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.
______________________________________________