UN: Ethiopia must restate 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 commission’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 (from rule of
law to rule of ‘might is right’ and anarchy) 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
take, 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.
__________________________________________