ERITREA-ETHIOPIA: Security Council´s Moment of Truth
Sophia Tesfamariam
January 29, 2008
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon released the latest Report to the Security Council on Eritrea and Ethiopia on 23 January 2008. Unfortunately, Ban Ki Moon, adopting an ostrich like approach, attempted to dilute important and relevant developments such as the demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border by choosing instead to dwell, on tangential and in the case of the United Nation´s Mission for Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE), a legally moot issue, instead of addressing the more serious and urgent issues of peace, stability and security in the region.
The Final and Binding Delimitation and Demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border brings a legal end to the Eritrea Ethiopia border dispute in accordance with the Algiers Agreements of December 2000. Ban Ki Moon must know that the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) has already delivered signed copies of the maps illustrating the boundary points identified in its 27 November 2006 Statement, to both Parties on 30 November 2007, with a copy being deposited with the United Nations. Refusing to acknowledge that legal fact is not going to make it go away. Raising unrelated issues and creating transparent diversions will not absolve the UN of its legal and moral obligations, nor will it absolve it of full responsibility for the consequences of its inaction and "ostrich-ity".
Instead of addressing Ethiopia´s occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories in violation of international law and the UN Charter, and Ethiopia´s violations of over two dozen Security Council resolutions, Ban Ki Moon cow towing to Washington instead of upholding the rule of law and the UN Charter, produced yet another distorted Report that will undoubtedly embolden Ethiopia´s belligerence and lawlessness and force Eritrea to seek other legal avenues to restore Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Washington and others at the Security Council have chosen to adopt a wait and see policy of appeasement as the lawless regime led by Meles Zenawi, Washington´s "staunch ally" commits international crimes and violates the sovereign rights of neighboring states.
The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon´s rightly observed in his 23 January 2008 Report to the Security Council on Eritrea and Ethiopia that:
"…the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission affirmed that the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea now automatically stands as demarcated by the boundary points (coordinates) listed in the annex to the Commission´s Statement of 27 November 2006, and that it considers this decision as binding on the parties. The Commission further asserted that it "has fulfilled its mandate and remains in existence in order to deal with any remaining administrative matters…"
After waiting for over 51/2 years, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) decided to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border on paper (virtual demarcation), with coordinates on maps, as opposed to actually erecting pillars on the ground (surficial representation). Ti should be recalled that the EEBC placed the blame squarely on Ethiopia and its refusal to allow for the expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance with the EEBC´s Final and Binding decision of 13 April 2002 and its demarcation directives and orders.
The Secretary General in his Report also presented the responses of the two countries to the "virtual demarcation" of their common border without comment. Ban Ki Moon wrote:
"…Eritrea has accepted the demarcation coordinates stipulated by the Commission as final and binding, and "as an important step forward towards the demarcation on the ground", while Ethiopia maintains that the coordinates are invalid "because they are not the product of a demarcation process recognised by international law"…"
Ban Ki Moon must know that the minority regime in Ethiopia led by Meles Zenawi also rejected the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s decision of 13 April 2002. It was in July 2007 that it belatedly decided to accept the decision believing it had warn out the EEBC and succeeded in frustrating it, forcing it to close its offices and leave the area. Fortunately, the EEBC remained committed to its mandate and delivered its demarcation decision in 2006, despite Ethiopia´s harassments and intimidations. It is therefore not surprising that the lawless regime also reject the EEBC´s demarcation decisions today, a futile time buying gimmick, which will not prolong the inevitable-removal of Ethiopian forces from sovereign Eritrean territories and restoration of Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ban Ki Moon must also know that for over 51/2 years, the belligerent minority regime supported by its handlers, refused to allow for the expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance with the EEBC´s Final and Binding delimitation decision of 13 April 2002. It should be recalled that the minority regime and its handlers tried every gimmick and tactic in the books to alter, amend, reverse and revisit the EEBC´s Final and Binding decision. Meles Zenawi in his 19 September 2003 letter to Kofi Annan said that the EEBC´s decision on Badme and parts of the Central sector was "totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible" and had asked the Security Council to bypass the Boundary Commission and set up an "alternative mechanism" to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border.
Ban Ki Moon must also know that in his recently published memoir – "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Threshold Editions) – former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton states that in February 2006, Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs informed him that she wanted him to "reopen" the 2002 EEBC decision. Bolton describes his surprise at Frazer's position, because in January 2006, he had gotten the Security Council to agree to a Frazer-led "U.S. initiative" on the border issue. Bolton believed that the "Initiative" would focus solely on the expeditious implementation of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission's (EEBC) Final and Binding decision delivered on 13 April 2002. He was in for a surprise. Here is what he wrote on the now infamous Page 347:
"…For reasons I never understood Frazer reversed course, and asked in early February to reopen the 2002 decision, which she had concluded was wrong, and award a major piece of disputed territory to Ethiopia. I was at a loss how to explain that to the Security Council, so I didn't…"
The Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, needless to say, encountered many such obstacles and interferences in its work, but it succeeded in fulfilling its sole mandate under the Algiers Agreements and should be applauded by all-especially the UN, if it is really seeking to ensure peace, stability and security in our world.
For the record, allow me to present key tenets of the Algiers Agreements for the record. Article 4.2, 4.3 and 4.15 of the Algiers Agreements clearly state:
"…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 [4.2]…The Commission shall be located in the Hague [4.3]…The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding. Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party [4.15]…"
Despite what Ethiopia and its handlers claim, "virtual demarcation" is not only legal, it is also an approach that is widely used and accepted-even by the Security Council. Had the Security Council enforced the EEBC´s delimitation decision and had it taken punitive actions against the belligerent minority regime as it violated the Algiers Agreements and the EEBC´s demarcation directives and orders, the Eritrea Ethiopia border could have been demarcated on the ground-with pillars.
Ban Ki Moon and the minority regime in Ethiopia must know that the Security Council mandate is to enforce the EEBC´s decision in full without any preconditions, not offer alternatives or create other mechanisms. Unlike the independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, the Security Council is not an independent and impartial judiciary body, but rather a political body, with limited powers under the UN Charter. It cannot alter, amend, revise, or revisit the legal delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia boundary as determined by the independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), nor can it alter the Algiers Agreements signed by Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2000. The Security Council is bound by international law, is not omnipotent nor is it legibus solutus (above the law).
As the Security Council meets this week to discuss the Eritrea Ethiopia issue, it should note that undermining the EEBC or its decisions by refusing to immediately endorse its demarcation decisions is a serious abrogation of the Security Council´s duties and will not only bring its credibility, integrity and neutrality into question, but will also be seen as being hypocritical and duplicitous. It should be recalled that in 1991, the US-led Security Council fully endorsed the "virtual demarcation" of the Kuwait-Iraq border, called on both Kuwait and Iraq to respect its inviolability and also guaranteed its inviolability. The UN and the Security Council will bear full responsibility for the consequences of its inaction or indifference.
Virtual demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border includes a detailed description of the demarcated boundary with corresponding list of boundary coordinates and serves as a more permanent binding source for the future, than if actual "pillars" were planted on the ground. Pillars can be removed, stolen, destroyed etc. but the demarcation coordinates and the demarcation maps that have been given to both parties and the UN, will remain for posterity as legal instruments for future generations. Ignoring the legal demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border will also make the Security Council party to the occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
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 Delimitation and Demarcation decisions, international law and the UN Charter.
The EEBC´s decision to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border by placing coordinates on maps is Final and Binding, whether or not the Security Council recognizes it as such or endorses it. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Pretending the border issue is not resolved will not reverse the fact that it has been legally resolved. Choosing to address moot and irrelevant issues, such as the future of the UN peacekeeping mission, is negligent at best, and criminal at worst. Turning a blind eye to Ethiopia´s intransigence will not absolve the Security Council of its own legal and moral obligations under the UN Charter, and history and the people of Eritrea will judge it harshly.
The Security Council, if it wants to salvage its credibility and integrity must:
Welcome, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s demarcation decision;
Reaffirm that the decisions of the EEBC regarding the delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia boundary are final and binding;
Demand that Eritrea and Ethiopia, in accordance with international law, the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions, respect the inviolability of the Eritrea Ethiopia international boundary as demarcated by the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission;
Call on Ethiopia to immediately and unconditionally remove its forces from sovereign Eritrean territories;
Call for the restoration of Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity
The Security Council, must determine that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards to Ethiopia´s continued 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.
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 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…"
As for United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) and its future, Ban Ki Moon must know that in the past, the Security Council emphasized that the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia on 18 June 2000 linked the termination of UNMEE with the completion of the process of delimitation and demarcation of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border. Therefore, now that the delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border has been completed, the issue of UNMEE is moot. It cannot continue to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories indefinitely without a practical and coherent mandate, which can lead to restoring Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Security Council (SC) policy of appeasing the minority regime in Ethiopia will lead to disastrous consequences in an already volatile region and the SC will bear full responsibility for the carnage, chaos and destruction that will surely ensue if it refuses to uphold international law and the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s Final and Binding Delimitation and Demarcation decisions.
The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle!
The Final and Binding Delimitation and Demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border brings a legal end to the Eritrea Ethiopia border dispute in accordance with the Algiers Agreements of December 2000. Ban Ki Moon must know that the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) has already delivered signed copies of the maps illustrating the boundary points identified in its 27 November 2006 Statement, to both Parties on 30 November 2007, with a copy being deposited with the United Nations. Refusing to acknowledge that legal fact is not going to make it go away. Raising unrelated issues and creating transparent diversions will not absolve the UN of its legal and moral obligations, nor will it absolve it of full responsibility for the consequences of its inaction and "ostrich-ity".
Instead of addressing Ethiopia´s occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories in violation of international law and the UN Charter, and Ethiopia´s violations of over two dozen Security Council resolutions, Ban Ki Moon cow towing to Washington instead of upholding the rule of law and the UN Charter, produced yet another distorted Report that will undoubtedly embolden Ethiopia´s belligerence and lawlessness and force Eritrea to seek other legal avenues to restore Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Washington and others at the Security Council have chosen to adopt a wait and see policy of appeasement as the lawless regime led by Meles Zenawi, Washington´s "staunch ally" commits international crimes and violates the sovereign rights of neighboring states.
The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon´s rightly observed in his 23 January 2008 Report to the Security Council on Eritrea and Ethiopia that:
"…the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission affirmed that the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea now automatically stands as demarcated by the boundary points (coordinates) listed in the annex to the Commission´s Statement of 27 November 2006, and that it considers this decision as binding on the parties. The Commission further asserted that it "has fulfilled its mandate and remains in existence in order to deal with any remaining administrative matters…"
After waiting for over 51/2 years, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) decided to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border on paper (virtual demarcation), with coordinates on maps, as opposed to actually erecting pillars on the ground (surficial representation). Ti should be recalled that the EEBC placed the blame squarely on Ethiopia and its refusal to allow for the expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance with the EEBC´s Final and Binding decision of 13 April 2002 and its demarcation directives and orders.
The Secretary General in his Report also presented the responses of the two countries to the "virtual demarcation" of their common border without comment. Ban Ki Moon wrote:
"…Eritrea has accepted the demarcation coordinates stipulated by the Commission as final and binding, and "as an important step forward towards the demarcation on the ground", while Ethiopia maintains that the coordinates are invalid "because they are not the product of a demarcation process recognised by international law"…"
Ban Ki Moon must know that the minority regime in Ethiopia led by Meles Zenawi also rejected the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s decision of 13 April 2002. It was in July 2007 that it belatedly decided to accept the decision believing it had warn out the EEBC and succeeded in frustrating it, forcing it to close its offices and leave the area. Fortunately, the EEBC remained committed to its mandate and delivered its demarcation decision in 2006, despite Ethiopia´s harassments and intimidations. It is therefore not surprising that the lawless regime also reject the EEBC´s demarcation decisions today, a futile time buying gimmick, which will not prolong the inevitable-removal of Ethiopian forces from sovereign Eritrean territories and restoration of Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ban Ki Moon must also know that for over 51/2 years, the belligerent minority regime supported by its handlers, refused to allow for the expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance with the EEBC´s Final and Binding delimitation decision of 13 April 2002. It should be recalled that the minority regime and its handlers tried every gimmick and tactic in the books to alter, amend, reverse and revisit the EEBC´s Final and Binding decision. Meles Zenawi in his 19 September 2003 letter to Kofi Annan said that the EEBC´s decision on Badme and parts of the Central sector was "totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible" and had asked the Security Council to bypass the Boundary Commission and set up an "alternative mechanism" to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border.
Ban Ki Moon must also know that in his recently published memoir – "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Threshold Editions) – former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton states that in February 2006, Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs informed him that she wanted him to "reopen" the 2002 EEBC decision. Bolton describes his surprise at Frazer's position, because in January 2006, he had gotten the Security Council to agree to a Frazer-led "U.S. initiative" on the border issue. Bolton believed that the "Initiative" would focus solely on the expeditious implementation of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission's (EEBC) Final and Binding decision delivered on 13 April 2002. He was in for a surprise. Here is what he wrote on the now infamous Page 347:
"…For reasons I never understood Frazer reversed course, and asked in early February to reopen the 2002 decision, which she had concluded was wrong, and award a major piece of disputed territory to Ethiopia. I was at a loss how to explain that to the Security Council, so I didn't…"
The Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, needless to say, encountered many such obstacles and interferences in its work, but it succeeded in fulfilling its sole mandate under the Algiers Agreements and should be applauded by all-especially the UN, if it is really seeking to ensure peace, stability and security in our world.
For the record, allow me to present key tenets of the Algiers Agreements for the record. Article 4.2, 4.3 and 4.15 of the Algiers Agreements clearly state:
"…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 [4.2]…The Commission shall be located in the Hague [4.3]…The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding. Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party [4.15]…"
Despite what Ethiopia and its handlers claim, "virtual demarcation" is not only legal, it is also an approach that is widely used and accepted-even by the Security Council. Had the Security Council enforced the EEBC´s delimitation decision and had it taken punitive actions against the belligerent minority regime as it violated the Algiers Agreements and the EEBC´s demarcation directives and orders, the Eritrea Ethiopia border could have been demarcated on the ground-with pillars.
Ban Ki Moon and the minority regime in Ethiopia must know that the Security Council mandate is to enforce the EEBC´s decision in full without any preconditions, not offer alternatives or create other mechanisms. Unlike the independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, the Security Council is not an independent and impartial judiciary body, but rather a political body, with limited powers under the UN Charter. It cannot alter, amend, revise, or revisit the legal delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia boundary as determined by the independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), nor can it alter the Algiers Agreements signed by Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2000. The Security Council is bound by international law, is not omnipotent nor is it legibus solutus (above the law).
As the Security Council meets this week to discuss the Eritrea Ethiopia issue, it should note that undermining the EEBC or its decisions by refusing to immediately endorse its demarcation decisions is a serious abrogation of the Security Council´s duties and will not only bring its credibility, integrity and neutrality into question, but will also be seen as being hypocritical and duplicitous. It should be recalled that in 1991, the US-led Security Council fully endorsed the "virtual demarcation" of the Kuwait-Iraq border, called on both Kuwait and Iraq to respect its inviolability and also guaranteed its inviolability. The UN and the Security Council will bear full responsibility for the consequences of its inaction or indifference.
Virtual demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border includes a detailed description of the demarcated boundary with corresponding list of boundary coordinates and serves as a more permanent binding source for the future, than if actual "pillars" were planted on the ground. Pillars can be removed, stolen, destroyed etc. but the demarcation coordinates and the demarcation maps that have been given to both parties and the UN, will remain for posterity as legal instruments for future generations. Ignoring the legal demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border will also make the Security Council party to the occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
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 Delimitation and Demarcation decisions, international law and the UN Charter.
The EEBC´s decision to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border by placing coordinates on maps is Final and Binding, whether or not the Security Council recognizes it as such or endorses it. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Pretending the border issue is not resolved will not reverse the fact that it has been legally resolved. Choosing to address moot and irrelevant issues, such as the future of the UN peacekeeping mission, is negligent at best, and criminal at worst. Turning a blind eye to Ethiopia´s intransigence will not absolve the Security Council of its own legal and moral obligations under the UN Charter, and history and the people of Eritrea will judge it harshly.
The Security Council, if it wants to salvage its credibility and integrity must:
Welcome, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s demarcation decision;
Reaffirm that the decisions of the EEBC regarding the delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia boundary are final and binding;
Demand that Eritrea and Ethiopia, in accordance with international law, the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions, respect the inviolability of the Eritrea Ethiopia international boundary as demarcated by the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission;
Call on Ethiopia to immediately and unconditionally remove its forces from sovereign Eritrean territories;
Call for the restoration of Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity
The Security Council, must determine that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards to Ethiopia´s continued 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.
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 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…"
As for United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) and its future, Ban Ki Moon must know that in the past, the Security Council emphasized that the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia on 18 June 2000 linked the termination of UNMEE with the completion of the process of delimitation and demarcation of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border. Therefore, now that the delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border has been completed, the issue of UNMEE is moot. It cannot continue to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories indefinitely without a practical and coherent mandate, which can lead to restoring Eritrea´s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Security Council (SC) policy of appeasing the minority regime in Ethiopia will lead to disastrous consequences in an already volatile region and the SC will bear full responsibility for the carnage, chaos and destruction that will surely ensue if it refuses to uphold international law and the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission´s Final and Binding Delimitation and Demarcation decisions.
The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle!
Print
Email
