[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         URGING AN END OF THE WAR BETWEEN ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 26, 1999

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia and Eritrea have been at war since 
May 1998. Despite repeated and ongoing efforts of the Organization of 
African Unity, the United Nations, the United States, and other 
countries, the prospects for peace remain dubious.
  Although a border dispute is cited as the proximate cause of the 
conflict, I have come to learn that tensions between these countries 
were building for some time, and some grievances between them precede 
their existence as national governments.
  Both countries are governed by ex-liberation movement parties with a 
Marxist ideological background. The populations of both countries are 
highly mobilized, with more than half a million men and women currently 
under arms, in trenches and bunkers, across a 1000-mile border. Each 
country has waged a scathing propaganda campaign against the other. 
Many of the Members of this Congress have been subjected to that 
propaganda for the past 17 months.
  President Clinton once held up the leaders of Eritrea and Ethiopia as 
shining examples of Africa's ``New Generation of Leaders.'' He 
correctly pointed to their governments' lack of corruption and their 
genuine desire to advance the development of the rural poor. 
Regrettably, these ``new'' leaders appear to have a few stubborn flaws 
of their own.
  Ethiopia, for example, has been stalling the OAU mediators and 
Special Envoy Tony Lake to avoid moving forward on the same peace 
agreement that they once vigorously embraced. They have become paranoid 
about the power and intentions of their neighbor to the north. It now 
appears likely that Ethiopia is going to renew the military conflict 
even if it means international condemnation and a new generation of 
Ethiopian widows. Their sovereignty, they claim, must not be 
compromised.
  Eritrea's government also deserves scrutiny. It continues to act at 
times as if it were still a leadership cell within a liberation 
movement. The press in Eritrea is tightly controlled, local NGO's who 
gain too much foreign support come under suspicion and are frequently 
shut down by the government, and the sole political party raises 
revenues through national and international front companies. Eritrea's 
leadership has cut deals with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and made 
highly personal attacks on senior United States officials. When asked 
why they agreed to the peace agreement only after Ethiopia militarily 
pushed them back well into Eritrea from one area they'd occupied, they 
say that it was a matter of ``national sovereignty.''
  This resolution is, in my opinion, an extremely mild expression of 
the deep frustration and disappointment that many of us feel. We are 
dismayed that two countries with extraordinary human capital, a firm 
commitment to nation-building, and a rich international base of support 
have chosen to reenact World War I's Battle of the Somme with modern 
weaponry.
  What a terrible waste.
  I support this measure and urge my colleagues to do likewise.




                          ____________________