Showdown at the Horn

       Ethiopia vs. the rest of world


By M. Filli A..

October 8, 2003

 

It is final and stands: Ethiopia reiterated its “rejection” of the final and binding border ruling by an independent, UNsponsored, and international Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) that resolved the border dispute between the two countries in a legal arbitration despite and in spite of UN’s recent call (Oct 3 2003) to promptly abide by the ruling. That is what Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister, Seyoum Mesfin, told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UK Sir Emyr Jones Parry (President of the Security Council), UN special envoys of Germany Gunter Pleuger, French Jean-Marc de la'sabliere, and Libya's senior foreign affairs official Abd-al-Rahman Muhammad Shalghem one by one and in their face when the Foreign Minister met and held talks with them on 7 Oct 2003.

 

With that, Ethiopia’s rulers, the Woyané, have set the stage for a showdown between Ethiopia and the rest of the world, because while the rest of the world not only stands by the EEBC and its verdict but also has a written commitment to implement it, it is only the rulers of Ethiopia that are bluntly and blatantly defying the EEBC verdict despite and in spite of their internationally witnessed commitment to accept and abide by it. By this its action, the Woyané is voluntarily calling for the forceful implementation of the ruling, the ultimate remedy for noncompliance of this magnitude, as stipulated by the Algiers Agreement and with it taking the UN hostage by demanding that either the UN reverses the EEBC ruling or the UN will be forced to impose, against its will, severe and devastating sanctions including the use of force upon the undeserving and peace-loving people of Ethiopia, a nation that has been plagued by famine, drought, pestilence, and for which the international community cares and has always been caring so much. What insanity?

 

Now the ball is back in the court of the UN. But the UN cannot cave in to this kind of terrorist demands of the rulers of Ethiopia, the Woyané. The international community has a written commitment to implement the EEBC decision and must do what it has to do with all due consideration of the humanitarian needs of the people of Ethiopia, for justice and peace to prevail, for international commitments and international law to be upheld, and to preserve the integrity of the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) and ICJ.

 

The international community can no longer entertain Ethiopia’s “Accept and deceive” tactic or “Ethiopia is committed to peaceful resolution” ploy, for it is now beyond any shadow of doubt clear that Ethiopia never accepted the EEBC verdict in the first place but was playing game to reopen it and if that fails to reject it as they reiterated lately. And “Ethiopia is committed to peaceful resolution” was a ploy to save Ethiopia from the wrath of the international community for its rejection of the EEBC ruling, otherwise if Ethiopian rulers meant what they say they only needed to accept the border ruling unequivocally for that is the only peaceful resolution that the Algiers Agreement knew, which was articulated in UNSC response to Ethiopia on 3 Oct 2003 as

“Only the full implementation of the Algiers Agreement will lead to sustainable peace.”  This irresponsible and reckless act of the Woyané must not stand. It must be countered immediately and decisively. It is, therefore, time for the international community to act know, and act decisively.

 

The UNSC response to Ethiopia on 3 Oct 2003 was loud and clear: UN Security Council reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that it firmly stands by the EEBC and its decision and told Ethiopia, inter alia, to abide by its ruling and called for its expeditious implementation. Yet, Ethiopia and the western media put a different spin on it and even some Eritreans misunderstood it:

 

Ethiopia:  First the Ministry of Information and then the President of Ethiopia misconstrued the UN response to mean “forcing or pressuring Ethiopian people to accept this illegal and utterly unjust decision and bla bla bla ".  That is utterly nonsensical. No body is forcing or pressuring Ethiopian people to accept anything, here. All the UN is asking is for Ethiopia to abide by its international commitment to accept and implement the EEBC ruling and holding it to that. And if you want, it is a humble pointer to Ethiopia’s international commitment to accept and abide by the EEBC verdict. And unless Ethiopia wants to deny its international commitment, that is all there is to it.

 

Western Media: UN Refuses to Intervene in Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Dispute (VOA).

The United Nations has rejected Ethiopia's request for UN action   

                                to resolve a border dispute with Eritrea (Reuters)

 

First of all, the UN did not refuse to intervene, to the contrary, it intervened and that is why it issued its response. Second, the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia has already been resolved 18 months ago, following a legal arbitration by a final and binding verdict, which is guaranteed to be implemented, of the EEBC on 13 April 2002, which Eritrea accepted in accordance with Algiers Agreement, and Ethiopia “rejected”, in defiance of the Algiers Agreement. Thus, there is no dispute or conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, or the international community for that matter. What is there is Ethiopia’s, blunt, blatant, and outright defiance of a final and binding verdict of an international border commission (EEBC) that Ethiopia in the presence of international witnesses committed itself to accept and abide by, under the threat of forceful implementation if not.  With that, Ethiopia is not only making a mockery of pertinent UNSC resolutions but is also challenging the resolve of the Guarantor Nations (USA, UN, EU, AU, Algeria) to implement the EEBC verdict forcefully. The issue today is Ethiopia’s outright defiance of a consequential international verdict, not the non-existent Eritro-Ethiopian border dispute, which is being used to shield Ethiopia from the wrath of the international community.

 

BBC’s statement that “The UN also urged both sides to resume talks over their dispute” is a mere fabrication meant to again shield Ethiopia’s outright defiance of international law and a futile attempt to reopen the case- just read the UN response.

Having said that, there is one paragraph in the UN response with reference to “Dialogue” that has been misunderstood and led some to wrong conclusion:

 

The members of the Security Council reaffirm their serious concern at the continuous and abnormal absence of political dialogue between the two parties. They believe that dialogue is essential for the normalization of relations and crucial for the success of the peace process.

 

In that statement, the UN expresses serious concern at the lack/absence of political dialogue between the two countries not to discuss, negotiate, or reopen the EEBC verdict but in the sense of diplomatic relations, the normal way of communication between various countries. It is abnormal because the two countries are neighbors and have more than one reason to maintain diplomatic channel of communication.

 

The Algiers Agreement is very clear in reference to the EEBC: Both Eritrea and Ethiopia committed themselves and agreed only to accept and abide by EEBC ruling. The EEBC does not know “rejection” because it can’t be rejected. Ethiopia’s refusal to accept and abide by EEBC ruling is hence defiance. And that is what the world is facing today, not deadlock, impasse, stalemate. And defiance of EEBC ruling is remedied by invoking chapter vii of UN Charter and not a “dialogue”. Calling for a dialogue is only a ploy to reopen the case and a recipe for the demise of the Algiers Agreement, and that is what the Woyane wants. To err is human, though.

 

Finally, Ethiopia’s definitive decision to defy the EEBC ruling is sad news to the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia. But the international community has to do what it has to do to fulfill its international commitment even it means opting for the necessary evil.

 

 

Eritrea will prevail

 

Dr. M. Filli A.