|
Ethiopia not ready, but post mortem on its defiance of rule of law is inevitable |
|
Ethiopia’s rulers in terminal stage of denial |
|
|
|
Editorial: Team Eritrea Daily.net |
|
16 Oct
2003 |
|
|
|
Now that Ethiopia’s rulers have gotten earful from
the international community at large (media, EU, US Congress, UN Security
Council, EEBC [Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission] etc), they have entered
the terminal stage of what psychologists/psychoanalysts call a State of
denial. It is a psycho-pathological disorder and a state
of mind that humans suffer from, and is marked by an inability or refusal to
recognize and admit the truth or reality of a situation or experience. It is
inter alia a defense mechanism that the ego uses to protect the conscious mind
from threatening feelings and perceptions, or to prevent unacceptable ideas
or impulses from entering the conscience (Anna Freud)- for more on denial, see end
of article. Ethiopia’s rulers present a textbook example of
the state of denial: They entered the border adjudication under the evidently
wrong but to them right and solid perception, premise, and belief that Badme
was Ethiopian and their equally and evidently wrong but to them right and
solid perception of OAU’s inconclusive opinion about Badme. But the result of
the adjudication turned out to be absolutely to the contrary. The Commission
reaffirmed Eritrea’s unequivocal sovereignty over Badme in a final and
binding verdict, and that with no right to appeal. That was obviously a
shocker to Ethiopia’s rulers because that what they firmly believed, and
still believe in their soul and heart has now been proven in a court of law
to be not real. Consequently, reality sank in and Ethiopia rulers entered the
acute state of denial instantly. That was evident when they
lied about it in their immediate reaction to the decision: They pretended to
accept the decision and told their people that Badme was declared Ethiopian,
which was proven to the contrary only 48 hours later and to date.
Ethiopia rulers state of denial progressed to the worst and became more and
more apparent when they started characterizing the verdict as “unimaginable
to accept”, “unbelievable”, or “no one in his right mind would that to us”
etc., all of which are clear indicators of early clinical symptoms of a state
of denial. They frustrated the EEBC and the UNSC by posing
the same question repeatedly for which the entire world knows there is one
and the same answer (it is final and binding, can’t be appealed, case is
closed) no matter how often and in what form it is presented, but they refuse
to accept the answer because they are in denial. Denial made Ethiopia’s
rulers creative, too: They pleaded for dialogue and got the same answer: Case
can’t be reopened unless both parties agree, case closed. But they refuse to
accept that because they are in denial. And recently they started citing the
Cameroon/Nigeria case to bread their plea for dialogue, same answer:
Cameroon/Nigeria or any other case, the EEBC decision can’t be reopened
unless both parties agree, case closed. But they refuse to accept that
answer, too, because they are in a terminal stage of denial. On 15 Oct 2003, The Ministry of foreign Affairs of
Ethiopia, issued a statement asking “ARE WE READY FOR A POST MORTUM ON THE
SEPTEMBER 19 LETTER?”
That is now a clear indication that Ethiopia’s leaders are
slowly but surely wallowing in a terminal stage of the stat of denial because
the entire world but Ethiopia’s rulers, knows that the UNSC letter of 1 Oct
2003 and the EEBC letter of 7 Oct 2003 have killed “Ethiopia’s letter of Sep
19 2003” in no uncertain terms. But only Ethiopia’s rulers refuse to
recognize and accept that, yes, because they find themselves in the terminal
stage of denial, they can’t believe that it is over, final and binding, and
the case can’t be reopened unless both parties consent. With that title,
Ethiopia rulers are also conceding that there is a post mortem on their
letter of Sep 19; otherwise, why talk about post mortem if there were no post
mortem? In this same statement, the foreign ministry criticizes EEBC
reaction to their Sep 19 letter because it was not sent to him. What a joke?
The Sep 19 letter was nothing but all about EEBC, and the chairman has all
the right to defend it? Yes, they know that, but they don’t to hear what he
has to say because they are in utter denial about it. By its action of Sep 19, blatant defiance
of the EEBC verdict, Ethiopia voluntarily called for its forceful
implementation, which is the invocation of chapter vii of UN charter, as
stipulated in the Algiers Agreement to remedy that kind of ultimate
noncompliance. Now Ethiopia is blaming Eritrea for that, when Eritrea
didn’t call for but was only echoing what Ethiopia voluntarily has called for
by its action of Sep 19. Then the statement quotes the
following now famous paragraph from the UNSC letter and res. 1507 “The members of the Security
Council reaffirm their serious concern at the continuous and abnormal absence
of political dialogue between the two parties. They believe that
dialogue is essential for the normalization of relations and crucial for the
success of the peace process. (emphasis ours).” And explains what Ethiopia wants to
believes its message is: “What the Security Council is suggesting here is
that there is a critical need for civilized behavior from the two countries
-- like we have seen in the case of Nigeria and Cameroon--so that the success
of the peace process can be ensured and the objectives of the Algiers
Agreement are realized.” Oh, please! Talk about civility. Firstly, civility
begins with Ethiopia by heeding to what the entire world is calling for:
Ethiopia must honor its commitment and abide by the EEBC verdict in deeds and
treat it as final and binding. Then as the EEBC Chairman said, “there is no
crisis, terminal or otherwise which cannot be cured by Ethiopia’s compliance
with its obligations under the Algiers Agreement”. Secondly, turn and roll it whichever way you want,
the Security council’s reference to dialogue as being crucial is meant only
in terms of solidifying and consolidating the success of the peace process so
attained by adhering to Algiers Agreement, and not a means to reopen the case
because the UNSC has made it abundantly clear that it firmly stands by the
EEBC and its decision in all its hitherto passed resolutions and letters, and
stated unequivocally that “only the full implementation of the Algiers
Agreement will lead to sustainable peace” UNSC 1 Oct 2003. Of course,
Ethiopia’s rulers don’t want to hear that because they are in terminal state
of denial about it, no matter how often and in what form it is conveyed to
them. “But reality is much more complex”. Indeed. And
that is why Ethiopia rulers have hard time copying with. The reality of
border decision/the Algiers Agreement and Ethiopia rulers end stage of denial
can’t be juxtaposed because they will repel each other same way like the equal
poles of a pair of magnets when brought close to each other. Yes reality and
denial are not compatible for they are mutually exclusive. Ethiopia rulers’ state of denial has entered a
critical end stage: They find themselves in denial of any thing and every
thing about the Algiers Agreement. At this stage one is compelled to ask
Ethiopia rulers if they even remember signing the Algiers Agreement?
Whichever way they respond the answer is that they are in utterly absolute
denial of the Agreement: Yes response would oblige them to abide by it, but
they don’t want to abide by it because they are in denial about it. NO
response flatly confirms their state of denial about it. Then there is this nonsensical mantra of Ethiopia
rulers about “ the logjam that the two countries finding themselves in”.
It is in the books
and the entire world but Ethiopia rulers knows that the border conflict
between Eritrea and Ethiopia was and has been conclusively adjudicated and
judicially settled once and for all by a final and binding decision on April
of 2002. The court has spoken, the case is closed, and the verdict is out.
And as in all other legal proceedings, the verdict is law and the next
step is Law enforcement (in this case Demarcation because that is how the
delimitation decision is enforced), peacefully or otherwise, by Law
Enforcement Agency (in this case EEBC and the Guarantor Nations [USA, EU, UN,
AU, Algeria]) and that is so scheduled to start some times this month, which
the international community is demanding to be strictly upheld. Eritrea and
the rest of the world firmly stand by EEBC and its verdict and are ready to
move on to its enforcement. On the other hand, Ethiopia and Ethiopia alone
finds itself in noncompliance with the law. That is not “deadlock” or “logjam”
but Ethiopia rulers’ outright defiance of a consequential rule of law,
period. Who is kidding whom here? Ethiopia rulers’ hallucinatory psychopathic
disorder known as denial has reached a critical end stage and the UN is the
wrong place to seek help. For that, there are ample specialized medical
institutions, where they can check in. Ethiopia’s letter of 19 Sep 2003 died on arrival
and its post mortem was scripted and disclosed on 1 Oct 03 and 7 Oct 03. It
is now on its way to its proper place below the surface of the earth, and
should it deserve eulogy, we will be there to deliver it soundly. It may not be “yet time for a post mortum on the
September 19 letter by the Ethiopian Prime Minister” but it is inevitable. |
|
Eritrea and the people of
Eritrea and Ethiopia will prevail |
|
The rule of law will reign |
|
|
|
|
|
denial, in psychology, an ego defense mechanism that operates unconsciously to resolve emotional conflict, and to allay anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality. In the psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud, denial is described as a primitive defense mechanism. Anna Freud studied the widespread occurrence of denial among small children and explained that the mature ego does not continue to make extensive use of denial, because it conflicts with the capacity to recognize and critically test reality. Most people employ denial at some time in their lives when coping with stressful situations, such as the death of a loved one. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's influential theory describes denial as the first stage of a dying person's progress in coming to terms with terminal illness. In such instances, denial may be considered adaptive. It is considered maladaptive, however, when it becomes delusional. In recent years, the term is used more generally, to describe the suppression of reality rather than a particular defense mechanism in the Freudian sense. |
|
defense mechanism, in psychoanalysis, any of
a variety of unconscious personality reactions which the ego uses to protect
the conscious mind from threatening feelings and perceptions. Sigmund Freud first
used defense as a psychoanalytic term (1894), but he did not break the
notion into categories, viewing it as a singular phenomenon of repression.
His daughter, Anna Freud, expanded
on his theories in the 1930s, distinguishing some of the major defense
mechanisms recognized today. Primary defense mechanisms include repression
and denial,
which serve to prevent unacceptable ideas or impulses from entering the
conscience. Secondary defense mechanisms—generally appearing as an outgrowth
of the primary defense mechanisms—include projection, reaction formation,
displacement, sublimation, and isolation. |
|
|