|
Ethiopia: War or Peace? |
|
Taking up issues with ICG |
|
|
|
Editorial: EritreaDaily.net |
|
13-Oct-03 |
|
|
|
Background |
|
|
|
Following
two years of border war (1998-2000) that claimed some 100 000 lives and under
the pressure and active participation of the international community, notably
USA, EU, AU, and the UN, Eritrea and Ethiopia signed the Algiers Agreement
(Dec 2000) to end the border dispute peacefully. Under the Agreement, both
Eritrea and Ethiopia agreed and accepted in writing to establish the Eritrea
Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) as the only and sole authority to
adjudicate their border dispute whose ruling will be final and binding and
which both parties agreed to only accept and abide by, wherever the
chips may fall, under the threat of force by the international community if
not. |
|
|
|
In
April 2002, the Commission rendered its verdict. Then, Eritrea and Ethiopia
had one and only one option: to accept and only accept the verdict because
that is what both countries agreed and committed themselves to when they
signed the Algiers Agreement, and the question “whether Eritrea and Ethiopia
resume the path of war or solidify their peace agreement” that the ICG posed
in its report “ Ethiopia and Eritrea: War or Peace?, 24 Sep 2003” was also answered
then: Eritrea chose the path of peace
and accepted the verdict unequivocally and in utter compliance with the
letter and spirit of the Algiers agreement believing that “Only the full implementation of the
Algiers Agreements will lead to sustainable peace.”, which the UN Security
Council also reiterated in its letter of
Oct 01 2003. On the other hand, Ethiopia initially pretended to accept
the verdict but then baulked for 18 moths until 19 Sep 2003 when it formally
declared its outright defiance of the verdict challenging the resolve of the
nations of the world and voluntarily calling for the forceful implementation
of the verdict as stipulated in the Agreement. That is why we took out
Eritrea from the equation expressed by the ICG title in order to emphasize
that Eritrea has already answered the question by opting for peace then and
staying the course to-date unequivocally and that it is now for Ethiopia and
Ethiopia alone to answer the question by rephrasing the title to “Ethiopia:
War or Peace?” to reflect the real challenge that the world community is
facing today; because the issue today is Ethiopia, which is in outright
defiance of and at odds with all what the nations of the world stand for, not
Eritrea. As it stands, ICG’s title of its report implicates Eritrea wrongly
and unfairly in what is clearly a case “Ethiopia vs. rest of the world” and
negates Eritrea’s determined decision for peace as expressed by its
unequivocal acceptance of the EEBC verdict to date. |
|
|
|
Political
status post EEBC verdict |
|
|
|
In
its report, the ICG remarks that “ The governments of both Eritrea and Ethiopia
face harder line elements that believe too much has already been given away
in the peace process and are unwilling to countenance further flexibility.”
That is only partially correct because it is valid for Ethiopia. Otherwise,
it doesn’t have any truth, even remotely, as far as Eritrea is concerned
because we don’t know and there are no public records of hard or harder line
Eritrean elements that have publicly or otherwise expressed their opposition
to the EEBC verdict in one form or another and unwillingness to face further
flexibility. As a matter of fact it
wouldn’t be exaggeration to say that Eritreans would have welcomed it if the
demarcation were started even a day after the pronouncement of the verdict
for the simple reason that we have more important things to do, such as
rebuilding, development, and democratization of Eritrea, than to squabble
over some thing that is final and binding to the entire world but Ethiopia.
Having said that, here is the obvious: No legal arbitration will satisfy any
one party 100% let alone both parties. Therefore, let there be no mistake
that Eritrea’s acceptance of the EEBC verdict was in light of that fact and
in reverence to its international commitment and the rule of law only. |
|
|
|
Moreover,
the ICG (International Crisis Group) further remarks “For both sides, losing
Badme would make the sacrifice of 1998-2000 conflict much harder to justify.”
That is rubbish as far as Eritrea is concerned because Eritreans knew and
understood that Badme was only a pretext for Ethiopia to conquer and to
reoccupy Eritrean port city of Assab, for Ethiopia did not stop the war after
re-occupying Badme but advanced to conquer Assab, which failed. Badme is
the casus belli only for Ethiopia; as far as Eritrea is
concerned Badme was only a pretext and Assab was the casus belli. |
|
|
|
Recommendations |
|
|
|
In
its recommendation to the USA, EU, AND AU, under item 5(b) the ICG calls for
“immediate opening …negotiation of port access for Ethiopia.” This is simply misplaced
because “port access for Ethiopia has never been substance of the EEBC or The
Algiers Agreement in any form whatsoever. Eritrean seaports are inextricably
bound to its territorial and national sovereignty and are open for service to
all countries of the world in accordance with the regulation of Eritrean Port
Authority, and Ethiopia is no exception to that. Port access for Ethiopia is
some thing that could be settled, following successful completion of the
demarcation and the re-establishment of standard diplomatic relations between
the two countries, based on mutual interest and respect for territorial and
national sovereignty and the principles of non-interference in each other’s
internal affairs and cannot be dictated by foreign influence or Ethiopia’s
“special” needs. |
|
|
|
Under
item 5(d), the ICG further recommends “mutual agreement, in the context of
technical alterations suggested by the two parties’ field liaison officers,
on small adjustments to the demarcation line to satisfy humanitarian,
geographical, security or political needs;” With all due respect, this is a
call to violate the “ex aequo et buono” clause of the Algiers Agreement which
the EEBC in no uncertain terms has turned down as follows: |
|
“The
main thrust of the Ethiopian comments is that the boundary should be varied
so as |
|
to
take better account of human and physical geography. The Commission has
always made it clear that it has not been given the power to vary the
boundary delimited in the April Decision. In particular, the December 2000
Agreement expressly precluded the Commission from deciding matters ex
aequo et bono: it did not confer on the Commission, as it could have done
and as has been done in the demarcation arrangements for many other
boundaries, the power to vary the boundary in the process of demarcation for
the purpose of meeting local human needs. Absent such authority, the hands of
the Commission are in large measure tied.” And Eritrea has categorically
rejected any attempt that compromises or even reopens the final and binding
decision of the EEBC, in whatever form, at least for the simple reason of
maintaining the sanctity of a final and binding arbitration. |
|
|
|
|
|
Our recommendations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the month of October, indeed the next few days, Ethiopia must
decide whether to let demarcation proceed as scheduled and demanded by the
international community and opt for peace or baulk and face the wrath of
Chapter vii of UN Charter including military confrontation with Guarantor
Nations not on behalf of Eritrea but on behalf of the rule of law. The clock
is ticking! And for the sake of the undeserving people of Ethiopia, beat the
clock, Woyané? |
|
Eritrea will prevail, rule of law will reign |
|
|
|
|