Eritrea-Ethiopia: Respect for International Law, the Way Forward
> <https://stesfamariam.com/2016/04/11/eritrea-ethiopia-respect-for-international-law-the-way-forward/>
> Posted on April 11, 2016
> <https://stesfamariam.com/2016/04/11/eritrea-ethiopia-respect-for-international-law-the-way-forward/>
> by sophietm7 <https://stesfamariam.com/author/sophietm7/>
> 13 April 2016 will mark the 14th anniversary of the Eritrea Ethiopia
> Boundary Commission’s (EEBC) final and binding delimitation decision and
> unfortunately, neither the UN Security Council, nor guarantors and
> witnesses to the Algiers Agreements, have mustered the political will to
> enforce the EEBC’s final and binding delimitation and demarcation
> decisions, emboldening the regime in Ethiopia to flout international law
> and continue with its belligerence stance-occupation of sovereign Eritrean
> territories, including Badme, the casus belli for the 1998-2000 border
> conflict to Eritrea, “unequivocally” awarded to Eritrea by the EEBC.
> The ruling clique in Ethiopia and its handlers have gone to great lengths
> to render the decision “null and void” and it comes as no surprise to see
> the sudden mushrooming of “research” by infamous Ethiophyles, negating the
> Algiers Agreements and international law. The regime’s apologists have been
> presenting pseudo-academic papers in yet another desperate attempt to
> create an “alternative mechanism” to amend, revisit and reverse the final
> and binding decision of the Border Commission.
> Suffice it to mention a couple of recent examples.
> The following exact quotation is taken from two papers
> (identical)-authored by two individuals, Kieran E. Uchehara of Hasan
> Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep and Dima Noggo Sarbo of the Oxford-Princeton
> Global Leaders Fellowship program, said to be working as a policy analyst
> and consultant in Frankfurt, Germany. Sarbo’s 2013 paper, “*The
> Ethiopia-Eritrea Conflict: Domestic and Regional Ramifications and the Role
> of the International Community”, *and Uchehara’s 2014 paper*
> “Understanding African Relationships: The Case of Eritrean Ethiopian Border
> Dispute”, *both say:
> *“…The Algiers Agreement has stalled and is no longer the solution that it
> was thought to be. Furthermore, it must have been clearly recognised by all
> that the agreement and the subsequent decisions based on it were the wrong
> instruments for solving the conflict between the two states. Therefore, it
> is pertinent to look at the problem differently and find appropriate
> mechanisms that ensure a lasting solution for both states and peoples. As
> the real victims of the conflict, the citizens of both nations should be
> the beneficiaries of such a resolution and be involved in defining and
> managing the relations between them…”*
> Crocodile tears for a population that has long suffered because of such
> misrepresentation of the facts and history of these two brotherly people.
> The people of Eritrea and Ethiopia deserve to live in peace, within their
> own internationally recognized borders and they are the only ones that can
> speak about the suffering and destruction that has defined their lives for
> the last 100 years under ruthless Ethiopian rulers determined to squash
> Eritrea’s independence, with the acquiescence of the international
> community.
> [image: Camera: DCS620C Serial #: K620C-03284 Width: 1728 Height: 1152
> Date: 12/12/00 Time: 11:01:21 DCS6XX Image FW Ver: 3.2.3 TIFF Image Look:
> Product Sharpening Requested: Yes Tagged Counter: [4171] Shutter: 1/60
> Aperture: f5.6 ISO Speed: 400 Max Aperture: f2.8 Min Aperture: f22 Focal
> Length: 23 Exposure Mode: Program AE (P) Meter Mode: Color Matrix Drive
> Mode: Single Focus Mode: Single (AF-S) Focus Point: Center Flash Mode:
> Normal Sync Compensation: -0.7 Flash Compensation: -0.7 Self Timer Time:
> 10s White balance: Auto Time: 11:01:21.576]
> The UN Security Council endorsed the Algiers Agreement with this Statement:
> *“…The Security Council, reiterating its strong support for the Agreement
> of Cessation of Hostilities signed by the parties in Algiers on 18 June
> 2000 (S/2000/601), strongly welcomes and supports the subsequent Peace
> Agreement between the Government of the State of Eritrea and the Government
> of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (S/2000/1183) signed in
> Algiers on 12 December 2000 (“Algiers Agreement”). It commends the efforts
> of the Organization of African Unity, the President of Algeria and his
> Special Envoy, as well as the United States of America and the European
> Union for their role in achieving the Algiers Agreement…The Security
> Council encourages both parties to continue working towards the full and
> prompt implementation of the Algiers Agreements…The Security Council notes
> with satisfaction that the Algiers Agreement includes mechanisms for the
> delimitation and demarcation of the common border and for addressing claims
> and compensation, and that the parties are cooperating with the
> Secretary-General in these matters in accordance with agreed schedules…”*
> Its record since 2000 belies its stated intentions.
> The UN Security Council-heavily influenced by the P3-UK, France and the
> United States, has not lived up to its moral and legal obligations under
> the said Agreement and the UN Charter, bringing to question its
> credibility, efficacy and integrity, not to mention relevance on issues
> relating to the two countries.
> On 10 April 2002, just days before the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary
> Commission delivered its decision on the Eritrea Ethiopia border, Kofi
> Annan, former UN Secretary General and Amara Essy, former Secretary-General
> of the Organization of African Unity (now African Union) wrote the
> following in an op-ed article published in the Canadian daily, The Globe
> and Mail:
> *“…We are about to reach an important milestone of the peace process.
> Having considered pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international
> law, as well as evidence provided by the two parties, the boundary
> commission will announce its decision on the delimitation of the border on
> Saturday…We salute the parties’ continued and consistent reaffirmation that
> they will accept the decision of the boundary commission as “final and
> binding,” as called for in the Algiers peace agreement. We take this as a
> clear manifestation of their desire for a final settlement and yearning for
> a lasting peace. The successful conclusion of the peace process on the
> basis of a legal settlement of the conflict will set an example for the
> rest of the African continent, and indeed the whole international
> community…Once the commission’s decision is known, it is imperative that
> the two countries implement it without delay…”*
> [image: Ali Said Kofi Annan]No other individual compromised the Algiers
> Agreements than Kofi Annan and his appeasement of the regime in Ethiopia,
> employing time buying gimmicks and ploys, and diverting the Security
> Council’s efforts by raising tangential issues, cost the people of Eritrea
> and Ethiopia time and opportunity to rebuild their lives. Knowing full well
> that the Security Council did/does not have any legal mandate to alter an
> agreement signed by two sovereign states, and knowing full well that the
> decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission was final and binding,
> in his 23 October 2005 letter to the Security Council Annan wrote:
> *“…after years of frustrating stalemate, it would be imperative for the
> Security Council – as the principal organ entrusted with the primary
> responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security – to
> address the underlying causes of the stalemate in the peace process,
> including those relating to the Ethiopian position on the decision of the
> Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. The concerted and resolute action of
> the Council will be essential in bringing about the full implementation of
> the Algiers Agreements and restoring peace between the two countries…”*
> The underlying causes for the “stalemate”, which in reality is the
> occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, is Ethiopia’s rejection of
> the final and binding EEBC delimitation And demarcation decisions and the
> acquiescence of the P3.
> The “academic” onslaught today is geared towards undermining the EEBC and
> its decisions with it international law and the sanctity of treaties and
> agreements.
> Jon Abbink who has authored several anti-Eritrea articles and books had
> this to say in yet another attempt to give the minority regime what it
> could not get on the battlefield, or the courtroom. In his paper, “LAW
> AGAINST REALITY? CONTEXTUALIZING THE ETHIOPIAN-ERITREAN BORDER PROBLEM”, he
> writes:
> *“…It is unfortunate that on account of its procedural aspects and its
> incomplete use of ‘applicable international law’ the EEBC, by order of the
> two parties that requested the arbitration as well as by its own volition,
> has sealed off the prospects for flexibility, amendment and compromise in
> the light of new information or interpretation. International law not
> taking into account clear facts and realities on the ground – both of a
> political and human nature, has little prospect of being implemented.
> Instead, certainly in the case of the Ethio-Eritrean boundary decision, its
> painstakingly developed, normative precepts will be in danger of being
> overruled by those realities…”*
> The Algiers Agreements is very clear on what the EEBC’s mandate. Article
> 4.2 says:
> *“…The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five
> members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the
> colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and
> 1908) and applicable international law. The Commission shall not have the
> power to make decisions ex aequo et bono…”*
> That means the EEBC was not to base its decisions on “realities on the
> ground”. No geographic or other considerations.
> Article 14 of the Algiers Agreement also says:
> *“…The OAU and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the
> respect for this commitment of the two Parties until the determination of
> the common border on the basis of pertinent colonial treaties and
> applicable international law… This guarantee shall be comprised of…
> measures to be taken by the international community should one or both of
> the Parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be
> taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter by the UN Security
> Council…”*
> If, as Abbink states in his paper, the EEBC decisions will have “*little
> prospect of being implemented*”, the onus will remain on the
> international community that guaranteed and witnessed the Algiers
> Agreements. Namely, the African Union, European Union, United Nations and
> the United States. The reputation of the above mentioned guarantors and
> witnesses to broker future agreements in the region and Africa, is also at
> stake…
> The late Foreign Minister of Eritrea H.E. Ali Saed Abdella, sick and tired
> of Kofi Annan and the international community’s seemingly endless
> diplomatic gimmicks, made the following clear and eloquent statement while
> addressing the 59th Session of the General Assembly which stands true
> today:
> *“…Ethiopia’s belated rejection of the decision was an afterthought, which
> was done at first tentatively and cautiously but that later gained boldness
> and audacity when it realized that it can do so with impunity. The letter
> of the Prime Minister informing the United Nations Security Council that
> Ethiopia rejects the decision of the Boundary Commission was written
> sixteen full months after the decision was rendered. In a sense, Ethiopia’s
> rejection has more to do with the conduct of the international community
> rather than any intrinsic problem of the decision itself. Critical factors
> in Ethiopia’s rejection were the “sympathetic dispositions”, “the winks and
> nods” that were signaled by certain countries and some foreign missions in
> Ethiopia… In spite of Ethiopia’s violations of the Peace Agreement, major
> powers in the international community have not taken credible steps to
> persuade Ethiopia to uphold the rule of law and abide by its treaty
> obligations. On the contrary, Ethiopia continues to obtain massive
> humanitarian, economic and military support from major powers. Full-fledged
> economic sanctions may not even have been necessary. But the
> debt-cancellation, budgetary support and other substantial injections of
> economic and humanitarian support extended to Ethiopia have not been linked
> to positive performance in the peace process. So, as far as Eritrea is
> concerned, the problem is not Ethiopia’s bad faith conduct in the border
> dispute, but international acquiescence in its violations which has in turn
> encouraged its intransigence…”*
> As the people of Eritrea celebrate Eritrea’s 25th Independence
> Anniversary, they will record in their history, the travesty and injustice
> of the international system and will no doubt find their own mechanism for
> overcoming the injustices perpetrated by it, against them.
> As for normalization of relations with Ethiopia…
> If Cuddling of successive Ethiopian regimes as they committed untold
> crimes against their own people and the people of Eritrea is the “norm”,
> then only a fundamental change in the incoherent and racist policies for
> Horn of Africa and Eritrea and Ethiopia in particular, will advance peace.
> [image: obama_ethiopia]Continued appeasement of Ethiopia’s backward and
> lawless rulers will not…
> The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle…
>
> https://stesfamariam.com/2016/04/11/eritrea-ethiopia-respect-for-international-law-the-way-forward/
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 14 2016 - 07:26:04 EDT