|
|
|
|
|
Eritrea never been part of Ethiopia, |
|
EEBC Border ruling not negotiable |
|
Re.: Agencia de Informacao de
Mocambique (AIM) |
|
|
|
Editorial: Team
EritreaDaily.net |
|
23 Nov 2003 |
|
Chief news editor: Santos Nhantumbo |
|
C.P. 896, Maputo 00110, Mozambique |
|
Re.: Chissano And Gaddafi
Discuss African Problems November 20, 2003 Dear editor: |
|
While you are fully entitled to your news story “Chissano And Gaddafi
Discuss African Problems November 20, 2003”, it is egregious and you have
no basis of any kind, whatsoever, for your assertion that “..Eritrea used to
be a province of Ethiopia” unless of course you want to justify and validate
forceful annexation of a Nation State, which we seriously doubt? |
|
|
|
Sir, allow us to reiterate the obvious: Like all other African
Countries as we know them today, Eritrea was first established by
Italian Colonialism as a distinct Nation State that was determined by distinct colonial
treaties as a result of the colonial “Scramble for Africa” together
with its sister Italian colonies of Somalia and Libya. In 1952 the UN decided
[UNGA Res.390 A (V)] to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia for a period of 10
years against the expressed will and wishes of the people of Eritrea, at the
end of which the people of Eritrea would be given a chance to decide over
their political fate via a plebiscite. In 1962, with the silent consent of
the UN and USA and against the expressed will of the people of Eritrea,
Ethiopia unilaterally voided and annulled UN resolution 390 A (v), dissolved
the “Federation”, forcefully annexed Eritrea and declared it to its 14th
province; similar to the way Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait and declare it to
its province, 1991, Indonesia’s forceful annexation and declaration of East
Timor (Portuguese colony) to its 27th province in 1976, and
the persistent annexation of Spanish West Sahara (Spanish colony) first by
Morocco and Mauritania, 1975, and now under the sole occupation of the
kingdom of Morocco. |
|
|
|
Ethiopia’s annexation of Eritrea escalated Eritrea’s quest
for its legitimate national right to a 30-year long armed struggle for national
self-determination, which was effectively attained in 1991 when Ethiopia had
only to accede to, not grant, Eritrea’s independence, for the Ethiopian army
was then completely crashed and whatever was left was no match for Eritrea. |
|
|
|
With that, your above quoted assertion is not only
baseless but its implication (secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia) is utterly
unfounded. And unless you want to deny the above stated geopolitical history
of Eritrea and/or justify and validate the forcible annexation of a Nation
state, Eritrea has never been part of Ethiopia, let alone province, but a
distinct Nation state that was forcibly occupied by Ethiopia for 30 years. |
|
|
|
Colonialism created geopolitical realities (countries,
Nations states) as determined by colonial treaties, which thence constituted
the norms and basis of International law. It is this indelible fact that
forced Ethiopia to accept and to agree to settle the Eritro-Ethio border
dispute based only on colonial treaties and applicable corollary
international law and procedures including the principle of uti possidetis juris, which Africa adopted in 1964, as
spelled out by the Algiers Agreement. |
|
|
|
International border disputes are necessarily legal
disputes whose proper resolutions then necessitate legal settlement in a
court of law. The Eritro-Ethio border dispute was a legal dispute that found
conclusive legal settlement in a court of law. |
|
|
|
The sacrosanctity of colonial borders, uti possidetis juris, that the OAU adopted in 1964 is
not a mere matter of should or should not be respected; it is an established
principle of customary international law that must be applied when dealing
with border disputes and has been declared to be applicable to the entire
African continent including Eritrea, which has been established and secured
by distinct colonial treaties. No court basis its judgment on a law whose
outcome is difficult to implement? Like all other laws, the application of uti
possidetis juris is not going to make both sides happy. That the border
ruling did not go Ethiopia’s way does not invalidate the applicability of
this legal principle to Ethiopia but makes Ethiopia the exception that proves
the law because no one else is disputing the ruling. |
|
|
|
As far as the international border between Eritrea and
Ethiopia is concerned, the border dispute has been settled conclusively and
judicially on 13 April 2002 by an irreversible legal ruling of the
Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC). And as you well know, entire world
save Ethiopia firmly supports and stands by the EEBC and it’s ruling. As you
also well know, upon the insistence of Ethiopia and by consent of both
countries a priori, the ruling of the EEBC is not negotiable and cannot be
rejected because it is 100% guaranteed to be enforced and implemented indeed,
if necessary by use of force. Accordingly, the one and only option either
country has is to only abide by the border ruling. Any thing else constitutes
non-compliance of varying degrees to the extent of outright defiance of the
ruling, which Ethiopia finds itself in today. |
|
|
|
By its action, Ethiopia is now challenging the resolve,
commitment, and obligation of the Guarantor Nations (AU, USA, EU, UN, and
even Algeria) to implement the border ruling by invoking Chapter VII of UN
charter as stipulated by the Algiers Agreement to remedy outright defiance of
The Hague verdict (EEBC ruling). |
|
|
|
Unless president Chissano and Ghadafi want to renege on their
commitment to the Algiers Agreement and join Ethiopia in defying the ruling
of the EEBC, the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia has already been
resolved via legally arbitrated dialogue and a legally binding verdict over
18 months ago. The UN, USA, EU and Canada have expressed their unwavering
stance about the final and binding nature of the border ruling in one form or
the other. It is now long overdue time for the AU to speak out clear, loud,
and unequivocally one way or the other. |
|
|
|
It is to be remembered that per the Algiers Agreement, the
AU has accepted the finality and binding nature of the ruling of the EEBC and
committed and obliged itself to only defend, protect, and enforce it wherever
the chips may fall by bringing any defiant party in compliance with the
verdict by whatever means is available to it. But Chissano and Ghadafi appear
to be arguing to the contrary: A futile attempt to bring the verdict into
compliance with the defiant party by way of negotiation/renegotiation and dialogue
about it! For, what other purpose
would any talk about an irreversible verdict have if it were not aimed at
tampering with it? And that is a patented recipe for the demise of the
Algiers Agreement that was so crafted and designed as the only way to bring
about sustainable peace in the Horn of Africa. Unless Chissano and Ghadafi
have other explanation, that is the destructive mission of their recent
blabber about dialogue and peaceful resolution of the non-existent
Eritrea/Ethiopia border dispute. What the AU, like all other guarantor
Nations, must do is to reconcile Ethiopia with the reality of the EEBC ruling
and bring its rulers into compliance with it. |
|
|
|
Fortunately, it is not the AU but the rest of the world,
which firmly stands by and supports the EEBC and it’s ruling, that makes or
breaks it. |
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey, USA |
|
|