February 7, 2002

Mereb-Belesa-Muna

Re.: Ghezae H. Berhe

M. Filli A

Dear Ghezae, you bemoaned: “one that stains others with and infantilism imbecility, is expected to weigh opposite arguments before he gives learned judgment. “

I was only reacting to the verbose and vituperative harangue O. Yohannes launched against me, not that I offended him personally but on behalf of a third person- taking vengeance for others. And, with all due respect, I call what you are doing “Aytehazulay inabelka Tserfee”, too. And I don’t appreciate that either, not that you should care about it but just to let you know.

I deal with The Hague without politicizing it, while you first politicize it – Goe, politically incompetent (loss of Hanish), decried the recent outcome of the national assembly, and the political situation in our country, and then deal with it in that context. It is no wonder, therefore, that we have differing perceptions of the outcome of The Hague: While I put my money on the GOE, for you it is a bet. There is nothing wrong with that.

I did weigh opposite arguments but was reluctant to express them in words because the case has already been tried in court and I did not see any reason other than to engage in an academic exercise in a futile attempt to retry the case in cyber space and to second guess the Goe. So, I chose to remain reactive in that respect because I don’t know for sure what exactly the pertinent international law argument of the other side was/is. To that effect, I did put out the following challenge in response to a Dehai reader:

“From: Mesoud Filli

Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 15:21:05 EST

Selam XY:

Seyoum Mesfin needs to be specific when he refers to "international law"? But as you well know for obvious reasons he doesn't want to cite the pertinent sections or articles which he thinks would vindicate his case.”

To your credit, you raise the section of the international law that deals with issue of “prescriptive acquisition”. I cannot say with certainty that this issue was indeed raised and debated in The Hague. Regardless, I did touch on it without mentioning it when I questioned in one of my posts if the application of “prescriptive acquisition” would overturn the sacrosanctity of colonial borders (OAU Res. 1964) and void the colonial treaties 1900,1902,1908 and expect the rest of African countries to remain intact, after all, The Hague has accepted the cited colonial treaties and OAU Res. as the LAW and the Basis by which this case shall be adjudicated. Thus, though not a lawyer like you, the answer is No, because that is outside of their expressed mandate and it would be preposterous (Burkina Faso v Mali).

It should be obvious to a lawyer like you, I presume, that one cannot represent both parties in a legally contested setting? Hence, in this case I chose to argue on behalf of my country and left it to others to argue the case of the other side.

Finally, your accusatory statement: “Though his attacks on fellow scholars like Dr. Oqubazghi were unnecessary,” is absolutely unfounded and unfair because, as stated above, I was only responding to his unprovoked attacks by proxy on me.

Even now, Eritrea will prevail

Mesoud Filli