|
Axworthy’s
mission pertains to Ethiopia only
Editorial 22 Feb 04 L. Axworthy’s arrival in Ethiopia for
his first day of work as the newly embrocated UNSG’s special emissary to
Eritrea and Ethiopia generated same media hoopla as the day his appointment
was officially proclaimed. Now like then it was again too much ado for
nothing. This time around, the furor was about his being off limits to
Eritrea, which he brought upon himself because of his persistent attempt to
circumvent the irreversible decision and sole authority of the Boundary
Commission over the matter contrary to the declared purpose and intent of his
mission. That being said, what’s really off
limits to Eritrea is Mr. Axworthy’s attempt to abuse his mission as a
masquerade to re-open a legally settled matter, not Axworthy the person. In
doing so, Eritrea is only giving Mr. Axworthy’s an opportunity to reconcile
his subjective perception of the matter with the strict provisions of the
Algiers agreement, the particulars and peculiarities of the Boundary
Commission’s decision and authority, the nature of the dispute, and the
premise and therein entailed specific assignments of his appointment. Absent
that, Mr. Axworthy would be delving into a futile excursion to the fantasy
world of linguistic acrobatic and semantic twisting because we would be
talking about apples and oranges whereby the peace process would be
unraveled. And as Mr. Axworty himself said “that doesn’t mean it is a
permanent state of affair”. Mr. Axworthy will certainly be more than welcome
to Eritrea as soon as he does what is rightly expected of his mission and
gets the order of doing things right. Mr. Axworthy’s denial of the Boundary
Commisson’s decision and his attempt to abuse his mission to reopen a legally
settled matter couldn’t be more clear than the statement he made to reporters
on 23 Feb 04, before his departure for Libya: "I
am very disappointed. It is very important to talk to Eritrean officials.
They have an important case to make, which I would have liked to hear
about," Axworthy told reporters in the Ethiopian capital. Mr. Axworthy,
Sir, Eritrea has no case to be made. It made its only case in front of the
boundary commission and that case has been settled legally and exists in the
form of the boundary commission’s decision, which Eritrea accepted and
accepts without qualification, and it is closed. You hear it from me, Sir,
you hear it from all Eritreans, that is all Eritrea have to say and have been
saying since day one of boundary decision. No secret, nothing to be curious
about, Sir. Could you, Mr. Axworthy, say the same about Ethiopia? Depending
on your answer, your mission is accomplished or dead. That is all there is to
your mission, Mr. Axworthy. "My mission is based on an honest
effort by the international community and the United Nations to try and be
helpful, and facilitate a peaceful end to the crisis,". Mr. Axworthy,
who is kidding whom here? It is all about the fate of Boundary Commission’s
decision: And there is no crisis there because no one else is disputing the
boundary ruling but Ethiopia. That is not a crisis by any standard because
the Algiers Agreement provides appropriate measures to remedy exactly this
kind of noncompliance. How about giving that a thought? The fuss about Axworthy’s temporary
persona non grata in Eritrea shifted the focus away from the main reason
and purpose of Axworthy’s appointment n the first place. Following two years
of border war, Eritrea and Ethiopia signed the Algiers peace accord (2000)
ending the war and submitted themselves to legal arbitration by an
independent Boundary Commission. Both parties committed themselves and
solemnly pledged to accept the Commission’s ruling as final, binding, and
without appeal wherever the chips may fall. The Commission handed down it’s
ruling (April 2002). Eritrea accepted the ruling. Ethiopia did not, simply
because it didn’t go it’s way. Ethiopia’s defiance of the ruling took various
forms including unilateral dismantling of the Commission, publicly dismissing
its ruling as null and void, and reached its peak early January 04 when a
concerted diplomatic effort to persuade Ethiopia into compliance hit snag
causing the int’l community to call for end of Ethiopia’s defiance (GB: this
cannot go on for ever, German Chancellor: Demarcation cannot wait until
kingdom come). Today, the peace process is faltering
solely on Ethiopia’s utter noncompliance and adamantly outright defiance of
the Commission’s ruling to the extent that it has alone, single handedly and
under the threat of force halted the implementation of the decision leading
to its indefinite suspension thereby stalling the peace process. In light of the above and faced with
Ethiopia’s mounting defiance, for Eritrea is compliant, the UN decided to
beef up its personnel and to increase its diplomatic leverage by using good
offices of UNSG and Mr. Axworthy was hired for the purpose of “moving the
peace process forward”. But what is preventing the peace process from moving
forward? The answer is obvious: Ethiopia’s non-acceptance with the boundary
decision because Eritrea is 100% compliant. It then follows that Axworthy’s
mission clearly pertains to Ethiopia, the non-compliant party. Next, the premise of Axworthy’s
appointment (SC/7972)& (SC/7997), 7 Jan 04and 30 Jan 04 respectively: The decision of the Boundary
Commission is final and binding Job
description of Axworthy: FACILITATOR, not negotiator, mediator, peace broker,
to facilitate the implementation of what has already been achieved as
follows: ·
To facilitate the implementation of
the Algiers Agreement ·
To facilitate the implementation of
the decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission ·
To facilitate the implementation of the
relevant resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, one such decision
that must be implemented is contained in UN Security Council’s response to PM
Meles, 01 Oct o3 that rejected partial demarcation (piecemeal demarcation)
unequivocally and called for demarcation to proceed in ALL sectors as
directed by the Boundary Commission. Now, who has problem in implementing
any of the above-mentioned items? Certainly, Ethiopia because Eritrea is in
full and complete compliance with all of above-mentioned items. It follows
then again that Axworthy’s mission pertains to Ethiopia and Ethiopia only and
he has to take it to Ethiopia rulers and help them to have it done whatever
it takes? Mr. Axworthy, you have Eritrea’s full permission to accomplish that
if that is why you so badly want to come to Eritrea? All other curiosities
about what Eritrea officials have to say is fantasy because Eritrea like the
int’l community and the UN has a patented answer to all of your queries: The
decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission is real, final, binding
without appeal and Eritrea is on board. The int’l community and UN hope that
you will get Ethiopia to repeat after that? BejaHizbu Team
EritreaDaily |