Eritrea: Factual distortions, lies, á la ‘The Economist’ magazine

The Crew, EritreaDaily.net

24 April 2005

In a kind of a commentary entitled “Eritrea’s growing isolation”/“Eritrea-Whispers of a new war” that it printed on 21 April 2005, ‘The Economist’ magazine grossly distorts well documented facts and disseminates blatant lies regarding the fate and nature of the ruling that conclusively decided and determined the course of the border shared by Eritrea and Ethiopia.

The expressed and sole mandate of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission has been to delimit and demarcate the border shared between Eritrea and Ethiopia wherever the chips (meaning wherever one, two or multiple-goat villages, towns, or cities) may fall. Hence, The Economist’s assertion that “the commission awarded the disputed two-goat town of Badme to Eritrea” is a malicious distortion of the mandate of the Commission. That “the two-goat town of Badme” fell on the Eritrean side of the border is merely a consequence of the delimitation decision and not a determination by the commission, for which it didn’t have the mandate. The commission’s mandate has never been to award this or that town to either party but to decide and delimit the shared border regardless of where towns/villages/cities may fall.

The decision of the Commission must be accepted without any qualification: Meaning no acceptance in general, in principle, or any other kind of acceptance but unequivocal acceptance. That is the dictate of the nature of the decision of the commission that was so determined and accepted by Ethiopia and certainly Eritrea, too.

When the Commission announced its decision in 2002, Ethiopia accepted the verdict as is first, immediately, and only hours later and even warned the int’l community to make sure Eritrea follows suit unequivocally while at the same time extolling the Commission and its decision without any reservation. Then balked for 18 months and only in September of 2003 did Ethiopia declare its “rejection” of the ruling? Hence, The Economist’s assertion “But when the commission awarded the disputed two-goat town of Badme to Eritrea in 2002, Ethiopia rejected the ruling” is an outright lie.

At the time (September 2003), Ethiopia said it would accept only some of the ruling and demanded re-negotiation of the rest under a different setting. Today and since November 2004, Ethiopia is posing exactly the same demands (partial acceptance (85%), and further talks/dialogue to re-negotiate the rest (15%) in disguise. This time around Ethiopia got a lesson from the British about how to express and maintain rejection without appearing to reject it. Ergo, Ethiopia dropped the negative term ‘rejection’ and replaced it with the phrase ‘acceptance in principle’ that has negative connotation but sounds positive because it feigns acceptance. And acceptance is what The Economist tried to make its readers believe when it wrote, “Ethiopia finally said it accepted the commission's decision” when in reality and by all accounts Ethiopia has remained as defiant as ever even by The Economist’s own admission because that statement was followed by the qualification “but insisted on further talks”.

As to the fate of the decision of the boundary commission, The Economist kindly lavished the following discouragements: “Eritrea may have international law on its side, but no global policeman seems inclined to enforce it. With 16 times the population, Ethiopia is commercially weightier. It is also more important strategically, since it shares a border with anarchic Somalia, which America frets might be a breeding ground for terrorists. Ethiopia's leaders are expert schmoozers. The Prime minister, Meles Zenawi, for example, is a friend of Britain's Tony Blair. Eritrea's president, Issaias Afwerki, is less welcome in the corridors of power, not least because he has turned Eritrea into a military dictatorship”. The conjecture from that is “International commitment is neither dependable nor credible and the rule of law is subservient to Realpolitik, consequently might is right”. And all that only and simply because the decision of a court of law didn't go Ethiopia's way.

Well it has been said before very often but it is worth repeating one more time “The Economist Magazine is good for a laugh”.