challenges resolve of Guarantor Nations

By M. Filli A.

29 Sep, 2003

The prelude

I submitted an opinion on January 28 2002 warning that defying The Hague Verdict is not a game, in anticipation of the pronouncement of the verdict of the EEBC in February of same year but had to be postponed twice because Ethiopia’s rulers, the Woyané, went potty on it. Don’t get me wrong now; I don’t claim to be a clairvoyant of any sort. It was only my gut feeling and Woyané’s attitude towards the pronouncement of the verdict that provoked my warning.

My gut feeling didn’t let me down, though! Soon after The Hague verdict was pronounced, Ethiopia’s rulers found themselves under the chokehold of The Hague: They had to choose between peace by accepting the verdict unequivocally as they have obliged themselves to under the Algiers Agreement, or reject the verdict and plunge the people of Ethiopia into a war with the Guarantor Nations for no other reason than to salvage the political survival of the Woyané. That is not all, the Woyané is also under the chokehold of the truism: Loose lips sink ships, because they lied to their people about the verdict. Faced with all that, the Woyané started pussyfooting and having second thoughts about the EEBC decision. To that effect, they didn’t leave any stone unturned in their futile search for political Heinrich Maneuver for relief: They tried linguistic acrobatic and semantic twisting to distort and mischaracterize the EEBC decision; attempted to frustrate the EEBC by trying to reopen the case which was repeatedly rebuffed as inadmissible, to say the least, by the EEBC; they deployed local chieftains, sub-chieftains, and gubernatorial administrative assistant of a shanty town called Shilalo to insinuate local resistance to the verdict in a futile attempt to pressure the EEBC; they hired an academic mercenary, yes some one who uses his academic mantle to distort facts for money, the Dutch man Prof.J. Abbink, an anthropoligist who doesn’t have the slightest idea of what “ex aequo et bono” means, to say the least, let alone academic qualification to challenge the EEBC; and then there is the infantile tantrums and intellectual imbecility of erudite Ethiopians running amok with a vacuous slogan “colonial treaties are illegal because they were signed under the threat of force and duress”. How much dimwit can one be? I don’t know of any law/s (local, regional, or international) that existed prior to the advent of Colonialism that would have prevented colonialists from acquiring and establishing colonial territories; that notwithstanding let me concede that of course, colonial treaties are/were “illegal” because colonialism by itself was “illegal”. But colonialism did create geopolitical realities that became the norms and basis of international law, which accordingly caries the label “normative” and has been accepted and practiced ever since on this planet earth. Hence, Nation States/countries established according to colonial treaties is the norm on this planet. If you can’t live with that, then you will have to move to another planet where you can have it all, otherwise, you will be making gutter fools of your selves here. As a matter of fact, Africa including Ethiopia declared colonial boundaries as established by colonial treaties sacrosanct (1964 Cairo).

Another equally vacuous, risible, and baseless argument that is being propagated by dimwit erudite Ethiopians against the EEBC decision is that it makes Ethiopia landlocked, hence denying xxx million people access to the sea. They are getting dumb and dumber by the minute! The Hague verdict neither creates landlocked Ethiopia nor does it deny Ethiopia’s right to access to the sea. It is the 19^th century “scramble for Africa”, colonialism, that created landlocked Ethiopia in the first place, so blame colonialism or take it up with Italy for that matter. Ethiopia has all the right to access to the sea, but Ethiopia has no right whatsoever to conquer and possess sovereign Eritrean ports. Analogically, the right to drive a car does not come with the right to rob and own other peoples’ car/property? Eritrean seaports are open for service to all countries of the world in accordance with the rules and regulation of Eritrean Port Authority, and Ethiopia is no exception to that. While that was all the blabber of erudite Ethiopians and others in service of Woyane’s mission to renege on the Algiers Agreement, it was not all. Woyane’s last ditch effort to get around The Hague verdict exposed Ethiopia’s diplomatic infantilism when their US ambassador issued a letter dated 3 Sep 2003 in response to HR 2760 of the US congress. In that and inter alia, Ethiopia accuses USA of siding with Eritrea, threatens to blackmail US effort to combat terrorism in the Horn of Africa should HR2760 become law, and makes a warped reference to the 1993 referendum hinting to the USA that if it were not for that referendum, which Ethiopia allowed, Eritrea wouldn’t have gained national independence. Well, well, well. First of all, the USA considers both Eritrea and Ethiopia as friendly countries. The USA is not siding and did not side with Eritrea because the dispute/contradiction is not between Eritrea and Ethiopia but between Ethiopia, and the international community, where the USA is a major participant, that has a written obligation and commitment to defend, protect, and implement this particular agreement, Algiers Agreement, which Ethiopia is reneging on. By its action, the USA is only fulfilling its international commitment. The USA would have acted exactly the same way had the tables been turned around and Eritrea were the reneging party. Thus, this business of the USA siding with Eritrea is baseless to say the least and utter diplomatic infantilism at best, sorry. Secondly, trying to blackmail the USA by denying it cooperation in its war against terrorism for “siding with this or that country” is not only childish but also makes Ethiopia part of the problem that has to be dealt with accordingly without stopping the USA from doing what it has to do to achieve its objectives in that regard. Now to the issue of the 1993 referendum: Who is kidding whom here? By the referendum some body was trying to do Ethiopia, the darling of the west, a favor. The referendum has nothing to do with Eritrea’s national independence. It was designed as a face-saving measure to cover the ugly face of the defeated mighty Ethiopia’s occupation army; otherwise, what sense does it make to conduct a referendum whose outcome was obvious to foes and friends of Eritrea alike, well in advance? Declaring Eritrea’s national independence then and there in 1991 was not only possible but also justifiable (PIA, 24 May 2003).

Finally, let me take a rhetorical shot at the ambassador’s blabber regarding “claim based on prior administration”. Let me ask you all: What is the difference between Italy’s administration of Eritrea by virtue of its colonial occupation of the land, British administration of Eritrea by virtue of its military occupation of the land, and Ethiopia’s administration of Eritrea by virtue of forced federation and subsequent annexation and forceful occupation of Eritrea? The answer is: No difference, because all three countries were exerting administrative control over forcefully occupied territory (subjugation), to which the people of Eritrea were forced to submit by military force, which if I may use the most favorite vocabulary of erudite Ethiopians, is illegal? That is the fact everyone is aware of, not the crap that “Everyone is aware of the fact that, before 1991 all Eritrea was administered by Ethiopia”. It is that kind of “administration” (subjugation by Ethiopia) that the Woyane is blabbering about and trying to legitimize, other than that Ethiopia has never administered Eritrea or any parts of Eritrea, for Eritrea has never been part of Ethiopia, ever, unless one wants to overtly justify and validate forceful annexation of a Nation State, which again in the vocabulary of erudite Ethiopians is illegal. To liberate the people and country of Eritrea from the grips of and subjugation by that kind of “administration” was also the fons et origo of Eritrea’s armed struggle for its legitimate national right. To the contrary, Ethiopian rulers are bent on perpetuating that kind of “administration” true to their congenital expansionist hallucinations about “2ooo” years old “Ethiopian Empire”.

All of the above mentioned palaver and political maneuvering of Ethiopia’s rulers, Woyane’, and their servicemen was nothing but a foreplay to reopen the verdict at best, which has failed, or to simply renege on the Algiers Agreement and test the resolve of the Guarantor Nations, which stands, and a prelude to Ethiopia’s final act:

Withdrawal from the peace process

In a letter dated 19 Sep 2003, the PM of Ethiopia opens his countries declaration of withdrawal from the Eritro-Ethiopian peace process by asking the UN Security Council for assistance because the peace process is at a “deadlock”. Folks, he is not kidding! He really needs assistance because he is about to commit political suicide of the gravest magnitude and plunge the undeserving people of Ethiopia into a war of the Millennium against the mightiest of all on earth, the Guarantor Nations of the Algiers Agreement. And then he talks about deadlock. What “deadlock”? Deadlock my foot! The Hague verdict does not know “deadlock” because it is neither negotiable nor can it be appealed. It is a take it and peace, or leave it and face the wrath of the Guarantor Nations deal. Thus, the PM is using the word “deadlock” here as a euphemism for Ethiopia’s overt rejection of the EEBC verdict, for Eritrea has accepted it without ifs and buts ever since its pronouncement. Next, the PM outlined the reasons for Ethiopia’s withdrawal from the peace process in no uncertain terms as follows.

1. Ethiopia rejects The Hague verdict unequivocally, overtly, and in no uncertain terms because it is a recipe for perpetual war between Eritrea and Ethiopia- This is an audacious affront to the international community and must not stand because why would the international community sponsor and stand firmly behind a verdict that would lead two poorest countries of the world into perpetual war?

2. The EEBC refuses to reopen the case. The Hague Agreement precludes the EEBC from reopening the case unless both parties call for it. Eritrea accepts and accepted the verdict as is and in conformance with Algiers Agreemnt and did not have any reason to reopen it, case closed.

3. Because the EEBC turned down Ethiopia’s baseless argument for claim over BADME and reaffirmed Eritrea’s sovereignty over BADME

4. Because of Eritrea's total rejection of dialogue on demarcation. Again, The Hague verdict is an accept/reject deal. Eritrea accepts and has accepted the EEBC ruling on Delimitation and Demarcation as is and in compliance with the Algiers Agreement, is happy and has no problem with it. Ethiopia rejects the ruling of the EEBC; that is their consequential option. Case closed. Thus, Eritrea’s categorical rejection of dialogue on demarcation is well in conformance with the Algiers Agreement and within its therein-ascribed rights.

5. Because the EEBC did not adjudicate the case contrary to the “ex aequo et bono” clause of the Algiers Agreement. Well, don’t blame the EEBC for that because the Peace agreement precludes the EEBC from adjudicating the matter based on “ex aequo et bono”.

Furthermore, the PM even sets the conditions for Ethiopia’s return to the peace process under the threat of war as follows:

1. Garbage the EEBC ruling.

2. Trash the EEBC and consequently the Algiers agreement (EEBC is the basis of the Algiers Agreement).

3. Set up an alternative commission/mechanism that is constituted according to Ethiopia’s wishes and

4. Reopen/re-adjudicate the case.

5. Other than that, Ethiopia will maintain the current geographic status quo of the southern border of the TSZ and recognize it as the boundary between the two countries and will resist forcefully any attempt to change it whenever and by whomever.

There you have it Ladies and Gentlemen of the Guarantor Nations in particular, the UN and the world community in general. You can’t have it any clearer: Ethiopia has thrown the whole Algiers Agreement in your face and is withdrawing from the peace process with a big bang! With that Ethiopia is challenging the resolve and commitment of the Guarantor Nations and is voluntarily calling for the forceful implementation of The Hague verdict as stipulated in the Algiers Agreement. There should be no doubt about that. To that effect and with all due respect for the people of Ethiopia, among whom I have many friends and even family members, I call upon and urge the Guarantor Nations and the international community to follow the example of US Congress,HR2760, and to immediately start executing the Algiers Agreement in its fullest extent by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It is time that the international community makes it clear to the rulers of Ethiopia that defying The Hague verdict, trashing international agreements and UN Security Council resolutions is indeed not a game. I rest my case.

Eritrea will prevail

Dr. M. Filli A.