UN calls for Ethiopia’s Unequivocal Acceptance of Ruling
By TED
28 Nov 2004
Every since the
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission rendered its ruling that settled the
Eritrea-Ethiopia border dispute conclusively and definitively on 13 April 2002,
the world community, the UN, and the Security Council have been engaged
(resolution after resolution- not less than a dozen) in fighting back
Ethiopia’s incessant attempts to defy or circumvent the ruling: After baulking for
18 months, Ethiopia formally declared its defiance of the ruling by calling it
unjust and illegal in a letter to the Security Council (19 Sep. 2003) and
threatened war if the ruling were not reversed in its favor; and in October of
2003, Ethiopia declared the ruling of the Boundary Commission null and void,
stopped demarcation forcefully, and unilaterally dismantled the Boundary
Commission sending it into oblivion to this date. By prior mutual agreement,
the ruling of the Boundary Commission is final, binding, and with no right to
appeal or recourse.
Undeterred by and despite
and in spite of Ethiopia’s reckless actions, the UN/UNSC continues to firmly
standby and support the Boundary Commission and its decision and the Algiers
Agreement. To this effect and this year alone, the Security Council passed two
resolutions calling for the same thing: Ethiopia’s Unequivocal Acceptance of
Boundary Commission’s decision.
On 12 March 2004:
Expressing
its
concern about Ethiopia’s rejection of
significant parts of the Boundary Commission’s decision, and its current lack
of cooperation with the Boundary Commission, the Security Council passed
resolution 1531 (2004) calling, inter alia, for the unequivocal restating of
Ethiopia’s acceptance of the Boundary Commission’s decision [Security Council resolution 1531
(2004) 12 March 2004 The situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia]
On 14 September 2004: Again expressing its concern about Ethiopia’s ongoing rejection of
significant parts of the Boundary Commission’s decision, and its current lack
of cooperation[cooperation means for Ethiopia to do what is asked or required
of it by the Boundary Commission] with the Boundary Commission and Reaffirming
all its previous resolutions and statements pertaining to the situation
between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the
requirements contained therein, including
in particular resolutions 1531
(2004) of 12 March 2004, the Security
Council passed resolution 1560 (2004) urging, inter alia, Ethiopia to
show the political will to reaffirm unequivocally its acceptance of the
Boundary ommission’s decision, and take the necessary steps to enable the
Commission to demarcate the border without further delay [Security Council resolution 1560
(2004) 14 September 2004 The
situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia]
The
UN’s repeated call for Ethiopia’s Unequivocal Acceptance of the Boundary
Commission’s decision is neither arbitrary nor being imposed upon Ethiopia. It
is dictated by the nature of the Decision: It cannot be reargued, reopened,
renegotiated, no wheeling and dealing, no more talks, the case is closed and
must and can only be accepted as decided and determined-unequivocally. That is
how Eritrea and Ethiopia wanted it to be.
Thus,
unless the world as we know it today ceases to exist, the UN has no other
option but uphold the nature of the decision and call for Ethiopia’s
unequivocal acceptance of Boundary Commission’s decision, a call that stands
even as we speak. And unless the Algiers Agreement has been declared null and
void and the Security Council reverses itself only because the ruling didn’t go
Ethiopia’s way, it won’t be long before we write the post mortem of Ethiopia’s
recent “acceptance in principle” ploy, which calls for more talks, give and
takes simply because it constitutes flagrant violation of the sanctity of a
legal ruling of an international court,
the Algiers agreement, and defies UNSC resolutions 1531and 1560. Here, what is at stake is the sanctity of
binding international agreement, rule of law in international relations,
integrity of international arbitration/court, and international law.
Ethiopia is the only country
in the globe that is contending and contesting the decision of the Boundary
Commission and the ball remains in Ethiopia’s court until it declares
unequivocal acceptance of the border ruling and lets the Commission do its job
or until the world as we know it today cease to exist and the UN/UNSC reverses
itself.
The ball has no business in
Eritrea’s court because Eritrea is not contending or debating any thing.
Eritrea has been, is and remains in compliance with the decision without any
condition and unequivocally.
__________________________________________
Unlimited, high
