Eritrea/Ethiopia: Why
seek a solution, when there’s already one?
Commentary
By Dr. M. Filli A.
23 Jan 2005
When it comes to Eritrea, it has always been the same old
story: No one wants and wanted to know what Eritreans rightfully want, wish,
and aspire but what Eritreans should and even must want, wish, and aspire. And
no one else expressed this eloquently but the then US Secretary of State, John
Foster Dulles, who put this succinctly 52 years ago: “From
the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive
consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in
the Red Sea Basin and considerations of security and world peace make it
necessary that the country (Eritrea) has to be linked with our ally, Ethiopia”,
John Foster Dulles in 1952.
The people of
Eritrea did not wage 30-years of bloody war without knowing what they are
fighting for or simply because they were fond of war games? Eritreans were left
with the only option of war after peaceful means failed to reverse the forcible
denial of their legitimate quest for national independence. National independence
was then the one and only solution to the war because that is and has always
been the will, wish, and aspiration of the people of Eritrea. Yet, the rest
others didn’t want to hear that not because there is anything wrong with it but
because it didn’t bode well with their own interests (Dulles) and hence kept
looking for a solution that Eritreans should or even must want, wish, and
aspire. To that effect, the rest others floated solutions like Autonomy,
Federation, and the then USSR even suggested a “Eritrea, Yemen, Ethiopia
Confederation” when both Ethiopia and Yemen were then part of their hegomonial
domain, during Eritrea’s struggle for national independence. Regardless,
Eritrea’s legitimate quest for national independence prevailed and that is the
reality since 1991.
That was then.
Today, one Alex Y., presumably writing from Eritrea, is talking about “political solution … in the making
. because there are political benefits to achieve.” in a warped reference to the now as fraud debunked
Ethiopia’s “5 point peace plan” now also known as 5 Point Peace Fraud ‘ 5PPF
’ because it shamelessly prejudices the sanctity of the border decision and undermines
the integrity of the Algiers peace accord, despite and in spite of the fact of
the existence of a viable solution – the 13 April 2002 decision of the boundary
commission, reminiscent of and in the fashion and pattern of the trends that
prevailed some 52 years ago.
What is wrong with the decision of the boundary
commission except that it didn’t go your protégé Ethiopia’s way, Alex Y? In
that, your protégé is totally alone for no one else disputes neither the
sanctity of the decision nor the integrity of Algiers peace accord, a well
founded reason to impose the decision and not to look for another one for it
proves the rule of law?
You, Alex Y., seek another solution “ because there are
political benefits to achieve.” Well, you posited, “Violation
of an international agreement and practice is unacceptable”. You are damn right, God bless
you, sir. How does then accepting and upholding international agreement and
practice ( Eritrea's status), which is what the unequivocal acceptance of the decision of the
boundary commission undoubtedly amounts to and is also the reason why the int’l
community is calling for strict adherence to Algiers, preclude achieving
political benefits and beyond? Isn’t the reverse that not living by the established
and accepted modus operandi of the international community ( Status of your protégé Ethiopia ) closes the door tight,
indeed very tight for a lot of opportunities true, sir? Looking for a
substitute to a solution that is perfectly in compliance with standards you,
Alex y., yourself set, therefore defies any and every logic/rational and you
are not making any sense, sir.
“The biggest challenge has been for each side to find an honorable
way out of the crisis while their impoverished populations grow more and more
desperate and impatient with the political impasse.” By
the standards you set, how does unequivocal acceptance of the decision of the
boundary commission and strict adherence to international agreement and
practice prevent an honorable way out of whatever you are calling “crisis” and
“impasse”? Again, isn’t the reverse true: It is honorable, indeed very
honorable, to live by international norms, sir? You are again not making sense,
sir. Frankly, you, Aworthy alias Axel Y., need to look for a real honorable exit from the mess you dug yourself in,
for you are operating with a completely reversed perception of the order of things in this planet in your ceaseless attempt to reverse the natural
sequence of cause and effect.
“Prime Minister Meles's initial rejection of
the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission's ruling had not impressed his partners
and friends in the West.” Axel Y., humans are forgetful and you have every
reason to take a shot at their memory, but history and even records persist,
they don’t lie, and bring memories back, don’t you think so? Thus, the
first portion of your statement above is a blazing lie as a
matter of fact, and in terms of real politics it is a white lie because PM
Meles initially accepted the commission’s decision, a day earlier than Eritrea,
then equivocated it 10 days later to ultimately reject it in writing and
officially in September of 2003. Don’t take it from me, sir. Follow these links
and check out the pictures below : Ethiopia hails 'victory' ruling 18/04/2002 BBC News, New Ethiopia-Eritrea border revealed Ethiopia welcomes a new border drawn by an international commission,
but its claims of victory are strongly disputed by Eritrea. 13/04/2002l, and Ethiopian official wants border clarification The Addis government is urged to ask the border commission to spell
out whether the village of Badme lies in Ethiopia or Eritrea. 23/04/2002
International border disputes
are necessarily legal disputes whose proper resolutions necessitate legal
settlement in a court of law. However, since such disputes involve political
entities, the legal settlement of such disputes has inherent political
component that will never affect the settlement 
itself but may/could have
adverse effects on the political fate of either head of states/party. That is a
calculated risk that both partners take and accept when they enter into such a
settlement and is then up to the people of either nation whether the respective
head of state survives or becomes victim of his decision and can never be an
excuse to defy a legal settlement or seek another one?
Poeple
in Addis Ababa
celebrated the decision
Political considerations cannot
substitute the rule of law because political repercussions of the rule of law
are calculated political risks that politicians accept, know, and take and must
be able to live with one way or the other, sir.
If the border war were about
Badme, then PM Meles should have stopped after recovering it. Don’t you think
so, Axel Y.? But Ethiopia went on conquering more cities, towns and villages 
and for
your kind information, sir, most casualties were suffered in the battle for the
Eritrean port city of Assab, no reason at all for Ethiopia to go there if it
were all about Badme? No sir, you are misguided and ill informed there. The war
was an attempt to undo Eritrea’s national and territorial sovereignty and Badme
was a lame pretext, for Ethiopia did not stop after recovering it, as I said .
“Encouraged by the Border Commission's favorable decision, Isayas has
held a tough stance on Ethiopia, a position that has the support of the
Eritrean public.”
The
war is over
What do you consider tough stance on Ethiopia, sir?
Unless you consider Eritrea’s persistent call for strict adherence to what you
correctly call “international agreement and practice” tough, Eritrea has no other
stance on Ethiopia, beat me on that, Alex Y.? And if the call for strict
adherence to “international agreement and practice” enjoys the support of the
Eritrean public, as you wrote, wouldn’t you at least respect that, the opinion
of the people of a sovereign state? It is bizarre for anyone to complain about
that?
“On the other hand, with Badme under Eritrea's control
and the border demarcated, President Isayas will have an easier task convincing
his people that the war was justified. Indeed, Isayas and his compatriots will
have to celebrate the demarcation as a national victory. It will be the last,
most significant event in their long struggle to end Ethiopia's domination. No
wonder, Isayas sees the border demarcation as a central feature of his legacy.”
Mr. Axel Y., the people of Eritrea do not need any
convincing that the war was justified because as I explained above Badme was
only a pretext to undo Eritrea’s sovereignty; and fighting for national and
territorial sovereignty has been what Eritrea was all about ever since its
establishment as a nation state for which Eritreans have never asked for or
needed convincing, ever.
Mr. Axel Y., rest assured that Eritreans will certainly
celebrate the demarcation as a national victory because they have been able to
foil an attempt to undo their hard won national independence and also because,
they hope, that demarcation will end Ethiopia’s endless claims over Eritrea’s
national and territorial sovereignty and hallucination of possessing Eritrea.
“It will be the last,
most significant event in their long struggle to end Ethiopia's domination.” Nothing
wrong with that, but I can only hope it is true because you are only guessing;
you have no basis for that. Mr Axel Y., you may have an axe to grind with
Isayas, but there is no reason to be disrespectful to the people of Eritrea.
Spare them your sarcasm, sir. Thanks.
“the delay in reaching a settlement is hurting
the two countries and is unwarranted. For the common people in Ethiopia and
Eritrea there can be no good wars or bad peace. They ought to be given chance
to find out and learn how to be good neighbors through free exchange of
cultures, goods and ideas.” There is no delay but denial, by force, of a
settlement that has long been reached but didn’t go your protégé Ethiopia’s way
and exists in the form of the decision of boundary commission. Check that out
with the rest of the world, Axel Y.
War or peace, the common people in Eritrea and Ethiopia
know that Eritrea has long opted for peace by accepting the border decision
unequivocally. It is now for your protégé Ethiopia alone to make the choice
between war and peace. To opt to live by “international agreement and practice”
is an option for peace, check, Mr. Axel Y.? That is your standard?
“If Isayas and Meles are waiting for a perfect
solution to be worked out for them by the US or Europe, they are ill advised.
They should keep motives and pride aside and resolve the issues themselves.
They have the opportunity to rise up as peacemaking statesmen in a sick and sad
continent that is moving backwards because of debilitating wars and conflicts.” No one is waiting for any solution and there
are no issues to be resolved unless you deny the existence of the decision of
the boundary commission and declare the Algiers peace accord null and void,
sir.
Talk about courting US and Europe, Axel Y. Wasn't it your protégé Ethiopia that sought audience with Mr. Armitage of the US Dept. of State
twice within three weeks? Wasn't it Ethiopia's Foreign Minister and his deputy glob trotting seeking boost for their fraudulent peace plan?
Wasn't it Ethiopia that was whining about what it called "US silence"? Wasn't it Axworthy that sought the chairman of the boundary commission
to sway him in support of Ethiopia's peace fraud?
Can you, Axel Y, mention one instance when Eritrean authorities last visited any US authority on border issue?
As a matter of fact, it was to the contrary: The US felt the need to dispatch a high level US official, Mr. Yamamoto,
to assure Eritrea of US firm committment to Algiers, am I lying, Mr. Axel Y.?
Your reference to US and Europe clearly pertains to Ethiopia only because it is Ethiopia that is trying to win
US and Europe's support for its peace fraud. Eritrea doesn't have that kind of urge for the international community
continues to firmly stand behind the boundary commission and its decision and its committment to Algiers. Don't
believe me, Mr. Axel Y.? Check that with newly designated French ambassdor to Ethiopia, Stephane Gompertz, at the following link:
http://www.ethiopianreporter.com/displayenglish.php?id=1808
Finally, the border dispute, the only dispute that was
between Eritrea and Ethiopia (by the way, I care to follow alphabetical order
when I list countries, have you ever thought about that Axel Y.?) has been settled
ultimately and has been accepted unequivocally by the international community
less Axel Y. and protégé Ethiopia. That makes Ethiopia defiant and Axel Y needs
to prepare his protégé for the consequences of its defiance for there is no
alternative to the rule of law. So, why seek a solution when there is already
one solution that is beyond good enough to the rest of the world, Mr. Axworthy? You set the standard, Mr. Axel Y. “Violation of an international agreement and practice is unacceptable.” Well, can you get your protégé Ethiopia to live by your standard by convincing it to accept and abide by the international peace agreement it signed with Eritrea? That is the only solution.
Thanks
For Team Eritrea Daily (TED)
Dr. M. Filli A
23 Jan 2005
Unlimited, high
