Eritrea: A Perverted Understanding Of The Algiers Agreement

Commentary

12 October 2007

The Algiers Peace Agreement that ended the border war (1998 – 2000) between Eritrea and Ethiopia has never been, was not, is not and never has been so designed and crafted to be a one-line agreement limited only to the outcome of the legal arbitration of the border dispute by any standard as the ruler of Eritrea, Isaias Afewerki, would like the rest of the world to believe. That is an absolutely perverted understanding of the Algiers Agreement.

The Algiers Peace Agreement, read top to bottom, is a comprehensive peace pact designed and crafted indeed by the wise men (Afewerki) to end the war, to preclude another one, bring about peaceful, legally binding and ultimate resolution of the border dispute, and eventually restore normal relations between the two nations.

Under ‘The Algiers Peace Agreement’, from top to bottom, the two nations Solemnly reaffirmed their acceptance of the Organization of African Unity ("OAU") Framework Agreement and the Modalities for its Implementation, Solemnly recommitted themselves to their treaty obligations under the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, and Solemnly agreed to and accepted to abide by the 6 Articles of the Algiers Peace Agreement unconditionally.

That is what makes up the Algiers Peace Agreement. It is kind of 3-in-1 agreement without according pre-eminence to one or the other agreement, which, one the hand, would have defeated the nature, intent, and purpose of the whole peace pact, and on the other hand in order to preclude the parties from picking and choosing the agreement they want to abide by, which would in turn violate the integrity of the agreement. Yet, today, we are where are because both countries have decided to abide by the agreement they have respectively picked and chosen: Ethiopia is stuck with compliance with the Cessation of Hostilities agreement while in violation of the agreement that involves the legal resolution of the border dispute, and Eritrea is stuck with compliance with the agreement that involves the legal resolution of the border dispute while in violation of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement. Consequently, both sides find themselves in utter violation of the peace pact, though for different reasons.

Even though it is kind of 3-in-1 agreement, each of the 3 listed agreements entered into by the two nations has its own peculiarities, purpose and intent, with built-in specific enforcement mechanism and UN/OAU guarantee where necessary.

Moreover, where one such specific enforcement mechanism or UN guarantee is incorporated into any of those international agreements, it is clearly stated that it is limited and pertains to commitments made under that particular agreement.

Compliance with the Algiers Agreement mandates compliance with all the three agreements. Non-compliance with any or all of the 3 agreements or partial compliance constitutes violation of the Algiers Peace Agreement.

With that in mind, let me now turn to a couple of points that jumped at me from Afewerk’s interview with IRIN posted today.

When asked about the way forward out of the border stalemate, Afewerki responded “The possibility and the only option for going forward would be to demarcate the border and for the international community, particularly the [UN] Security Council, to take its responsibility and obligation as far as the treaty [Algiers agreement] is concerned and the decision [of the Boundary Commission] is concerned and enforce that decision.”
While the first part of Afewerki’s response is correct, the second part is simply wrong and has no validity beyond wishful thinking. Firstly, by treaty, the Algiers Agreement was entered into between Eritrea and Ethiopia only; the UN/Security Council is not party to the Algiers Agreement. The UN only facilitated the crafting of the Agreement and signed on as witness to the signing of the Algiers Agreement by the two parties. Secondly, there is nothing in the treaty of Algiers, in any form or shape, which would even remotely oblige, authorize, or empower the UN/Security Council to assume the role of Law Enforcement Agency for the decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission. By treaty of Algiers, therefore, the UN/Security Council has neither the responsibility nor the obligation to enforce the decision of the boundary Commission.

Unlike our day to day courts of law where they have the police readily available to enforce their decisions right away, International courts of law in The Hague like the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that adjudicated the Eritrea/Ethiopia border dispute or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that adjudicated the Cameroon/Nigeria case do not have such a Law Enforcement Agency or a standing army available to enforce their legal decisions at all. Once the verdict of one such an international court is spoken, the enforcement of its decision is left first and foremost to the discretion of the political willingness and ability/power of the political disputants to act responsibly. Mr. Afewerki, that is the only peaceful way to act. Waiting or calling for a third party to enforce the border decision would leave you waiting in eternity and calling forever. And if you need UN’s help in breaking this statemate, the best way of going about it is cooperating with not antagonizing the UN. The UN does not consider restricting UN peacekeepers’ ability to do their job and selective expulsion of its personel as cooperation but as a direct affront. That is a wrong way of doing business with the UN.

When asked for his reaction to Ethiopia’s accusation that Eritrea is in breach of the Algiers Agreement, Afewerki did not deny directly deny the breach, Afewerki pointed out to the border decision and said “Eritrea accepted the decision and that is the cardinal issue as far as the Algiers agreement is concerned. [It] was meant to resolve the border conflict by the establishment of a commission and also making it clear that the decision of the Boundary Commission will be final and binding. Ethiopia has not to date accepted and has violated the agreement.” This is, by any standard, absurdly perverted understanding of the Algiers agreement, Mr. Afewerki. The Algiers agreement is not and was not meant to be a one-line agreement designed and crafted to resolve only one issue but a comprehensive agreement designed and crafted to resolve more than one issue including the border issue without according pre-eminence to any one issue. As a matter of fact, the primary reason why the international community interfered was to stop the dreadful and senseless border carnage immediately. And the Cessation of Hostitlities agreement that stopped the carnage is the cardinal Algiers agreement because there is nothing more cardinal than bringing an end to the senseless killings and deaths of human beings. Even today, the primary concern of the international community is fear of renewed border war and ensuing senseless carnage again not lack of breaking the stalemate, which will be broken one way or the other, sooner or later. That explains the significance of the constant call to restore the sanctity of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement.

The only reason you are labeling the border decision ‘cardinal’ is to deflect attention away from your blatant violation of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement. Otherwise, there is no such thing as cardinal or non-cardinal issue in the Algiers Agreement. All issues addressed by the Algiers Agreement are equally relevant vis á vis the integrity, purpose, and intent of the agreement.

In response to issues regarding support for armed opposition groups from neighboring countries, Afewerki wondered how people that assented to power after waging armed rebellion for their rights now turn around and label those doing the same thing ‘terrorists’? Mr. President, I never thought this would be mind boggling to you. The answer is simple: By the same token you are now labeling some Eritreans ‘terrorists’ or ‘Islamic Jihadists’ if they happen to be Moslims, for fighting for their rights, sir?

As to the “booming economy”, all I want to ask is who is hiring, Mr. President? What is the unemployment rate in this African economic wunder? 1,2,3,4 %? I don’t see the local newspapers inundated with ‘Help Wanted’ Ads, do you?

Mr. President, they say “doing the same thing the same way over and over and expecting a different result is nuts.” Interviews after interviews only to say the same thing the same way over and over expecting different outcome is nuts. Try some thing else. Snap out of your tyrannical "my or the highway" mode of opration because it will not take you anywhere. The border decision is not going to be implemented your way or by a third party but the Algiers Agreement way.

Let me leave you with the following remarks of the wise man, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, president of the independent Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, "We regret that we could not take our work through to its conclusion, but at least we leave you with a line that is operable," Sir Elihu said. "It is up to you to work out how to implement it." (Spoken at the end of early September 07 meeting) How about trying that for a change, Mr. president?

Author can be contacted at bmtekeste@yahoo.com