Ethiopia defies international verdict’

now faces international wrath

By M. Filli A.

11-Oct-03

Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a bloody two-year war over a border conflict in which over 100,000 people were sacrificed before the two countries, under the pressure of the international community, signed the Algiers Agreement (AA) in December 2000 to end the conflict. The AA is all what Ethiopia wanted. As a matter of fact, it can be said that the AA was in effect written by Ethiopia itself because the invasion and occupation of a considerable sovereign Eritrean territory and the then prevalent geopolitical constellation allowed Ethiopia to literally dictate most of the terms, especially those pertaining to the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) of the AA.

The EEBC is the basis and the crux of the AA. If you take the EEBC away, then the AA collapses. The terms of the nature (independent and international) and composition of the EEBC, its modus operandi, and the legal basis for its judgment was all dictated by Ethiopia:

· Ethiopia wanted that the verdict of the EEBC be final and binding, with no right to appeal, it got it.

· Ethiopia wanted to have a guarantee that the EEBC ruling will be implemented, wherever the chips may fall, it got it: US, UN, EU, AU and Algeria committed and obliged themselves to implement the EEBC verdict even by invoking chapter vii of the UN Charter (use of force).

· Ethiopia wanted that only colonial treaties of 1900, 1902, 1908, and applicable international law constitute the basis for adjudicating the conflict. It got it.

· Ethiopia wanted that the EEBC be precluded from making any judgment based on “ex aequo et bono”, Ethiopia got it.

· Ethiopia wanted that both Eritrea and Ethiopia commit and oblige themselves to only accept and abide by the verdict of the EEBC, wherever the chips may fall, and sign the AA in the presence of international witnesses: It got it, too

That was not all; Ethiopia even dictated the date of the pronouncement of the verdict, which was postponed twice only upon Ethiopia’s request. Thus, while Ethiopia dictated most of the terms pertinent to the EEBC, and the EEBC was not only all what Ethiopia wanted but also the way Ethiopia wanted it, the EEBC verdict turned out to be any thing and ever thing but what all Ethiopia wanted and the way it wanted it to be. According to the AA, once the verdict is pronounced, the only option Eritrea and Ethiopia have is to accept it. The verdict cannot be appealed. The verdict cannot be rejected because it is final and binding, will be implemented and becomes international law, which both parties have committed themselves to accept and abide by before even the litigation started. The verdict is there to stay; it is a law. And a law cannot be rejected but defied. While Eritrea has accepted the EEBC verdict without ifs and buts, Ethiopia baulked and engaged in 18 moths of “accept and deceive” drill, until September 19, 2003, when it formally declared that it has definitively decided to defy the verdict, face the wrath and challenge the resolve of the international community to implement the verdict forcefully. By its act, Ethiopia is now in defiance of any thing and every thing international:

· International verdict

· International commitment

· International law

· International resolutions

· International community

· International organizations

· International court, and you name it.

This Ethiopia’s irresponsible act has nothing to do with the resolution of the Eritro-Ethiopian border conflict because that has already been resolved on 13 April 2002 by the final and binding ruling of the EEBC, which both parties have accepted by virtue of signing the AA, nor does it have any thing to do with impasse, deadlock, or stalemate because the verdict is neither negotiable nor can it be appealed. What the international community is facing today is Ethiopia’s blatant defiance of a consequential international verdict, period.

Let there be no mistake here, Eritrea is not asking the international community to act in defense/on behalf of Eritrea or to side with it. The international community must act and will act because it has the written commitment and obligation to implement the ruling of the EEBC as stipulated by the AA. The international community would have acted the same way if Eritrea were the culprit. What is at stake here is sanctity of international arbitration, integrity of international court of arbitration, and most of all the preservation and prevalence of the rule of law. That is why Ethiopia’s blatant defiance of international verdict must not and cannot be allowed to stand. The international community must counter Ethiopia’s defiance of the rule of law swiftly and decisively for fear that otherwise the world would become a playground for the rule of the jungle and “might is right”, which is dangerous to live in.

Yes, Eritrea will prevail, and the rule of law will reign.

Dr. M. Filli A.