The Irony of All Ironies: Ethiopian Prime Minister Invoking UN’s Chapter 7!

The irony of all ironies is that the person who is invoking UNSC’s term- chapter seven in the last few days is no one but the Ethiopian Prime minister who has been defying international laws and norms by rejecting the Ethiopian-Eritrean border commission (EEBC) verdict. Time and again, Eritrea has been pleading the guarantors and UNSC to heed to its call and have the border demarcated based on the directives of the EEBC final and binding verdict. More than three years have been elapsed with out any tangible measures. On the contrary, all diplomatic efforts of the UNSG and of the guarantors have been to turn the table and apply political and diplomatic pressure on the party that has fully accepted the Alger’s peace agreement and EEBC verdict without any ifs and buts.

To escape from this fundamental request, the UNSG and the guarantors have been devising various schemes to evade the corner stone of the EEBC decision: the final and binding nature of the verdict by coming up with new proposals like assigning special envoy, hammering Eritrea for not allowing direct flights and hampering UNMEE ‘s movements and so many other insignificant issues to overshadow the principal matter which should be the levying of tangible pressure on the part that is refusing to abide by the very points of agreement it signed to adhere.

Now it seems that the diplomatic and political thread that has been linking UNSG and the guarantors on one side and the Eritrean government on the other is nearing to breaking point mainly due to the high dose of indifference exhibited by UNSG and the guarantors of the Algers peace agreement to Eritrea’s repeated plea for the parties to abide by international laws and norms and to apply meaningful pressure on the belligerent party to allow the border commission to demarcate the border based on acceptable international practices.

In his recent interviews, the Ethiopian prime minister, who has been caught in an

intractable internal political situation couldn't help himself from indirectly asking the sympathetic western powers to apply UNSC’s chapter seven on Eritrea for imposing the helicopter flight ban on UNMEE. Here is how the diplomatic savvy but inherently insincere prime mister of Ethiopia put it --

“We have a ceasefire agreement signed sometime in the early summer of 2000 and the final agreement which was signed at the end of 2000. Now the ceasefire agreement, among other things includes provisions for the Security Council to act on the basis of Chapter Seven of its charter in the event that the ceasefire agreement has been violated by one or the other side. Therefore, I think it is worth pointing out that the activities of UNMEE, which are based on the ceasefire agreement, are backed by the powers of the Security Council to invoke Chapter Seven provisions to see to it that the ceasefire agreement remains intact. “ ¹

Given the past experience, it wouldn’t be far fetched to assume the prime minister’s plea might find some sympathetic ears from the same powers that have been turning deaf ears to Eritrea’s request which was nothing more than asking the US-led guarantors and UNSC to live up to their international obligations and prevent the Ethiopia and Eritrea from relapsing to battle fields horrors.

The prime minister’s diplomatic savvy ness would lead him no where if there was a fair judgment on the situation. Such rhetoric, from the leader of a government that has been rejecting the final and binding verdict of EEBC could be only interpreted as shooting his own foot. First and foremost, rejecting the corner stone of the Algers agreement which is abiding by EEBC verdict is the first major blow to the peace agreement. And, such rejection couldn’t be window dressed by beautiful words like “accepting in principle “and “open ended dialogs”. If the Ethiopian prime minister is committed to lasting peace between the two nations, what he has to do is accept the verdict then both nations could proceeded to normalizing relations and nursing the wounds inflicted on their people by the unfortunate war.

The whole notion of Meles’ five point plan and accepting the EEBC verdict in principle is shrouded by insincerity and political ploys to shred the final and binding nature of the EEBC verdict. If the prime mister is so worried about the fact that allowing the border to be demarcated based on the rendered verdict could run the risk of splitting villages and cemeteries, he shouldn’t go further than consulting the final and binding verdict rendered by the commission as the EEBC verdict fully accommodates such concerns based on normal international practices in demarcating any borders.

In its verdict, EEBC clearly stated that the need for dialogue to deal with “the anomalies and impracticalities “that could arise in the process of demarcating the border between the two nations. In fact, on 4 February 2005, the border commission has invited both parties to come to London to start dialogue on “practicalities and anomalies” based on accepted international practices. Eritrea, in line with its total acceptance of the EEBC verdict, has accepted the invitation; however, Ethiopia refused to attend any meeting chaired by the border commission that includes its own expert candidates. That venue would have been a golden opportunity to address the so called “anomalies and impracticalities” and the border commission would have applied its power and mandate in interpreting parts of the border that could be considered as anomalies and impracticalities and offer its suggestions based on acceptable international practices.. Because neither parties should be given the right to interpret those geographical terms as the term impracticality and anomalies could be stretched as far as claiming the ownership right of places as vast as Badme and its environs. So no party could use the so called impractically and anomalies loopholes to acquire what has been lost in the court of law. In fact If the UNSC could work on having the border commission resume its task and have both parties meet to talk on the “anomalies and impracticalities” and offer their expert witness on the issue, the whole dialogue controversy could find resting place!

The reason prime minister of Ethiopia refused to attend the EEBC proposed London meeting was because he knows that the commission would tell him in black and white what “anomalies and impracticalities” are constituted of and it would also give both parties reasonable directives on how to reach to a solution in a way it sustains “human geography and other concerning issues.

The response from the border commission to Ethiopia’s rejection to dialog had clearly exposed the Prime Minister Meles’ employment of the term dialogue was just smoke screen to evade the final and binding nature of the verdict and immerse the two parties in endless in endless cycle of dialogs. This is how the border commission expressed its sadness to UNSG Koffie Anan on Ethiopia’s refusal to dialogue with Eritrea under the auspices of the border commission to clear any obstacles that could arise due to the so called “anomalies and impracticalities-

” Ethiopia is not prepared to allow demarcation to continue in the manner laid down in the Demarcation Directions and in accordance with the timeline 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.” ²

The above remark from the border commission has clearly showed the whole world that Ethiopian prime mister call for dialogue has never been to save villages, cemeteries, two room clinics and seasonal rivers from being divided to “left , right center” but to render the border verdict null and void under the cover up of an open ended dialogues. There could be no other qualified and legal vehicle to address anomalies and impracticalities controversy than the border commission and rejecting such venues to bring the border saga to its logical conclusion is nothing but a futile attempt to hoodwink the international community and the impoverished people of Eritrea and Ethiopia. You can’t ask for dialogue while you are refusing to attend one.

And, it is the height of all hypocrisies on the general secretary part to ignore the letter of the EEBC that detailed Ethiopia’s refusal to dialogue in London and start and at the same time grill Eritrea in his every press statements for not willing to dialogue with Ethiopia!!

While those are the facts surrounding the Ethio-Eritrean border problem, the guarantors of the Alger’s peace agreement and the united nation secretary general have chosen the path of appeasing the belligerent party and helped to bring the situation to its present dangerous scenario. No amount of cover ups could offer the united nation’s general secretary any sanctuary from the dire incompetence he has shown in dealing with Ethio-Eritrean border saga.

In his latest interview in regard to the ban on helicopter’s flights in security zone (TMZ), the secretary general threatened to pull out of the Ethio-Eritrean border and also expressed his organization’s uneasy relationship with Eritrea. However, for sake honesty, he should have also told the world the origin of these “uneasy relations” instead of trying to justify his position by invoking Eritrea’s uneasy experience with other organizations. It is true, Eritrea is going through uneasy relations with some organizations but that shouldn’t be the concern of the united nation’s secretary general as those issues are of bilateral nature and those concerned organizations should deal with it. The primary concern of the UNSG should be- why is his organization experiencing uneasy relationship with this tiny horn of Africa nation?

The origin of the uneasy relationship with Eritrea is due to the secretary general’s biased stand on the border issue and his repeated attempts to accommodate Ethiopia’s illegal demands by coming up with new and fresh proposals in direct contradiction of EEBC verdict to further complicate the issue at hand. By doing so, he has succeeded in bringing the scenario to the present dangerous and complicated situation. The good secretary can’t deceive the world and certainly not Eritreans for his deliberate wrong actions that nullified the efforts of UNMEE and the wastage of hundreds of millions dollars down the drain! This will definetely be an irremovable spot in his legacy as secretary general of the United Nations from black Africa as he failed to carry out his responsibility and obligations in a matter that affects the stability of his own continent. And, history will judge him for not siding with truth and for belittling and ridiculing the decisions the organization’s principal arms justice: international court of justice.

To sum up, the blame for the current impasse should squarely lie on the shoulders of the United Nations secretary general and the generators of the Algers peace agreement whose indifference have significantly contributed to the encouragement of the embattled prime minister of Ethiopia to practice the law of the jungle and to put the region to vicious cycle of instability!!

(Million Semere)

Ref.

^{1 -http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/933aba48db7aaaee01388c9f93614934.htm}

^{2 http://dehai.org/demarcation-watch/}