|
18 March 2003 Ethiopia’s ‘Accept and Deceive’
swindles exposed to its bare bones M. Filli A. This comes to no surprise
to Eritrea, Eritreans, friends of Eritrea and even Ethiopians themselves! It
was only a matter of time; and that time came on March 6, 2003 when a UN
report by the EEBC and the secretary general of the UN, unmasked Ethiopia’s
repeated statements of “Acceptance and commitment to The Hague decision of
April 13, 2002” as nothing but political humbug for in reality Ethiopia is
and has been working actively to sabotage and scuttle not only the process of
demarcation but also the whole peace agreement. And in their own words:
“Ethiopia has continued to seek variations to the boundary line delimited in
the April Decision, and has done so in terms that appear, despite
protestations to the contrary, to undermine not only the April Decision but
also the peace process as a whole. EEBC report Part one (5), Mar 6, 2003
”. And in the words of the secretary
general of the UN, Mr. K. Annan,: “Efforts to reopen fundamental matters
already settled through binding arbitration could only be counterproductive.”
Mr. Annan’s clear message here is that
‘counterproductive’ means that defying The Hague verdict is not a
game. In its report, the EEBC exposed Ethiopia’s
fraudulent ‘Accept and Deceive’ swindles exhaustively, in the fullest details
only possible, and to its bare bones and called upon the guarantor nations
and the UN Security council to rise up to their stated responsibilities and
obligations to the Agiers Agreement in no uncertain terms. Both the EEBC and
the secretary general reached their conclusions only and solely, and in
accordance with the Algiers Agreement, which Ethiopia signed and agreed to verbatim
et literatum and upon which the April 2002 Hague Decision was based. So
did Eritrea, too. Now allow me to
recap the Algiers peace Agreement: This Agreement is sue generis in
the sense that it has a built-in political fail-safe mechanisms both in terms
of the Agreement itself in general and in terms of the scope, composition,
function, authority and decisions of the EEBC and was crafted, conceived, and
destined to succeed. It has the following unique features to assure its
success: 1.
Guarantor nations. Ironically, it was Ethiopia that was insisting and
calling loud and clear for a guarantee from the international community for
fear that Eritrea might renege on the Agreement. Accordingly, US, EU, UN, and
the now AU accepted and committed themselves to assure the success of the
Agreement. Well, lo and behold who has been and is engaged actively and
tirelessly in a futile attempt to renege on the Algiers Agreement: The
above-cited EEBC report has made that clear, not Eritrea. Aside from that,
Ethiopia’s futile attempt to renege on the Agreement was already evident when
the public pronouncement of The Hague verdict had to be postponed multiple
times only at the request of Ethiopia. 2.
Basis and limitations of
EEBC decision. While the Agreement
clearly stated that the EEBC shall base its decision solely and only on the
mutually agreed upon colonial treaties and applicable international law, it
“expressly precluded the commission from deciding matters ex aequo et bono”
as the EEBC correctly reiterated in its most recent report. Accordingly and
rightly so, Eritrea and Ethiopia must accept the outcome of the delimitation
and demarcation regardless of the fact that the physical marking of the
border might split mountains, rivers, lakes, trees, people or political
interests. This has nothing to do with one’s right/wrong mindedness because
the Agreement expressly precludes the commission from deciding matters based
on their mental status. That is the name of the Agreement: Strict adherence
to the rules of the game. Hence, the recent blabber of Meles Zenawi is
nothing but another futile attempt to renege on the Agreement. Having
said that, colonialism has already created boundaries that split and
dispersed the people of any given ethnic group into various countries, and if
the border demarcation now results in a secondary dislocation and dispersal
of people and transfer of territories, then blame Ethiopia, for it was
Ethiopia that defied the colonial status quo challenging Eritrea’s colonial
borders to the extent of trying to correct it by force. 3.
Finality and binding nature of EEBC decision. Another
unique feature of the Algiers Agreement is that both parties signed and
agreed to, that the decision of the EEBC is final and binding. Translation: Final
means that there is and won’t be any verdict other than the initial
verdict of the EEBC, and binding means that both parties must accept
it, there is no appeal mechanism or recourse. With that, both parties have
voluntarily waived their right to appeal, dispute, or challenge the decision
of the EEBC. Hence, the recent blabber of Tekeda Alemu regarding Ethiopia’s
right to challenge the UN is baseless, further futile attempt to renege on
the Agreement and constitutes a blatant flout of the Algiers Agreement. Let me now return to
the UN. In response to EEBC’s report, the UN Security council passed a
unanimous resolution on March14. 2003, reiterating its continued,
unconditional, full and unswerving support for the EEBC, extended its mandate
for another six months, and called upon Eritrea and Ethiopia, without
prejudice, to accept and adhere to their commitment to the Algiers agreement
and to abide by all EEBC orders. For that, I refer you to the report itself. and Un security council’s response to EEBC report, March14,
2003 Here some excerpts: “Unanimously adopting
resolution 1466 (2003), the Council called on both Ethiopia and Eritrea too
cooperate fully and promptly with the Boundary Commission in its delimiting
and demarcating activities, to implement fully the Commission’s binding
Demarcation Directions and to abide promptly by all its orders.” “Welcoming
the eighth report of the Boundary Commission, noting the concerns
expressed therein with regard to full adherence by the parties to the
Boundary Decision and demarcation-related decisions of the Commission, and expressing
its full support for the work of the Commission and the legal framework
within which the Commission is taking its decisions,” As a matter of
principle, the UN is basically a peacekeeping organization. As such, one way
of accomplishing its mission is to launch peacekeeping missions to troubled
regions and assess their reports. The UN Security council listens to their
reports, takes note of their concerns, noncompliance, and breaches but
yet issues pertinent statements without prejudice for the simple reason of
avoiding possible unilateral actions, inflammation of either parties,
appearances of bias, and endangerment of the peace mission. Nevertheless,
there is nothing that prevents individual member states from expressing their
misgivings about flouting international agreements in whatever form and shape
they might choose.Hence, the most recent UN resolution must be understood
within this context. Finally kudos to the
EEBC for exposing Ethiopia’s ‘Accept and deceive’ swindles, and kudos to Secretary
general Kofi Annan for his personal observations and for his efforts to
present EBBC report to the Security council despite its crowded schedule and
recent preoccupation with the Iraq crisis. Eritrea will
prevail. |