|
ERITREA:
Nothing to lose but a lot to gain from Res.1640
Opinion
EritreaDaily.net
04
Dec 2005
It
is a matter of historical records and public documents that Eritrea
has always been compliant with the rule of law in international
relations, binding international agreements and practice even when
all of that didn't necessarily work for Eritrea, and Eritreans are,
have always been and remain law-abiding and peace-loving people.
It
is also a matter of historical records and public documents that
Eritrea is and remains what it is today mainly because the people of
Eritrea put and have always put national interest before any and
every thing else.
The
rule of law is and has always been the ingredient and constitutive
part of Eritrean culture for there is no peace without the rule of
law. Like peace, which is under constant threat of disruptive
forces, the rule of law is under constant threat of the evil known as
politics (call it pollutant?).
UN
Res. 1640/2005
is one instance of politics trying to pollute the rule of law because
it puts emphasis not on the underlying cause but on the arguably
direct consequences of a conflict for no other reason but politics.
It is politics because in any conflict resolution the emphasis is on
eliminating the underlying cause not on remedying the direct
consequences of the underlying cause. That is what makes the
resolution unfair and is also the source of the heated controversy
about it. Yet, Eritrea must not let politics reign over its national
interests. Other than that, sanction or not and legality aside, WHAT
HAS ERITREA TO LOSE BY COMPLYING with Res. 1640/2005 that
“demands
that the Government of Eritrea reverse, without further delay or
preconditions, its decision to ban UNMEE helicopter flights, as well
as additional restrictions imposed on the operations of UNMEE, and
provide UNMEE with the access, assistance, support and protection
required for the performance of its duties;” What has
Eritrea to lose here? NOTHING.
“demands
that both parties return to the 16 December 2004 levels of
deployment, beginning with immediate effect and completing this
redeployment within 30 days, in order to prevent aggravation of the
situation;” What has Eritrea to lose here? NOTHING.
“Demands
that Ethiopia accept fully and without further delay the final and
binding decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission and
take immediately concrete steps to enable, without preconditions,
the Commission to demarcate the border completely and promptly.”
What has Eritrea to lose here? Absolutely NOTHING, but has a lot
to GAIN: With the elimination
of demands 1, and 2, the whole border matter now boils down to one
and only one issue: Ethiopia's absolute, unequivocal, and
immediate compliance with the border decision. With that
Eritrea's long standing demand that the focus be on Ethiopia's
defiant noncompliance is also being fulfilled?
(Note:The
word demand connotes a peremptory request that ends all debates,
doesn't allow refusal or contradiction and entails punitive measures
for noncompliance expressed either explicitly or implicitly. Yes, it
is a command to do what is requested of or else there will certainly
be punitive measures.)
Should
Ethiopia not comply with item 3, which is highly unlikely (what other
viable option does it have?), then Eritrea has still nothing to lose
because Ethiopia will be the only talk and the pressure will be on
the UNSC to take whatever measures necessary under Chapter VII to
compel Ethiopia into compliance, which won't be long. Or in the words
of Washington's ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, this “will
be an important test of the Security Council's effectiveness in
addressing the causes of regional disputes” and “ a
potential pivot point to move beyond the immediate circumstances
(Flight thing, redeployment) and to try and get to a real resolution
of the underlying issue."
PS:
All the blabber about Res.1640 limiting/denying Eritrea's
inherent right to self-defense is airborne, patented absurdity, and
canard. Eritrea's inherent right to defend its national right has
never ever been limited/denied and cannot be limited/denied now or
ever one way or the other. And the other blabber that this resolution
is “a recipe for disastrous war” is no less fatuous for
how does noncompliance/compliance with items 1 and 2 lead to a
disastrous war when the issue of UN copter flight never been the
cause of the war between the two countries?
|
