Eritrea/Ethiopia: EEBC has the last word, it has spoken; it’s over
Commentary
By TED
08 Feb 05
Eritrea and Ethiopia
established a Boundary Commission (EEBC) of their own pick and choice and
conferred upon it the sole and only authority to have the last word in the
resolution of their border dispute. The EEBC has long, now almost 3 years,
spoken the last word and exists in the form of the border decision of 13 April
2002. And by treaty, the last word of
the EEBC is final, binding, and without right to appeal or recourse of any
kind. Also by treaty, once the last word of the EEBC has been spoken, the case
is closed; it cannot be reargued, renegotiated, re-dialogued, or reopened. It
goes without saying then that both parties must abide by the last word of the
EEBC- the border ruling – unequivocally.
All the parties involved
herein, i.e. Eritrea, Ethiopia, and the EEBC, were well engaged for one year in
a legally moderated dialogue also known as legal arbitration. And equally by
treaty, once the EEBC has spoken its last word on the matter, the parties
become disengaged for there is no more to engage on but to cooperate with the
EEBC in the immediate implementation of the border decision without any ifs and
buts – So wanted both Eritrea and Ethiopia it to be.
Now, what is wrong with the
border decision except that it didn’t go Ethiopia’s way?
It is not whether or not
Ethiopia accepts the border ruling. That is utterly absurd. Both Eritrea and
Ethiopia have already accepted the decision of the boundary commission before
even knowing the outcome by virtue of agreeing in writing to go to court to
resolve their dispute. It is all about Ethiopia’s shameless attempt to renege
on that ( in the Amharic language known as saying “Ashaferegn”). In an interview with the Ethiopian Reporter recently, the
new French ambassador to Ethiopia, Stephane Gomprtz, explained this to Ethiopia
in a very elementary manner. He said “Look,
this is what we do when we go to court. If I have a conflict with my neighbor
because of his house or my house or our property and we go to a court, that
means we accept in advance the ruling of a judge. Now after the judge decides,
I might not be satisfied, but I will not say, “I refuse to do what the judge
has told me”. That applies to
international relations as well.” Very elementary, but hits the nail on
the head: That is “Ashaferegn”.
Nations have the option of
resolving their dispute trough ICJ or PCA. The decisions of both the ICJ and
PCA have equal legal effect and are enforceable as long as both parties seek
and consent to their jurisdiction in writing. The notion that the “PCA lacks
enforcement mechanism because it is not ICJ” is hence gutter nonsense floated
by gutter scholars. There is certainly no standing army ready to invade an
international legal offender like Ethiopia but “Enforcement measures may include resolutions censoring
the offending state, economic sanctions, or even military action if the
violation involves the use of force or threatens international peace or
security”. That is one way of explaing Chapter VII of UN Charter, which was
incorprated into the Algiers agreement upon Ethiopia’s insistance as a means of
enforcing the border decision. And as if that was not enough, Ethiopia also
requested and was granted the assurances
(guarantee) of major powers to ensure strict adherence to the Algiers agreement
once the verdict is out. Could that be a lie or does that mean it applies only
to Eritrea?
The international community
may not have yet reached the point of pulling the trigger on Ethiopia, but it
is inevitable for the Algiers agreement has been established as the only
mechanism and way out for peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It’s surely been
long and Ethiopia has been getting away with its defiance with impunity but that
does not invalidate or rule out the application of Chapter VII as stipulated by
the treaty of Algiers but delays it because it is simply ridiculous to pull
Chapter VII on a country that owes its very existence as a nation to massive
handouts from the international community. It is unfair because it prevents
peace from descending upon the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia and prolongs
their sufferings. But believe it or not, it is justice delayed but not denied,
and justice will prevail.
Ethiopia’s conformity with
other peace agreements is well and good. But that cannot be an excuse or
justification not to abide by a legal decision and to willfully renege on or
violate other binding international agreement after the fact simply because it
didn’t work Ethiopia’s way?
Knowingly or unknowingly, some
Eritreans may speak favorably of the hoax that Ethiopia put forward on 24 Nov
2004. They are wrong, but they are entitled to their rightly or wrongly
God-given opinion. Ethiopia’s 5 Point Peace Fraud manifestly and blatantly
violates the Algiers peace accord on at least two counts: It calls for revision
of the Accord and renegotiation of the border decision, simply because it
didn’t go Ethiopia’s way or to put it in PM Meles’ recent expression because
“Ethiopia doesn’t like the border decision”. Be that as that may, for what
purpose do those Eritreans want Eritrea to engage Ethiopia on “their proposal”
when Eritrea has no problem with the Algiers accord and the border decision?
Simply because Ethiopia doesn’t like it? What is the problem? There is a lot of things people don’t
like about a court’s decision, but they abide by it because no legal decision
is going to make both sides happy . Even Ethiopia must submit to the rule of law
even if the Prime Minister doesn’t like it.
Ethiopia can throw the ball in
all directions but it is going to bounce back because the case is firmly
closed. It cannot be reopened regardless of the number, quality, and directions
of the ball by order of the Algiers agreement.
“A deafening
Silence Amounts to Abdication of Responsibility” is utterly nonsensical in the case of
the EEBC, where the reverse would have destroyed the sanctity of the ruling and
the integrity of the peace accord. Once the EEBC has spoken its last word in
matters Eritrea vs. Ethiopia, it is obliged by treaty and it is indeed its
solemn responsibility to uphold and maintain silence over the legally settled
matter, deafening or not, by the diktat of Eritrea and Ethiopia in the form of
the Algiers agreement. The EEBC cannot be engaged any more in any form and
shape no matter how often and loud Ethiopia attempts to bring up the case
because the matter is closed. The EEBC made though one exception simply to get
Ethiopia’s bugging monkey off its shoulders on 21 March 2003 and reiterated “In
doing so the commission is mindful of the fact that it is not the practice of
international tribunals to respond to comments upon, or criticisms of, their
decisions”.
EEBC’s golden silence means
that the case is closed and has nothing to do with Ethiopia. Ethiopia has long
accepted the verdict by the fact of agreeing to go to court in the first place.
In our daily life, courts render decisions but judges don’t chase the legal
offender. It is up to law enforcement to take care of that. The EEBC has
rendered its decision but Ethiopia has forcibly prevented its implementation.
The EEBC does not have an army to counter that. It is now up to the nations,
which by Ethiopia’s insistence agreed to ensure strict adherence to the Algiers
agreement, and the international community to bring Ethiopia into compliance
with the border decision, that is a lot to do?
Silence is indeed a virtue not
“abdication”of the responsibility of the EEBC in light of Ethiopia’s endless,
illegal, and shameless attempts and provocations to reopen a legally settled
matter. Team EritreaDaily (TED)
