Editorial: EritreaDaily.net

18 Oct 2003

The international media reported yesterday that “Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi defied pressure from the U.N. and U.S. and told parliament on Thursday (16 Oct 2003) that he will demand new negotiations to solve the country's border dispute with Eritrea and declared the 1,000-kilometer international border judicially delimited by a specially-appointed, international and independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) "null and void".”

Bingo! The international media finally got it: That is and has been exactly what was underneath Ethiopia rulers’ pseudo dialogue campaign blabber: Futile attempt to reverse the ruling of the EEBC by reopening the case and to renegotiate/reargue the matter until the EEBC decides in Ethiopia’s favor. Otherwise, the way the Algiers agreement is set up is that once the verdict is out and any one of the parties has accepted it unequivocally and in utter compliance with the Agreement, like Eritrea did, dialogue has the only objective and purpose of solidifying and consolidating the success of the so attained process, which Ethiopia rulers don’t want because it will not give them Badme, because per the agreement, the other party must accept the verdict by default because it has committed itself in advance to only accept it.

Now that Ethiopia rulers’ have voluntarily unmasked the real purpose of their dialogue ploy, was Eritrea being intransigent over dialogue with Ethiopia as some media outlets wanted the public to believe? Or was Eritrea averse to dialogue as Ethiopia rulers attempted to portray Eritrea to the int’l community? Knowing what we know about Ethiopia rulers dialogue fraud, certainly not. Eritrea was only acting in strict and utter adherence to provisions, letters, and spirit of the Algiers agreement and the rule of law, otherwise, Eritrea is and has been willing to enter into dialogue with Ethiopia in the sense of solidifying and consolidating the peace process “if Ethiopia would comply with its obligation under the Algiers Agreement, particularly its obligation to accept the Commissions decision as final and binding.” Words of honorable Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, chairman of the EEBC, 7 Oct 2003.

The international media also reported that “In explaining why he( PM Meles) felt Ethiopia could reject the decision, Meles cited Nigeria's rejection of a ruling made by the International Court of Justice. Nigeria had initially agreed to allow the court to settle a border dispute with Cameroon, but when it lost, the West African nation initiated direct talks with Cameroon to reach another solution.”

It has been long known to psychoanalysts that people in denial, like PM Meles & co., resort to fantasy and/or magical thinking to prevent themselves from recognizing and accepting unpleasant truth and reality, and that is manifested by Meles’ citing of the Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute, because there is nothing but hoax in there. Who is Meles trying to fool here? First of all there is no basis to draw parallels between the cases Cameroon vs. Nigeria, and Eritrea vs. Ethiopia because it is like comparing apples with oranges. The ICJ adjudicated Cameroon vs. Nigeria, while the Eritrea/Ethiopia matter was adjudicated by the PCA. There is a lot of significant differences between ICJ and PCA, like the legal basis for adjudicating the matter, the nature and composition of the adjudicating body, the nature and fate of the decision, etc, which can be looked up in their respective websites. But for the purpose of the issue at hand, let us know look at the nature and fate of the decisions made by ICJ and CPA as expressed by one single paragraph:

ICJ: “The judgment is final and without appeal. Should one of the States involved fail to comply with it, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council of the United Nations” [Cameroon/Nigeria]

PCA: “The judgment is final and binding without appeal and is guaranteed to be enforced by USA, UN, EU, AU by use of force if necessary because both parties have committed themselves, prior to the start of the adjudication and in writing, to only accept and abide by it wherever the chips may fall.” [Eritrea/Ethiopia]

It is then clear that the nature of both decisions is the same: It is “final and binding without appeal”, but the fate of each decision is significantly different:

The PCA decision does not anticipate noncompliance because both parties have already committed themselves to only accept the decision wherever the chips may fall, but anticipates defiance by one or the other party and provides one and only one remedy that was agreed upon by both parties: Enforcing the decision by use of force if necessary (by invoking Chapter vii of UN Charter). No second chance or recourse here. The EEBC decision stands and will be enforced as is as stipulated in the Algiers Agreement. The EEBC decision is a law. And people don’t reject or renege on a law but defy a law.

On the other hand, the ICJ decision anticipates noncompliance by one or the other party and provides for remedy in the form of recourse (to turn to another for assistance) to the UNSC. Hence noncompliance (in this case by Nigeria) and Cameroon’s recourse to the UNSC was right and legal for it was anticipated and provided for in the ICJ decision, respectively. That is why the matter was resolved the way it was resolved with the assistance of the UN (active participation of Kofi Annan on behalf of the UNSC) on the negotiating table. The essence of the ICJ decision is that recourse was granted to the compliant party (Cameroon) as a means to find a way to penalize the noncompliant party (Nigeria). Why then Ethiopia (the noncompliant party) is even citing the Cameroon/Nigeria case? That is the crux of the matter. It is a hoax.

Ethiopia rulers, in denial themselves, are now citing Cameroon/Nigeria by truncating the ruling, as they did with the inconclusive OAU opinion over Badme, and highlighting the “final and binding without appeal” phrase of the first portion of the ICJ decision to fake similarity with the PCA decision in order to dupe their people into believing that their defiance of the EEBC decision is just because Nigeria did it! But the fact of the matter is the fate of the PCA and ICJ decision have nothing in common and even if one were to consider the Cameroon/Nigeria case, Eritrea (compliant party) not Ethiopia (noncompliant) would have right to recourse. Thus, Ethiopia rulers’ fraudulent comparison of Cameroon/Nigeria with Eritrea/Ethiopia is doomed to be exposed, fail and die just like their bogus call for dialogue.

Ethiopia’s rulers find themselves in a critical, terminal stage of denial. No body can talk them out of that but intensive psychological and or psychiatric therapy.

Eritrea and the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia will prevail

Rule of law will reign.

Viva Eritrea.

Team Eritrea Daily