A Decade Of Legitimate Rebuff Vis-À-Vis The Rule Of The Jungle
18/04/2012
April 13, 2012, marked the tenth year of arbitration since the Eritrea
Ethiopia Boundary Commission—EEBC—gave its final award. And hence, the
Ministry of Information hereby issues a series of articles entitled “A
Decade of Legitimate Rebuff vis-à-vis the Rule of the Jungle.” The first
part of this article in series, however, tries to cast light on the
following concepts to the letter and spirit for an explicit common
understanding.
Terms that Necessitate Fundamental Rectification
War Ascribed to Border 1. Dispute: U.S. policy On the National Security
Strategy issued in September 2002 postulates the need for establishing four
anchor states in African regions, thereby investing TPLF’s Ethiopia with
regional power in the Horn of Africa. Secure and rising Eritrea, as opposed
to this national Security Strategy, was found discordant for the other side
of the policy the U.S. Government pursued. That’s why, the Administration in
Washington launched a proxy war of 1998- 2000 resorting to supplanting the
invincible Government of Eritrea with a puppet instrument subservient to
TPLF’s Ethiopia through subduing the Eritrean people.
The primary and • far-fetched objective of the war: Having dwelt on ways to
obliterating the Eritrean Defense Force and conquering up to Asmara, this
same Administration worked on in vain to succumb the Eritrean people to a
TPLF’s satellite state that would have been instated thereafter by employing
a political scenario suited for civil strife. It also devised to shatter
Eritrea’s economy and lie its infrastructure in ruins with a view to
materializing a country bereft of meaningful existence, and thus, mapped out
a puppet government, well-furnished with personnel and much acclaimed action
programs, that carries out biddings.
Subsequent to the sought • after Eritrea’s downfall, the purport of the
ultimate goals in Ethiopia was not only to exploit the Tigrian people as the
prime ‘beneficiary’ instrument, but it also promised an opportune period for
them to overwhelm the Eritrean people, as well as to rise up—subjugate other
nationalities in Ethiopia. To all intents and purposes, such heavy-handed
move harbored an implied notion of communicating a tight rein on Ethiopians,
excepting the people of Tigray, while at the same time consolidating its
political power under the rubric of ‘democratic election’ during which the
TPLF regime swindled amid the chaos a five-year ticket it envisaged.
As the proxy war was waged, the U.S. Administration participated of its own
volition at OAU’s meeting, which was held in Ouagadougou in June 1998, in an
attempt to add fuel to the war it instigated against Eritrea by
commandeering any possible peaceful solution. Prior to the launch of the
Second Offensive, Washington called in the end of 1998 a secret meeting
through its Central Intelligence Agency— CIA—in a bid to deliberate on
staging a coup against the Government of Eritrea. With the rising
temperature of successive offensives, the U.S. Government posed as an
intermediary merely to take sides with the TPLF and press ahead for Eritrea
to compromise.
While the proxy war was taking place, the United States, further than
imposing unilateral sanctions against Eritrea, disseminated a
well-coordinated diplomatic and media campaign that Eritrea would resign
itself to subjugation following a blowing defeat. Alongside the said
pressure, acts of hostilities and propaganda, the U.S. Administration laid
out a secret plan by which the supposed ‘hardliners’ could be ousted so as
to simply be superseded by those submissive—a term which is given to the
obsequious ones. Huge financial and political support was earmarked in the
effort to cause political tumult throughout the Eritrea. Beyond the
intelligence an military support the U.S. Government extended to the TPLF
clique during the Third Offensive, this same Administration outlined in the
year 2000 a plan aimed at toppling the Eritrean government.
To sum up, Based on the aforementioned facts and many other details yet to
be declared, ascribing the Ethiopia-Eritrea war to a border dispute is but
tantamount to a reckless or simplistic explanation. The Ethio- Eritrea war
that was fought 1998 through 2000 and all acts of hostility that ensued
afterward are merely a proxy War the U.S. Government is waging against
Eritrea via the TPLF’s servility.
Incomplete demarcation 2. of official Ethiopia-Eritrea borders: Such a catch
phrase must in essence be put right. The official borders between Eritrea
and Ethiopia are once and for all demarcated not to be reversed, as
President Isaias Afwerki put it, on account of massive earthquake. Having
virtually demarcated more than 1,000 km-long border between Eritrea and
Ethiopia with geographic coordinates and indicating the exact coordinates on
45 maps where the pillars be erected, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary
Commission—EEBC—submitted the copies of its undertakings for both
adversarial parties and the UN Security Council, while at the same time
finalizing its mission by presenting additional copies to the UN
cartographic unit for public reference.
In its final report to the UN Security Council, the EEBC underscored:
“Ethiopia proposes that “an alternative mechanism to demarcate the contested
parts of the boundary” be set up. Such an alternative mechanism would
involve a departure from, and thus an amendment to, the terms of Article 4.2
of the Algiers Agreement, which gives the Commission the mandate to
demarcate the boundary. Moreover, Ethiopia’s reference to “the contested
boundary” can only be understood as a reference to those parts of the
boundary to which it alone and unilaterally takes exception: no part of the
boundary is “contested” by both Parties.” Therefore, the border between
Eritrea and Ethiopia now prides to be the most crystal-clear for its details
and legal documents.
Unsettled Ethio-Eritrea 3. dispute: No conflict or political dispute
whatsoever remains unsettled between Eritrea and Ethiopia other than the
legal matters. Occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory, respect of
territorial integrity and political independence are the lingering matters
yet at stake.
‘Negotiation and talks’ 4. as a solution: This trap was merely employed to
have Eritrea entangled and yet to which the Government responded prudently.
The EEBC ruling is final and binding. Article 14 of the Algiers Peace
Agreement invokes Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for “Action with
Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of
Aggression”, but does not endorse negotiation or talks for the party that
fails to abide by the letter and spirit. Adjudication, implementation, and
punitive action against the contravening party are all the terms embraced
within the accord.
The TPLF and its dream 5. of emerging as a regional power: Such a dream at
simplest amounts to a narcissistic mirage of an utter folly. In spite of the
clique’s offences and shambles, those parties that have been providing the
regime intensive political, diplomatic, and economic as well as media
nurturing are consciously despondent of its fiascos that this same clique
does by no means constitute a significant factor in the regional equation.
Acts of conspiracy being weaved, decisions being reached, excesses being
committed, wars being waged, sanctions being imposed upon, nations being
disintegrated, or, the uprisings flaring up within the Horn of Africa or the
entire continent are all attributed to the Administration in Washington. The
TPLF clique, let alone with the entire Horn Region, even within the country
it reigns over or the administrative region of which it takes pride, is
merely an insignificant auxiliary. A series of articles shedding light on
the aforementioned matters and other major issues will be issued under the
title: “A Decade of Legitimate Rebuff vis-à-vis the Rule of the Jungle!”
----[Mailing List for Eritrea Related News ]----
Received on Thu Apr 19 2012 - 11:08:35 EDT
