument as in Eritrea to lay claim to it. As Joh recounts, when in August 1966, General De Gaule told the emperor “we have no wish to stay. You have only to move in”, it was no surprise that “two weeks later, the emperor issued a public statement declaring that Djibouti was one of the lost provinces of Ethiopia of which, for historical, economic, strategic and demographic reasons, it was an integral part.” Today, we are seeing the Abiy regime play the same card. 

But the similarities with today do not stop there. The expulsion of US personnel in April 1977 “was followed by Mengistu’s acceptance of the Soviet Union’s proposal by which Ethiopia could disappear into a Soviet-controlled federation extending from Eritrea to Somalia and to the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen)…By a Faustian bargain, Ethiopia had called in the Soviets only to lose her independence.” This proposal never materialized only thanks to Siad Barre’s opposition. Today’s Prosperity Party is similarly subservient as was the Derg, the only difference being that the Soviets have been replaced by the UAE. It sadly continues the century-long history of successive Ethiopian regimes sacrificingthe country’s interests for personal gains. 

As John observed, Ethiopia did not succeed in convincing most of the nations on the strength of its claims on Eritrea. It instead obtained Eritrea through a conspiratorial partnership with countries seeking to benefit from a quid pro quo by helping Ethiopia acquire Eritrean coastline! That is the verdict of John’s memoir: “yet this vital goal [of getting Eritrea] could not have been achieved without great power rivalries playing the decisive role. The contributions of Aklilou and myself were far less significant than the realization by the United States and Britain.”Indeed, that is the hard truth! The Eritrean people were denied their right of self-determination by the Ethiopian royal crown’s conspiracy. Ethiopia was never a victim of conspiracy, but the chief perpetrator of several of the on the Eritrean people! Both Eritrean ports, Massawa and Assab, were occupied by Ethiopia for 30 years as a result of these conspiratorial actions. Otherwise, they had never been, legitimately, Ethiopian!