Ethiopia: No about-turn, ‘acceptance in principle’ a hoax

By Team EritreaDaily

29 Nov 2004

The reaction of the int’l community to the news of Ethiopia’s “acceptance, in principle”, of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s decision was exhilaration, for good reason: The media’s reporting of the news with emphasis on “acceptance” duped the int’l community into thinking that Ethiopia, which hitherto has rejected the border ruling, made about-turn and has now accepted it, hence paving the way for demarcation and peace between the two countries- some thing we all wish and pray for. And that is well understandable because storylines like ‘Ethiopia backs down over border (BBC)’, ‘Ethiopia accepts ruling on disputed Eritrea border (The Scotsman)’, ‘Ethiopia OKs Ruling on Border With Eritrea (AP)’, ‘Ethiopia accepts ruling on Eritrea border (Financial Times)’, ‘Ethiopia Accepts Boundary Commission's Ruling on Shared Border (VOA News)’ and many more of the same, are certainly designed to elicit exhilaration and support for the news. Unfortunately, Ethiopia remains defiant: It has neither backed down nor made about-turn and does not unequivocally accept the border ruling as called for by treaty and UNSC resolution.

Acceptance in principle means agreement to work with decision, not unequivocal acceptance of the decision and implies more talks involving “give and take”, which Ethiopia is calling for under item #5 of ‘the 5-point plan’, an attempt to reargue the decision. Hence, Ethiopia’s “acceptance in principle” is a gutter ploy crafted to fake acceptance and reopen a legally closed and settled matter.

Ethiopia didn’t make about-turn but renamed its defiance from ‘rejection’ into ‘acceptance in principle’ with every thing else remaining the same.

Other than that, the term ‘acceptance, in principle’ is a hoax designed

1. to create the impression of accepting the ruling- as manifested by media reaction,

2. to fake about-turn/reversal on the issue- as most gullible people have thought,

3. as a PR ploy vis à vis Ethiopia’s patrons that don’t like to see terms like reject/rejection in conjunction with legal verdict and rule of lawl, and

4. as one way of rejecting the ruling without appearing to reject it

The ball is and remains in Ethiopia’s court until Ethiopia unequivocally accepts the decision of the Boundary Commission, which Ethiopia alone is contending and contesting, and lets demarcation, which by the way Ethiopia has stopped mentioning, proceed as decided and determined by the Commission.

The ball has no business in Eritrea’s court because Eritrea is neither contending nor contesting any thing. Eritrea is and remains in full compliance with the decision of the Boundary Commission.