Shabait.com (Asmara)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
17 July 2008
press release
Asmara — 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
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Shabait.com. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
