Foreign Occupation = Human Rights Violation
It is indisputable that foreign occupation results in the violation of the
fundamental human rights of the occupied people. It creates a situation in
which the people are victimized in many different ways, ranging from gross
violations of their fundamental freedoms to physical abuse of especially
women and children. This has been one of the principles that guided the
mandate of the UN Human Rights Council in the past.
However, it is appalling that the Council seems to accept the shameless
assertion by its own Special Rapporteur for the situation of Human Rights
in Eritrea, that the occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory by
Ethiopia has no relevance to human rights. The Special Rapporteur, who
presented her politically motivated report to the Council on May 28, tried
to dismiss or minimize Ethiopia’s occupation of sovereign Eritrean
territory and state “the border issues should not serve as an excuse.“ It
clearly shows on whose side the Rapporteur is, definitely not on the side
of the victims.
The Rapporteur also seems oblivious of the reality this occupation and
continued blatant threats by the occupier has created. She repeatedly
decried “Indefinite conscription”, “indefinite national service” and has
called on Eritrea to “put an immediate end to indefinite national service”
and “initiate demobilization for those who have completed 18 months
service”, but how could Eritrea do this when in fact its territory is
under occupation, the Ethiopian government keeps boasting of unchecked
military incursions into Eritrea and has openly admitted is working for a
“regime change”?
The Rapporteur also seems to draw too much from the tons of misinformation
and disinformation that Ethiopian officials fed her when she visited Addis
Ababa a few months ago. Let us look at some of that. On June 4, 2013, the
Ethiopian delegation told the 20th Meeting of the 23rd Regular Session of
the Human Rights Council in Geneva: “it would be important to note that
the Government of Ethiopia has accepted the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary
Commission’s Delimitation Decision and is ready to engage Eritrea to
ensure durable implementation."
This sentence is full of the typical deceptions, lies and contradictions
that have now become the hallmark of those in power in Ethiopia.
First, the statement “Ethiopia has accepted the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary
Commission’s Delimitation Decision,” is patently false. According to the
Ethiopian News Agency, the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia, had “made
it clear that Ethiopia's policy towards Eritrea has not changed over the
past eight years since it issued its Five Point Peace Plan in November
2004, accepting in principle the Eritrean Ethiopian Boundary Commission's
Decision”1, in other words, though there was talk of “Ethiopia had
unconditionally accepted the delimitation decision” some time in the
middle of 2007, the Prime Minister is still talking of Ethiopia’s
shenanigan of “accepting in principle” as it was advised to do by the
British. Here is how Chris Mullin, Britain's minister for Africa, put it
in January of 2004: "We are looking to Ethiopia to accept the
border decision in principle and enter into dialogue, We are calling on
Ethiopia to accept in principle the decision to be on equal footing on
moral grounds with Eritrea, who are now having the upper moral ground.”2
Second, according to the Algiers Agreement Ethiopia signed on December 12,
2000, Ethiopia is obligated to accept, not only the delimitation decision,
but also the demarcation decision. The stipulation of Algiers Article
4(15) is that “the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the
Commission shall be final and binding” and Ethiopia is required to
“respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of” Eritrea. This Ethiopia is not doing. No country is
expected to take National sovereignty lightly, and Eritrea does not. It is
a priority and the Special Rapporteur was dead wrong to insinuate
otherwise.
Third, the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), as the only
authority with a “mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty
border” has demarcated the border. As the EEBC made it clear throughits
March 2003 Observations3, “a demarcator must demarcate the boundary as it
has been laid down in the delimitation instrument,” thereby Ethiopia’s
request for demarcation that varies from the delimitation line was
rejected. Accordingly, the Commission was able “to demarcate the course of
the boundary by identifying the location of turning points by both grid
and geographical coordinates with a degree of accuracy that does not
differ significantly from pillar site assessment and emplacement
undertaken in the field.” The Commission had identified once and for all
“the location of points for the emplacement of
pillars as a physical manifestation of the boundary on the ground.”4 The
EEBC had published the coordinates of 146 turning points5 of the border
(pillar sites). This, the Commission told the world, was possible because
of “Modern techniques of image processing and terrain modeling, in
conjunction with the use of high resolution aerial photography.” So
Ethiopia’s statement “have accepted delimitation, but” is deceptive to say
the least. The fact is Ethiopia has dismissed the EEBC’s demarcation
decision as “a legal nonsense."6 This is the fact.
Fourth, there is no room left for “engagement” as far as the demarcation
of the border goes, not any more. There cannot be any “give and take” on
it, if there was any the time for such a mechanism, it could have been
done in 1997 as Eritrea was pleading with Ethiopian leaders to handle the
border issue with care and bilaterally. The question today is that of
occupation and it must end. The only way to have “durable implementation”
is for Ethiopia to honor its obligation, end its occupation and vacate
from sovereign Eritrean territories immediately, thereby respecting the
Eritrean people’s right to live in peace within their internationally
recognized borders. One cannot shed crocodile’s tear of “human rights”
when the highest form of human rights violation is occupation. We urge the
UN Human Rights Commission to take this fundamental violation of the
Eritrean people’s right and unequivocally condemn and call for an end to
Ethiopia’s 11 year long occupation.
Fifth, Eritrean people’s rights are also being violated by Ethiopia
‘establishment of settlements, population transfers into the occupied
territories. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is
also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is
similarly prohibited under International humanitarian law7 (the Fourth
Geneva Convention) which:
1. Prohibits the expulsion of citizens from their land, but Ethiopia’s
mass deportations and expulsion of Eritrean inhabitants from the occupied
territories, is in violation of this basis human right.
2. Prohibits an occupying power from transferring “its own population into
the territory it occupies”, but Ethiopia’s program of settling its own
civilians in the occupied territories around Badme, a fact the EEBC
condemned and ordered it to stop as early as 17 July 20028 is still
continuing.
3. Prohibits the confiscation of properties of citizens in the occupied
territories, but Ethiopia’s confiscation of property and land of those
people it expelled from the occupied territories is another violation of a
people’s right.
4. Prohibits the destruction of cultural property, yet Ethiopia’s wanton
and systemic destruction of Eritrea’s cultural heritage sites, including
the desecration of cemeteries and burial grounds, are all violations of
human rights.
Finally, the Ethiopian delegation said: “It is difficult to take seriously
the implication of the assertion that the unresolved border issues would
have in anyway contributed to Eritrea’s regional and international
isolation”
First of all, despite attempt by Ethiopia and its handlers to isolate
Eritrea, member states, especially Africans have come to reject these
efforts. Eritrea enjoys friendly relations with the peoples of the Horn,
despite hostility of their leaders. Ethiopia and its handlers have left no
stone unturned to give Ethiopia a win it could not attain on the battle
ground or at the negotiating tables, or at the court of arbitration, hence
the latest shenanigans at the UN Human Rights Council meetings. But, we
urge the Council to be guided by its own principles, and not by the
political agendas of one party or the other.
1
http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/02/ethiopia-prime-minister-hmd-says-no-change-of-policy-on-eritrea
2
http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/pressure-mounts-ethiopia-drop-rejection-border-ruling
3
http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/eebc/EEBC-Observation-March2003.pdf
4
http://dehai.org/demarcation-watch/eebc/EEBC-Statement-Nov-27-2006.pdf
5
http://dehai.org/demarcation-watch/eebc/EEBC%20List%20of%20Boundary%20Points%20and%20Coordinates.pdf
6
http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-eritrea-border-demarcation-deadline-passing
7
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
8
http://www.dehai.org/demarcation-watch/eebc/Order_re_interim_measures.pdf
The Global E-SMART Movement
http://www.eritrean-smart.org
esmart_at_eritrean-smart.org
Received on Thu Jun 13 2013 - 11:11:33 EDT