Ethiopia and the United Nations Organization
Making, Unmaking and Remaking of Boundaries
Negussay Ayele
(00) The topic of this brief deserves more research and more space to do
justice to it. This modest reflective essay is prompted by the current ominous
events with regard to “boundaries” swirling around The Hague, New York and
Ethiopia-Eritrea. It focuses, understandably, on making, unmaking and remaking
of boundaries in the region. As fate would have it, this is now the fourth time
in the last half-century that the United Nations Organization has been seized
with crucial decision-making on territorial sovereignty issues involving
Ethiopia. That historical fact itself points to a need to look at Ethiopia and
the UNO in perspective, as one contemplates what is in process currently.
(01) As is well known, with its strong commitment to ‘collective security,’ Ethiopia is one of the 51 founding members of the United Nations
and an active participant in the Charter drafting and adopting process in 1945
in San Francisco. Ethiopia’s venerable Emperor Haile Sellassie was the leader
who in 1936 predicted the demise of the spineless compromised League of Nations,
survived the Italian Fascist onslaught of the 1930’s, saw to it that Ethiopia
would be part of the Allied campaigns in World War II and lived long enough to
address the new United Nations General Assembly as well. One of the United
Nations most important regional offices, the UN Economic Commission for Africa,
is located in Addis Ababa.
(02) It is somewhat paradoxical that Ethiopia-the oldest African nation
should repeatedly be the turf for experimenting modalities for boundary
formations in the continent where the overwhelming majority of the
colonialist-generated boundaries, remain either un-delimited or un-demarcated.
Furthermore, Ethiopia has consistently made positive contributions in the
struggle against secession and for the preservation of territorial sovereignty
of African states such as the Congo, Nigeria, Sudan and even Somalia-with its
perennial irredentist agenda against its neighbors. Yet, Ethiopia has today
become the first-and so far the only-state in the continent to sustain forced
secession of part of its people and territory along its Red Sea littoral. What
is even more astounding is that Ethiopia-the indomitable country that had
successfully fought so many anti-colonial wars to acquit its independent
existence, now stands to be victimized by defunct and invalid colonial “treaties,”
that were in the first instance designed to contain Ethiopia as a landlocked,
truncated, weak and circumscribed country during the colonial era. It is those
very colonialists themselves who crafted such unconscionable, uneven “treaties”
that rendered them obsolete. The “treaties” were unilaterally flouted,
violated, manipulated, reversed, rejected, superceded and/or overwritten by
inter-colonialist cabal (e.g. 1906, 1925, 1936) at will. Why and how is it that
such non-existent and non-applicable colonial “treaties” are about to hang
as an albatross on Ethiopia’s scarred and tired shoulders? The real problem in
Ethiopia-Eritrea is that the guerrillas (EPLF and TPLF) that fought to overthrow
the government in power in Ethiopia which they did in 1991, have gone beyond
that and are on a mission to overthrow Ethiopia as a state. In other words,
their ultimate objective is the politicide of Ethiopia. Wittingly or
unwittingly, outside elements, including the United Nations, that support this
cabal against the Ethiopian people are aiding and abetting in the politicide of
Ethiopia.
(03) The immediate question that juts out at this point is “WHY?”
More to the point, “Why has the United Nations become the vehicle of choice
in 2000-2002, to deliver what appears to be a form of delayed or retroactive
punishment against Ethiopia-which at the turn of the last century was referred
to in imperialist circles in Europe as The Last Unresolved Problem in Africa”-ie,
the only country that defied outright total colonial subjugation?” Countless
Ethiopians from all walks of life and others have protested against the
injustice of using null and void colonial “treaties” as a basis for
determining borders or other sovereignty questions. They have pointed out
incessantly to all concerned that the entire process of Eritrean secession, its
sanction by a surrogate regime in Addis Ababa in 1991 and the sham “referendum”
of 1993–in all of which the Ethiopian people have had no say whatsoever–were
illegal, illegitimate and unacceptable by this or succeeding generations.
Countless letters, resolutions, pleas and protests have been expressed via
various venues since 1991, principally addressed to United Nations bodies and
hierarchies. Why is it that responsible officers of the United Nations, whose
Charter’s first Preamble line is “We the People of the United Nations…”
has become deaf to the messages of some people? Let us ponder the above
questions by looking at relations of Ethiopia and the United Nations in
historical perspective.
(04) One of the first international problems, the relatively young
United Nations Organization cut its teeth with, was deciding the future of the
former Italian colonies of Libya, Somalia and Eritrea-something the Four Allied
Powers could not agree on. Normally, when in May 1941, the Italians were booted
out from the entire Horn of Africa including Ethiopia and former Italian
colonies of Eritrea and Somalia, the region which was held by Italy as a single
”Italian East Africa,” should have become de-colonized altogether right
then. At the very least, Eritrea, which had been carved out of historic Ethiopia
in 1890, should have reverted back to its Ethiopian fold in 1941. But as this
period was the onset of the European phase of World War II, the British-who were
in the region giving a helping hand to Ethiopia’s struggle to oust the Fascist
marauders, used the pretext of WWII exigencies in the region to hold on to
Eritrea and to the Haud and Reserved areas of the Ogaden in eastern Ethiopia.
Even after all that, with the absolute, categorical renunciation of all claims,
treaty rights, properties in the post WWII Peace Treaty of 1947 that ended
forthwith the colonial status of all former Italian colonies, including
Eritrea. The British knew this very well, as they were the ones who lured
and facilitated Italian colonial inundation of the region. But they held on to
the Eritrean region for a decade, forever complicating matters and trying to
annex part or all of it as their colony or–as they prefer to couch it–“protectorate.”
Despite the end of the colonial border regime in the region as of 1941,the
British used defunct Italian colonial territorial divides for “administrative”
reasons during their ten-year interregnum in the area. The Horn of Africa region
was in such nefarious and murky state when, in 1949, the United Nations assumed
the task of determining the future status of the former Italian colonies of
Eritrea and Somalia.
(05) The United Nations provided the forum for exhaustive deliberations by
all concerned on the matter in the General Assembly and in its committees. More
importantly, the Organization made field trips to the region of Eritrea to
ascertain first-hand the wishes of the people and the mushrooming “parties”
on their visions and choices about their future. To the extent that they remain
intact, the United Nations archives on the period provide the full array of
views expressed freely by the Eritrean people during this period. We cannot go
into the details of those fascinating and enlightening proceedings now. The
reader may refer to the UN publication which contains the operative resolutions
and documents and summarizes what transpired at the time: Final Report of the
United Nations Commissioner in Eritrea, GA Official Records, Seventh
Session, Supplement No. 15 (A/2188) New York, 1952. Cf also this writer’s “In
Search of the Historical DNA of the Eritrean Problem” (www.mediaethiopia.com)
which is a review article on the best book (in Ethiopic) published on the
subject so far, entitled The Eritrean Affair (1941-1963) During the
Reign of Emperor Haile Sellassie I, by Ambassador Zewde Retta. After all the
exhaustive painstaking surveys and discussions, the United Nations General
Assembly passed Resolution 390 A (V) on 2 December 1950. It is worth revisiting
the Preamble and the first paragraph of that historic Resolution.
Taking into consideration,
(a) The wishes and welfare of the inhabitants of Eritrea, including the
views of the various racial, religious and political groups of the provinces of
the territory, and the capacity of the people for self government,
(b) The interests of peace and security in East Africa,
(c) The rights and claims of Ethiopia based on geographical, historical,
ethnic, or economic reasons, including in particular Ethiopia’s legitimate
need for adequate access to the sea,
The General Assembly recommends that Eritrea shall constitute an
autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of
the Ethiopian Crown.” (Emphasis added)
(06) To be sure, neither Ethiopia nor the disparate Eritrean groups called
for or expected something exotic called federation. Very few people in the
region fully fathomed it. However, whether the people of Ethiopia-Eritrea liked
it or not, it was the compromise formula that got the necessary majority vote in
Committees and on the floor of the General Assembly, out of dozens of
propositions and options. Over the next two years, the UN Commission worked
diligently to implement the Resolution and effected the transfer of power from
the British to the new federal state. It established the necessary instruments
and institutions, and saw to it that, as sovereign of the Federal government,
the Emperor ratified the instruments of governance including the Federal Act and
the Eritrean constitution. The Commission then quietly left the scene hoping
that its efforts would succeed. At that point, there was no longer an
international boundary separating Ethiopia and former Italian Eritrea. In 1952,
the British left behind what they called an “administrative” border they
used since 1941 for former Italian Eritrea. That was also what Ethiopia
understood it to be when the Federation was established. No one, including the
United Nations, raised the question of boundaries of the federal Eritrean unit
nor made any objection to the fact that henceforth, whatever boundary was used
between former Italian Eritrea and the rest of Ethiopia was an internal,
not an international boundary. There was no reference to colonial “treaties”
of 1900, 1902, 1908, etc…by the United Nations or anybody else then. To be
sure, there was no longer a colony called Eritrea, or a colonial boundary or
applicable “treaty” of any kind in this region anymore. Sovereignty,
including territorial sovereignty, in a federal state is single and indivisible,
just as in a unitary state. The United States, for example, is a Federal State
comprising fifty component unit states, but it is one Sovereign Nation. It has
only one seat in the United Nations, not fifty seats. The borders within the
United States are internal borders, not international boundaries. (As most
experts recognize, the seating of some Soviet states in the General Assembly was
an anomaly that had more to do with post-WWII East-West temporary arrangement
among the big powers then, than an exception to the basic principle of the
indivisibility of sovereignty). The last time one checked United Nations and
other relevant records and rosters of the state of the world between 1950 and
1991, one does not find Eritrea listed as sovereign state, colony or Trusteeship
territory. Thus, in so establishing the 1950 Ethiopia-Eritrea Federation, the
United Nations made or restored the Red Sea littoral as the natural boundary of
Ethiopia. Henceforth, any and all maritime commerce and communication as well as
sea, land and air spaces in the Eritrean region were within Ethiopia’s
sovereign jurisdiction, and they remained so until 1991. Articles 2 and 3 of
Resolution 390 A (V) cited above, enunciates clearly the formula of how power is
to be shared in the Federation and where state sovereignty resides:
“The Eritrean government shall possess legislative, executive and
judicial powers in the field of domestic affairs”
“The jurisdiction of the Federal government shall extend to defense,
foreign affairs, currency and finance, foreign and interstate commerce and
external and interstate communications, including ports. The Federal government
shall have the power to maintain the integrity of the Federation…”
(07) The Ethiopian-Eritrean federation was sustained under great
strains until 1962, when, with the blessing and active political support of
Emperor Haile Sellassie, unionist elements in the Eritrean Assembly garnered
majority support to dismantle the Federation and opt for outright union with
their Ethiopian motherland. Notwithstanding the fact that present-day
secessionist elements dispute the circumstances and propriety of such outright
transition from federation to union, the fact remains that the United Nations
did not object, intervene or call for a reversal of the measure taken by the
Eritrean Assembly. The matter was not a subject of deliberation at the UNO then
and throughout the period till 1991. There was no mention of disputed
international boundaries or “colonial treaties of 1900, 1902,1908” then.
Eritrea has never been a colony of Ethiopia and there are no “colonial
treaties” to invoke then or now. It would appear that that was the reason for
the United Nations to have vacated whatever oversight functions it might have
deemed necessary to involve itself in Ethiopia’s internal affairs. Although
even then, the administrative border delineating former Italian colony of
Eritrea and the rest of Ethiopia was not adjusted or reconfigured until 1987,
there was no confusion whatsoever about the extent of Ethiopia’s territorial
sovereignty in that region. The early 60s had joined armed Eritrean secessionist
struggles, aided and abetted by external elements in the region. Secessionist
struggles are, of course, neither new nor confined to the Eritrean scene in the
Horn of Africa. The United Nations (or its member states) had four long decades
(1950-1990) during which time time moves to correct, redress or do something if
international law was violated or acts endangering world or regional peace are
committed in any region of the globe could have been taken. There was no such
determination or action during this period in the Ethiopia-Eritrea region during
the said protracted period.
(08) The second time in which the United Nations was involved with
questions of territorial sovereignty and boundaries in the Horn occurred almost
simultaneously with what has just been adumbrated above. This time it dealt with
Ethiopia’s eastern frontiers along the Somali coast. The United Nations
General Assembly had resolved in 1949 that former Italian Somaliland be placed
in the UN Trusteeship system for ten years after which it would gain its
independence. This time, however, the UN’s decision on Somalia and its
territorial bounds were fundamentally different from the Ethiopia-Eritrea
syndrome. Despite streneous Ethiopian objections it was resolved (Resolution 392
V) in 1950 that despite its invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930’s, Italy-not yet
even a member of the United Nations-be returned to the Horn as the Trustee
power. Secondly, the United Nations also called for immediate negotiations
between Italy and Ethiopia to delimit the boundaries of the prospective Somalian
state. The two parties started talks in 1952 under rather inconducive
conditions, but they kept going through 1959 because the United Nations kept prodding
them without letup. In fact, Secretaries General Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarsjold
were more directly invloved to add weight to the matter. And, the talks under UN
aegis ran the gamut from simple bilateral negotiations to mediation efforts and
eventually to arbitration. However, for reasons that are too complex to go into
here, the parties could not reach a denouement to the Ethiopia-Somalia boundary
problem and, because the date of independence for Somalia was fast approaching,
the Fourth Committee reported to the General Assembly that it had “no draft
resolution to recommend.” Instead, Ethiopia and Somalia were urged to enter
bilateral negotiations to delimit and demarcate their international border. An
interesting aspect of those negotiations was that Ethiopia at that time was more
willing to consider having those boundaries resolved based on its interpretation
of the 1908 treaty whereas Italy, the other party to that treaty, was unwilling
to abide by it alone. As is well known, the border between Somalia and Ethiopia
is still un-delimited, and territorial conflicts between the two states have
been ongoing since Somalia’s independence in 1960, culminating in a full-scale
invasion of Ethiopia by Somalia in 1977. So, once again, despite best efforts
and intentions, the United Nations could not materialize boundary delimitation
in the Horn of Africa. Territorial or frontier issues in that part of the Horn
are like dangerous time bombs for the future, unless a new breed of leadership
with new visions for the future emerges in the region. (For more details on the
boundary negotiations, see this writer’s “The 1952-1959 Ethio-Italian
Boundary Negotiations: an Exercise in Diplomatic Futility,” Journal of
Ethiopian Studies, Vol. IX #2, pp127-148).
(09) Once again, when least expected, the United Nations entered the scene in
the Horn of Africa in 1991-93 to weigh in on territorial sovereignty issues
involving Ethiopia for the third time. In May 1991 the combined forces of
guerrilla forces of the secessionist Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF)
and the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) defeated the military forces of
the Derg and occupied Asmera and Addis Ababa. Shortly thereafter, a
“conference” of carefully chosen persons was convened in Addis Ababa and a
pre-agreed “Charter” was proclaimed, primarily to give a veneer of
legitimacy for the secession of EPLF-Eritrea and to divide the rest of Ethiopia
along ethnic/tribal lines in the name of the much abused notion of
“self-determination.” This was a ploy to secure Eritrea’s secession and to
facilitate Tigrayan minority hegemony in the country. At this time, there was no
stable government in Ethiopia, but only a transitional martial power. Yet, the
TPLF and its minions were making momentous decisions that were to have far
reaching consequences. The martyred Surgeon, Professor Asrat Weldeyes, had
stated that the gathering had no mandate from the Ethiopian people to decide on
issues of sovereignty or right of secession of Eritrea or any other part of
Ethiopia. Despite that, the TPLF and EPLF used their military preponderance and
more conducive international situation to realize their own tandem agenda in
Ethiopia. Furthermore, the United Nations and the world at large was fully aware
of the fact that from 1987 on, Ethiopia had made adjustments in its internal
administrative borders which had retained the name of Eritrea to the northern
half (roughly) of the former province and the southern half (roughly) as the
Afar region extending to the wider confines of the Afar-inhabited areas of Ethiopia.
Thus, when EPLF and TPLF perched in Asmera and Addis Ababa, the northern borders
of sovereign Ethiopia had already been changed, as internal borders change
anywhere in the world from time to time. Neither the UNO nor any other relevant
body raised questions or objections to this legitimate internal territorial
restructuring by Ethiopia. So, given the sinewy political-territorial track
record of the region, what borders did TPLF, EPLF, UNO and other involved
parties have in mind when gratuitously confirming EPLF-Eritrea’s secession
from Ethiopia, then “referendum” and finally, its admission as a new member
of the United Nations? (For more on these themes, the reader may wish to consult
this writer’s recent articles, “On Ethiopia’s Legitimate Claim to its
Natural Seashores,” “Reflections on Border Regimes and colonial
treaties on the Horn” and Asseb as a Symbol for the Restoration of
Ethiopia’s Natural Seacoast” in www.mediaethiopia.com
for maps and details on these issues.)
(10) It is in the context of such circumstances that we shall
glance at the role of Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then Secretary General of the
United Nations, in facilitating and expediting the dismemberment of Ethiopia,
one of the Organization’s Charter Member States in good standing. Consider,
for example, how eager and over-enthusiastic the Secretary-General was on the
matter by referring to some UN documents of the 1991-1993 period. We cite here
pertinent excerpts from communications emanating from Addis Ababa, Asmera and
from the UN Secretary General’s desk on Eritrea for comparative purposes. (a) In
a letter (GA Official Records A/C.3/47/5) dated 13 December, 1991, Mr Meles
Zenawi, the TPLF caudillo in Addis Ababa, who had no authority or mandate from
the Ethiopian people but only the power of brute force in a transitional
capacity, sent a letter to Secretary-General of the UN saying only that “the
Conference on Peace and Democracy in Ethiopia, held in Addis Ababa from 1 to
5 July, 1991, adopted a Charter…the Conference determined that the people of
Eritrea have the right to determine their future by themselves…” and asked
that the United Nations supervise the forthcoming EPLF-run “referendum.” in
1993. (b) In short and synchronized order, the EPLF’s Referendum Commissioner
in Asmera wrote a letter dated19 May, 1992 (GA Official Records A/C.3/47/5) to
the Secretary General dittoing the request of the Addis Ababa regime, but saying
“The Conference on Peace and Democracy, organized by the Transitional
Government of Ethiopia in July 1991 and attended by almost all the political
parties…of that country.” (c) When on 19 October 1992, Secretary General
Boutros-Ghali communicated his report to the General Assembly (GA Official
Records A/47/544) to relay these messages and to request authorization and
budget for UN monitoring mission in Eritrea in 1993 this is how he summed up the
message he had received. “The Conference on Peace and Democracy, which assembled
all the political parties and relevant social actors in Ethiopia recognized
the right of the Eritrean people to determine its political future by the
internationally supervised referendum.” Apropos to an Ethiopian saying that
‘an over eager hyena bites the horn of the bull’ the three communicants
could not even agree on composition of the July 1991 charade called
“Conference on Peace and Democracy” The TPLF spokesman did not specify
the make-up of the Conference. The sleuth in Asmara said that it was attended by
almost all the political parties… However, the eager
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali divined and decided that all the
political parties…had attended and approved Eritrea’s secession. Was that a
responsible act on the part of the Secretary General of the august body, the
United Nations? Furthermore, in his reports and letters of the time to higher
bodies in the Organization, Dr Boutros-Ghali glosses over the past roles played
by the United Nations with only glib statements like “The General Assembly has
had a historical involvement with issues pertaining to the political status of
Eritrea…” without referencing relevant documents of 1949-1952 as UN
documents normally do to present matters in historical perspective. And thus, UN
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali was instrumental in unmaking borders in the Horn
by helping Eritrea secede from Ethiopia and blocking 60 million Ethiopians from
their natural coastal regions on the Red Sea. What a feat by an international
civil servant! (For more on Secretary General Boutros-Ghali’s tendentious role
in Eritrea’s secession, see Tecola Hagos, “The Dismemberment of Ethiopia,”
at www.tigrainet.com).
(11) It goes without saying that what followed in 1993, as the UN sent its
monitoring team called UNOVER, was nothing but whitewashing whatever EPLF
designed and did in that sham “referendum.” In other words, the UN was there
to give a cover of legitimacy to an exercise that was neither free nor fair. One
should keep in mind here that, for all intents and purposes, the TPLF
Transitional Government in Addis Ababa and the EPLF Provisional
Government in Asmara have insured that EPLF-Eritrea (whatever its
boundaries) was independent as of May 1991. The so-called “deferred”
referendum of 1993 was a superfluos charade for gullible elements abroad and to
get the kind of support given by the UNO. The farcical event did not even have
choices for those herded to participate. The EPLF had stated since 1980 that in
a referendum under international supervision it would abide by free and fair
vote on choices of (i) continuing with union (ii) restore federation (iii)
independence. Now, in 1993, however, the ballot of the EPLF Provisional
Government of Eritrea’s Referendum Proclamation 22/1992 dictated Yes or No to
the question: “Do you approve Eritrea to become an independent sovereign
state?” Some have also pointed out that while the above was for the benefit of
English speaking elements, the wording of the ballot and the symbolisms used to
characterize the yes and no votes in Tigrigna Arabic and other tongues, was even
more frightening because it cast it as a choice between ‘freedom and ‘slavery.’
In the view of Tekeste Negash, a historian of Eritrean birth, “compared to
what took place in terms of assessing the wishes of the Eritrean people during
the two commissions of inquiry (1947 and 1950) the 1993 referendum-‘if you
vote red you will be dead’-was a serious setback.” The Ethiopian people,
whose 3.5 million inhabitants and 120, 000 or so sq.kilometers of sovereign
territory were being severed, were shut out completely from any say or role in
the so-called “referendum”– courtesy of TPLF and EPLF as well as the nod of
the United Nations and others. What a contrast between the UN’s painstaking
and meticulous first (1949-1952) involvement in the region and the roughshod way
it presided over the secession of a region of a member state in contravention of
the UN Charter, Chapter II, Article 2 (7) which states, inter alia, that “Nothing
contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene
in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the
present Charter…” Surely, UN Secretary-General, Professor Boutros-Ghali,
was aware of the parameters and principles that govern his responsibilities,
especially in regions close to his home, whose checkered and complex history
require more caution, sensitivity and equanimity. Alas, the winds spawned by the
unmaking of the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundaries in 1991-1993, resulted in the
1998-2000 whirlwinds of carnage. (The reader can refer to a well written legal
brief by a distinguished international law professor, Menassie Haile, entitled “Legality
of Secessions: The Case of Eritrea” Emory International Law Review,
Vol. 8 # 2, 1994).
(12)This brings us to the present or fourth phase of creeping UN involvement
in Ethiopia-Eritrea territorial sovereignty matters once again, which
essentially commenced in 2000 and is still ongoing. When EPLF Eritrea launched a
military offensive across the Tigrayan areas of TPLF-Ethiopia in May 1998, the
UN and much of the powers of the New World Order did their perfunctory functions
of calling for the parties concerned to cease and desist from escalating the
conflict and enter into negotiations. The UN passed a number of resolutions to
that effect, including slapping both aggressor and victim with sanctions on
weapons purchases. The United States, the European Union and the moribund OAU
also got into the act generating all kinds of initiatives to control the
violence. However, it was not possible to stem the tide of violence that dragged
for the next two years and subsided after casualties of upwards of 120,000
Ethiopians-Eritreans and untold damages and displacements were sustained. No one
is yet certain as to what was achieved or prevented after such colossal losses.
At any rate, a concerted effort by concerned powers in the early part of 2000,
spearheaded by the United States, eventually succeeded in restraining the
sibling combatants who were exhausted and strapped for arms and cash anyway.
Unknown to the people of Ethiopia who paid dearly in life, limbs and
wherewithals, the two regimes were negotiating behind the scenes for a
face-saving way out of their self-inflicted destructive war. It is at this point
that the UN more or less moves from the periphery to the center of the Horn of
Africa, to deal with territorial sovereignty issues once again.
(13) The venue for direct UN involvement this time was Algiers where in
December 2000, the two comrades signed a “Peace” Deal with a lot of hype,
fanfare and high profile international witnesses cheering them on. The draft of
the peace deal was leaked by EPLF a few days before the 12/12/00 signing event
much to the chagrin of of the TPLF regime which might have preferred to keep it
secret until it was signed. As I have said in an earlier article, the Algiers
Agreement does nothing for Ethiopia Which loses its people land and seacoasts.
But it does everything for EPLF-Eritrea because it awards it 120,000 square
kilometers of Ethiopian land it never had. Furthermore, EPLF-Eritrea will
now have de jure boundaries and territorial sovereignty that will be
respected by its neighbors, including TPLF-Ethiopia. (See this writer’s “Commentary
on the 12/12/00 Ethiopia-Eritrea Algiers Peace Deal” on (www.mediaethiopia.com).
From the get-go, Ethiopians at home and abroad in all walks of life protested
against the signing of the Algiers Agreement and called upon all concerned not
to go through with it because it is patently inimical to the national interests
of Ethiopians. Its purpose is to make Ethiopia landlocked and Afar Ethiopians
dismembered. It will plant the seeds of interminable instability and conflicts
in the region for generations to come. It was also stated that all concerned
should know that Ethiopians would not accept its terms as legitimate and binding
even if it may be imposed. To make matters worse, the two regimes agreed not
only to base boundary delimitation on the basis of defunct colonial treaties,
but also to accept the determination of the UN managed Boundary Commission
(arbitration body) as “final and binding.” Meanwhile, a 4000-plus UN
monitoring force called UNMEE has been basking in the hills and valleys in a
Temporary Security “demilitarized “ Zone along the de facto border,
until the Boundary Commission in the Hague emerges with its diktat on the
demarcation of the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary in the near future.
(14) Once again, Ethiopians have been crying out in the wilderness to
forestall or prevent the Hague verdict. Some have directed their pleas to the
Hague arbitrators directly only to be told politely that it is outside the
bounds of the operational framework to entertain or respond to any and all
communications by individuals or groups. In other words, they deal only with
governments. Furthermore, they also let it be known that they are to determine
the borders based on the defunct “colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908”
as agreed to by EPLF and TPLF in Algiers. One recalls Ethiopia’s pleas for
help at the League of Nations against Italian Fascist aggression in the 1930’s
where Ethiopia was offered the choice between “assassination and suicide.”
The United Nations is today poised in its latest round of decision-making to do
the same to Ethiopia. But, there is still time to desist from this injustice
against the Ethiopian people. It is sincerely hoped that injustice will not
be visited again on the Ethiopian people under the watch of Secretary General
Kofi Annan. For reasons that have been touched upon in foregoing pages,
other articles, the myriads of open letters, petitions and resolutions, the
Boundary Commission’s exercises-due to no fault of the Commissioners– are
based on invalid premises and directives. Therefore, it would be best to shelve
the results and embark on a new course of action that will ensure justice for
all and a better foundation for peace, stability and development in the region.
Still, it is not enough to oppose what is patently wrong. This writer offers the
following alternative modality and salient perspectives to be taken into account
for remaking the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary problem.
(15) Perspective One is to start from the beginning, with Ethiopia’s
age-old natural coastal boundaries (Bahre Negash) in the Red Sea region, before
the severing of a chunk of its territory in 1890 in the form of Eritrea. However
one may slice the distant or median past of Ethiopian history, it will have been
confirmed that Ethiopia always had coastal presence in the region throughout its
history-certain areas of the coast being occupied by one or another regional
power for periods of time, notwithstanding. In addition, after the Fascist wars,
occupation and post-war UN involvement, Ethiopia’s natural coastline
boundaries were restored once again in 1950 until 1991. So, the UN has that
precedent also to bank on. We are talking now of several millennia of historical
process before 1890 and before “colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908’”
Colonial Eritrea’s history may have started in 1890, but that does not mean
that the history of Ethiopia and the entire region has to start in 1890. The
colonial era (1890-1941) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient basis for
determining boundaries in a region that is hoary with age. (See for
instance, Ethiopia: A Cradle of History, Ministry of Information, 1989,
Addis Ababa, for a brief cartographic summary of state formations and evolution
in the Horn). The ultimate issue for the peoples of the region, is not slivers
of territory like Badme, Zalambessa, and so on here and there along the Tigrayan
border, but the future of millions of dismembered Ethiopians and 120,000 square
kilometers of Ethiopian land with its coastlines that was expropriated by TPLF
and EPLF in 1991. Any approach to resolve the territorial disputes in the region
that does not take this fundamental perspective into account, will not succeed
to bring about a lasting peace in Ethiopia-Eritrea.
Perspective Two is to take into account Ethiopia’s internal boundary
in 1991 that EPLF and TPLF inherited but conveniently shoved aside when they
occupied Asmera and Addis Ababa. Either Ethiopia was a sovereign country or it
was not in 1991. If it was, then it was within its sovereign rights to adjust
its internal boundaries for administrative purposes. As was already noted, the
two guerrilla forces overthrew the ruling regime in Ethiopia, not the State of
Ethiopia. Changing governments and changing states are fundamentally different propositions.
Now the line separating the two processes was and remains blurred since 1991. To
the extent that the United Nations and other concerns, perhaps unwittingly,
continue going along the wishes of TPLF and EPLF regimes, they are being
complicit in the act of dismemberment and destruction of Ethiopia. The 1987-1991
border of Ethiopia-Eritrea was legitimate and EPLF and TPLF had no right to
reject it out of hand, just because it did not serve their common but disguised
interests. The Afar people of the region are also insisting on that 1987-1991
boundary of the region to restore their unity within Ethiopia. The exercise of
boundary determination under the auspices of the UN or any other concern should
not be a disguised effort to dismember Ethiopians permanently and deprive
Ethiopia of its natural rights to its historic coastline. That is the only
reason for any one to insist on invalid “colonial treaties of 1900, 1902,
1908,” and so on to delimit and demarcate boundariesin Ethiopia-Eritrea. Even
when the administrative Ethiopia-Eritrea border remained in place from 1941 to
1987, Assab region was administered from Addis Ababa, rather than from Asmera.
Perspective Three rounds out the search for fairness, validity and
enhances the probability of peace and stability in the Ethiopia-Eritrea region.
The perspective takes into account the current de facto border agreed to
by the EPLF/TPLF conspirators as the prevailing ‘fact on the ground’ with
its bag and baggage. The proposal herein, however, consists of a package with
two dimensions. Firstly, it is proposed that 100 sq. kilometers area
corridor of the Assab coastal region of today’s EPLF-Eritrea up to Jibouti, be
set aside to be administered provisionally by Ethiopia for the duration of the
boundary study and without prejudice to the outcome of that study. To the extent
that the main contours of the making, unmaking and remaking of boundaries on the
Horn have the weight of evidence and logic on their side, the fact remains that
there is no de jure international Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary. Whatever
existed and exists is only a de facto boundary agreed to by the guerrilla
forces in power. Therefore, until an Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary legally delimited
and endorsed by the peoples of Ethiopia-Eritrea through a genuine referendum, it
is suggested that the powers that be make moves to relax the situation. Among
the confidence-building measures along this line is giving the divided and
embattled Afar people a break. Furthermore, EPLF knows very well and anyone who
knows anything about the region knows that Assab port has not, does not now and
will not serve Eritrea proper. EPLF uses Asseb only negatively to spite
Ethiopians It gloats at the prospect of having the temporary force-created
chance at choking the country and making it dependent on its whims and
conditions of utilization of the port of Asseb. Such a provisional arrangement
will help reduce tensions in the region and build confidence among
Ethiopians-Eritreans. Economic, cultural and political relations between the two
entities can also be normalized while the boundary study continues. Secondly,
the study will consider the current de facto border as another marker, as
it were, along with Ethiopia’s historical Red Sea boundaries and the 1987-1991
borders. The current border represents a culmination of “thirty-year”
secessionist armed struggles and the litany of woes scanned in these pages.
Scores of thousands of Ethiopians-Eritreans lost lives and limbs, untold numbers
were displaced, and the de facto borderline has been there since 1991 as
a symbol of the spoils of war. Everyone concerned also knows by now that even
the severing of 120,000 square kilometers of bona fide Ethiopian
territory has not mollified the insatiable appetite of EPLF, which started a war
of territorial aggrandizement in 1998 that incurred casualties of more than
120,000 Ethiopians-Eritreans. This border is taken into account not because it
is consistent with a “colonial” border or because it is a legitimate de
jure international border, but merely because it is the border that is in
place at this time. It cannot be wished away right now, especially
with the Addis Ababa regime supporting it to the death. It has to be
faced, and the way to face it is to put it into the mix with the other two
perspectives outlined above. This way the whole territorial sovereignty
(boundary) issue on the Horn will have been studied in its fuller, more just,
historical, juridical and political contexts and framework. It is to be
stressed that this third perspective can only be taken as a two-part package.
Taking all three perspectives together from the start of deliberations is a sine
qua non for ensuring a proper boundary delimitation–and hence
demarcation-of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border.
(16) Alternative one features Ethiopia’s coastal boundaries along the Red
Sea littoral before 1890. Alternative two unites the Afar region from Massawa to
Asseb within Ethiopia while the northern part is Eritrea proper. The third
alternative represents the current border shutting Ethiopia from its access to
the sea completely. These are the alternative scenarios to reconcile. Not
everyone will be comfortable with one or other of these scenarios. What else is
new? That is why the region has been at war for decades so far. In fact one may
even note that there may have been more Ethiopian-Eritrean casualties in the
two-year (1998-2000) ‘brothers’ war than in the much-touted
“thirty-year” secessionist war. At least these perspectives together have
the merit of covering the gamut of relevant parameters for approaching the
problem fairly and realistically by representing everyone’s concerns,
convictions, perceptions, needs and sacrifices. The present generation of
leaders and citizens of Ethiopia-Eritrea have a responsibility to bequeath a
legacy of peace and stability for posterity. The fact nowadays is that those who
talk tough abroad do not fight in Ethiopia and those who fight and die there do
not talk. Talk is always cheap, but it does not often go hand in hand with the
requisite price. And the point is to minimize and eliminate the suffering of the
people in Ethiopia-Eritrea by generating an atmosphere that is conducive for
enduring amicable relations in the region. This requires strategic thinking,
courage and vision on the part of the people of Ethiopia-Eritrea. The boundary
study so conducted may come up with one or more choices, which would then be
submitted to the Ethiopian-Eritrean people in a genuine referendum that is not
managed by TPLF/EPLF poachers.
(17) Embarking on a mission to study anew the remaking of the
Ethiopia-Eritrea boundaries is likely to take some time, especially if it is to
be done right. If the UNO, with the support of the international community, is
committed to undertake the onerous task of helping to delimit and demarcate
tenable boundaries mutually acceptable to the peoples of Ethiopia-Eritrea along
lines proposed above, the implementation process is even more critical than
getting to that point. The linchpin for success in implementing will be the
United Nations readiness to assume full responsibility for conducting a truly
free and fair referendum in Ethiopia-Eritrea on proposed plan(s). It should
not be presented as an arbitration scheme to be taken as “final and binding”
no matter what. People in the region should be trusted and given proper
information, clarification, deliberation and time for reflection. Then they
ought to be trusted to make choices by and for themselves, for a change. After
all, they are the ones who will continue to live together long after experts,
commissioners and regimes will have vacated the scene. In fact, especially in
this instance in the Horn of Africa, the current regimes are suspect and not
people friendly. Therefore, the less they are involved in boundary issues, the
better. Their stunted guerrilla days illusions and delusions and their
clever-by-half policies are responsible for bringing the peoples of
Ethiopia-Eritrea to bitter and bloody conflict and two-way evictions for the
first time in history. (For a profile of the fallout from the policies of TPLF
and EPLF in the past decade, see this writer’s “Sow the Wind; reap the
Whirlwind” on www.mediaethiopia.com).
Before 1991, guerrilla forces and government troops were locked in combat,
without Eritreans and the rest of Ethiopians being hostile to one another. One
of the salutary by-products of such a genuine comprehensive referendum in
Ethiopia-Eritrea, is that it will clear the cloud that still hangs around since
1991-1993 about Ethiopians having had no say in the severing of EPLF-Eritrea
with the help of TPLF.
(18) All peoples in and from the Horn of Africa region as well as other folks
of goodwill, will be grateful if this time around, the United Nations
gets it right, ameliorates its past faux pas and makes a lasting positive
contribution to the Ethiopia-Eritrea region that has suffered and is still
suffering. The peoples of the Horn of Africa cry out for justice, peace and
stability after one hundred and thirty five years of unrelenting anti-colonial,
internecine, guerrilla, expansionist, secessionist and border wars.
___________________________________________________
16 February 02
The opinions expressed
in this article are those of the author.
Copyright © 2000
Negussay Ayele / MediaEthiopia. Readers may redistribute this article for
noncommercial use as long as the text and this notice remain intact. This
article may not be resold, reprinted, translated or redistributed for
compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author and
MediaEthiopia.