From: Freweini Abraham (freweini@embassyeritrea.org)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2008 - 13:59:35 EDT
Press Statement: Ethiopia: Duplicity at the AU and G8 Summits
By Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jul 17, 2008, 17:07
Reporting on bilateral meetings that took place between the UN Secretary
General and Ethiopia's Prime Minister on the margins of the G8 Summit in
Hokkaido Toyako, Japan, News network asserts: "Melles blasted the UN for
not acting on Eritrea for its destructive measures on the
Ethiopia-Eritrea border."
It is not Eritrea but Ethiopia that has flagrantly violated the UN
Charter, including Article 2.3 and Article 33 on "the peaceful
settlement of disputes" as well as Article 2.4 on the "use or threat of
use of force against the territorial integrity of any State". Ethiopia
has also breached the Algiers Peace Agreement, which was guaranteed by
the UN Security Council, through its illegal occupation of Badme and
other sovereign Eritrean territories along after the delimitation and
demarcation determinations of the boundary by the Eritrea-Ethiopia
Boundary Commission.
Perhaps Ethiopia's Prime Minister was emboldened by Ban Ki-moon's
"gratitude for Ethiopia's contribution to the joint UN-Africa
peace-keeping mission in Darfur" and tried to push his luck. But
clearly, this is a separate matter. Ethiopia's contributions to
peacekeeping missions in the continent - whether this is motivated by
altruism or monetary reward is another matter- does not provide Addis
Abeba with a carte blanche to invade its neighbours and to violate
international law.
The blame does not, of course rest on Ethiopia's Prime Minister alone.
Also to blame were those who have encouraged him throughout the years.
His posturing in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, at the AU Summit that took
place at the beginning of this month was therefore entirely predictable.
Addressing the African Heads of State and government, Melles:
Claimed that Ethiopia has "unconditionally accepted the delimitation
decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission".
Attempted to justify Ethiopia's admitted occupation of sovereign
Eritrean territories as "a matter of eventual territorial swap"; and,
Claimed that he had been advised by his lawyers to dismiss the
demarcation by coordinates authoritatively determined by the Eritrea
Ethiopia Boundary Commission as "legal nonsense".
All theses assertions are at variance with the truth as the following
facts and events illustrate;
1. In a letter sent to the UN Secretary General on 19 September 2003,
Ethiopia's Prime Minister rejected the EEBC's delimitation decision as
"illegal, unjust and irresponsible" and requested the United Nations to
create an "alternative mechanism". Over the five years that followed,
Ethiopia continued to reject the EEBC's delimitation decision and
refused to allow the physical demarcation of the border. Ethiopia raised
unfounded and deceptive scare tactics, such as "villages and families
will be divided", "burial grounds will be separated", etc. etc. in its
attempts to have the decision annulled.
In the face of these obstructions, the EEBC lamented in its sixteenth
report to the UN Secretary Council in February 2005:
"...Ethiopia is not prepared to allow demarcation to continue in the
manner laid down in the demarcation directions and in accordance with
the time line set by the Commission. It now insists on prior "dialogue"
but has rejected the opportunity for such "dialogue" within the
framework of the demarcation process provided by the Commission's
proposal to meet with the parties on 22 February. This is the latest in
a series of obstructive actions taken since the summer of 2002 and
belies the frequently professed acceptance by Ethiopia of the
delimitation decision..."
At the meeting held in The Hague on September 2007, Ethiopia's lawyers
rejected the EEBC's delimitation decision and insisted on prior
dialogue, thus confirming the conclusions that the EEBC had reached
earlier. As the President of the EEBC emphasized in a letter responding
to Ethiopia's Minister of Foreign Affairs:
"...Your letter seeks to blame the Commission for Ethiopia's failure to
meet its obligations under the Algiers Agreement. Such blame is entirely
misplaced. The truth of the matter appears to be that Ethiopia is
dissatisfied with the Commission's Delimitation Decision and has been
seeking ever since April 2002, to find ways of changing it. This is not
an approach which the Commission was empowered to adopt and is not one
to which the Commission can lend itself..."
2. The attempt to justify Ethiopia's occupation of sovereign Eritrean
territories as a simple "matter of eventual territorial swap" is a lie.
The Prime Minister's claim that the "swapping of territories could only
take place after the second stage or the completion of physical
demarcation" has no legal basis and violates common sense. In the first
place, the final and binding EEBC Award of 13 April 2002 defined each
country's lines of sovereignty and both parties are obliged to conduct
their affairs consistently with this decision. The EEBC, in its
sixteenth Report on the work of the Commission to the Security Council
on 24 February 2005, emphasized,
"...the line of the boundary was legally and finally determined by its
delimitation decision of 13 April 2002.... Conduct inconsistent with
this boundary line is unlawful..."
Ethiopia, moreover, cannot obstruct physical demarcation for an
indefinite period of time in breach of the Algiers Agreement while
simultaneously arguing that it cannot relinquish to Eritrea sovereign
territory under its occupation.
3. Finally in as far as the legality of the EEBC's demarcation by
coordinates is concerned, one party to a case is not entitled to reject
a ruling simply because its lawyers disagree with it. The Algiers
Agreement explicitly states that the Commission's demarcation decisions
are "final and binding", just as its delimitation decisions are. In its
November 2006 Statement the EEBC clearly addressed the legality of
demarcation by coordinates, stating:
"... In adopting this approach, the Commission has been guided by
significant authority in State practice following the use of the word
'demarcation' by the United Nations Secretary General and United Nations
Security Council when the Iraq-Kuwait border was 'demarcated' in
1993...The Security Council's expressed support for the Secretary
General's report no doubt was expressed as to the legal acceptability of
a "demarcation" by means of a list of coordinates...Moreover the
feasibility and acceptability of the use of coordinates alone as a means
of identifying international boundaries is clearly affirmed by the
manner in which the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
deals with the limits of maritime claims by States..."
Demarcation by coordinates is not without precedent, and the
Commission's decision to proceed in this manner is legal and binding on
both parties. The Commission's decision was unanimous; Ethiopia's two
appointed Commissioner's agreed that demarcation by coordinates is a
perfectly legal way to proceed.
The US-led international community's refusal to shoulder its moral and
legal obligations under the Algiers Agreement and the UN Charter, and
its continued appeasement of Ethiopia, have emboldened the regime to
flout international law, the EEBC's delimitation and demarcation
decisions, and the AU and UN Charters, with its continuing militarily
occupation of Badme and other sovereign Eritrean territories.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
17 July 2008
Asmara, Eritrea
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----