|
Today, the media is once again frantically
writing about the Eritrea Ethiopia border demarcation issue and so
called “Horn experts” and “analysts” are once again engage din their
favorite pastime, pushing for war in the region, as if the lives of
Africans were dispensable. They have also misrepresented the facts by
labeling the demarcation issue “a border dispute”, while they know
very well that it has been legally resolved and now also legally
demarcated. As I have written several times in the past, the Eritrea
Ethiopia border dispute was legally resolved on 13 April 2003 when the
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) delivered its final and
binding decision. There is no "disputed" or "contested"
border or territory between Eritrea and Ethiopia any longer. In its
eloquent and clear 21 March 2003 Observations the EEBC explained the
issue succinctly:
·
"... It cannot allow one Party to claim for itself
the right to insist on adjustment of parts of the boundary, which that
Party finds disadvantageous...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..."
There is no "contested" or "disputed"
border between Eritrea and Ethiopia and that fact has been
consistently ascertained and confirmed by the EEBC.
In its 16th Report to the UN Security
Council, the EEBC said:
·
"...The Commission must conclude by recalling that
the line of the boundary was legally and finally determined by its
Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002. Though undemarcated, this
line is binding upon both Parties, subject only to the minor
qualifications expressed in the Delimitation Decision, unless they
agree otherwise. Conduct inconsistent with this boundary line is
unlawful..."
Both Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the international
community know that the border dispute has been legally resolved. Here
is what the Security Council said in its 13 April 2002 Press Release:
"...Members of the Security Council express
their satisfaction that a final legal settlement of the border
issues between Ethiopia and Eritrea has been completed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by the
parties in Algiers in December 2000... Members of the Security Council
welcome the decision by the Boundary Commission, announced in The
Hague on 13 April 2002, which is Final and Binding... Members
of the Security Council call on the parties to cooperate closely with
the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) in the
implementation of the border decision, with a view to ensuring an
expeditious and orderly process for the benefit of all the people, and
without unilateral actions...”
Unfortunately, due to the minority regime in
Ethiopia’s belligerence and intransigence, an “expeditious and orderly
process” was not to be, and after waiting for over 51/2 years, the
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), which has the sole
mandate to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border, has been forced to
wrap up its work by putting its demarcation coordinates on a map, as
opposed to pillars on the ground. The Algiers Agreements signed
between Eritrea and Ethiopia in December 2000 called for the
delimitation and demarcation of the border in accordance with the
colonial boundary treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 and the Commission
did not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono (make
geographical and humanitarian considerations).
Meles Zenawi’s minority regime in Ethiopia
rejected the findings of the Commission and refused to allow for the
expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border. With the help
of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations and
Jendayi E. Frazer, US Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs, the regime in Ethiopia went to great lengths to alter,
revise, and reverse the Final and Binding decision. For the last 51/2
years, the US led international community not only refused to force
Ethiopia to comply with its legal obligations and allow the EEBC to
demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border, by placing pillar markers on
the ground, in fulfillment of its mandate in accordance with the
Algiers’s Agreements, but also actively sought to hijack the EEBC’s
mandate in order to appease the mercenary regime in Ethiopia.
After 5 ½ years of putting up with Ethiopia’s
deceptive delaying tactics designed to reverse the Final and Binding
decision and frustrate the it’s work, the Commission issued a
Statement on 27 November 2006 and stated the following:
“…As the Commission evidently cannot remain in
existence indefinitely, it proposes that the Parties should, over the
next twelve months, terminating at the end of November 2007, consider
their positions and seek to reach agreement on the emplacement of
pillars. If, by the end of that period, the Parties have not by
themselves reached the necessary agreement and proceeded significantly
to implement it, or have not requested and enabled the Commission to
resume its activity, the Commission hereby determines that the
boundary will automatically stand as demarcated by the boundary points
listed in the Annex hereto and that the mandate of the Commission can
then be regarded as fulfilled…”
As November 2007 comes to an end, the Eritrea
Ethiopia border issue will have moved another step forward with the
legal demarcation, albeit on paper, of the border. Now both countries
know where their sovereign territories lie. Therefore, the issue is no
longer about demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border, but rather
the military occupation by Ethiopia, of sovereign Eritrean
territories, a gross violation of the UN Charter and a threat to
international peace and security.
At this juncture, I
see only 3 options for moving forward and preserving the peace:
I.
Ethiopia fully cooperates with the EEBC and allows for the
unconditional demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance
with the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s Final and Binding
decision of 13 April 2002, and unilaterally withdraws from all
sovereign Eritrean territories that it is now militarily occupying.
II.
In fulfillment of its legal and moral responsibilities
under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of
international peace and security, the Security Council should
determine to bring the invasion and occupation of Eritrea, by
Ethiopia, to an end and restore the sovereignty, independence and
territorial integrity of Eritrea, affirm the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense, in response to the armed attack
(occupation) by Ethiopia against Eritrea, in accordance with Article
51 of the Charter, and act under Chapter VII of the Charter of the
United Nations, by taking appropriate measures to secure Ethiopia’
compliance with the EEBC’s Final and Binding decision, international
law and the UN Charter.
The Security Council, must determine that there exists a breach
of international peace and security as regards to Ethiopia’s
occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, including Badme, and
should act immediately under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the
United Nations, and condemn Ethiopia’s aggression and demand
that Ethiopia withdraw immediately and unconditionally all of its
forces to the November 2006 line of demarcation.
III.
If the Security Council continues to neglect its moral and
legal responsibilities under the UN Charter, and if some members of
the Security Council continue to obstruct justice and the rule of law
in order to advance their own interests in the region, Eritrea will
have no choice but to exercise the undesirable option of its inherent
legal right to self defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly
says:
"Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member
of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security"
Just as the law
enforcement bodies and institutions in any country are
responsible for enforcing criminal and civil laws and legal and
binding court decisions, the UN Security Council is responsible, for
maintaining regional and international peace and security, for
enforcing the UN Charter, international law, its own resolutions as
well as legal and binding arbitrations. There can be no “dialogue” and
“normalization of relations” with the regime while it is militarily
occupying sovereign Eritrean territories and thousands of Eritrean are
languishing in camps waiting to go home. Those parties that are
encouraging its belligerence will bear full responsibility for the
consequences.
As the November deadline nears, if it is to
salvage its own credibility and integrity, and improve the efficacy of
the UN, the Security Council should put at end to the minority
regime’s occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, or forfeit its
relevance on issues of international peace and security.
The rule of law must prevail over the law of the
jungle!
|
