|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
East Africa: Horn Conflict, 2
East Africa: Horn Conflict, 2
Date distributed (ymd): 980707
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: East Africa
Issue Areas: +security/peace+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains statements of the position of the Ethiopian and Eritrean
governments on the current conflict, plus notes on sources for additional
information on-line. The previous posting contains a background update
from the UN's Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) in Nairobi,
and the text of the Security Council resolution on the conflict.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Additional On-Line Sources
Note: The Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List, with only two
to three postings a week on a variety of subjects, cannot supply current
news on breaking stories. We will, however, continued to provide occasional
listings of other sources available on-line (such as those below) which
provide more frequent updates for those interested in particular subjects.
Newsflashes from Ethiopian Embassy in Washington
http://www.ethiopianembassy.org/news
Page with information from Eritrean Government
http://www.netafrica.org/eritrea
Addis Tribune on-line edition
http://addistribune.ethiopiaonline.net
Africa News Online
http://www.africanews.org/east
The Washington Post Africa Page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/africa.htm
BBC News Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/default.htm
CNN Africa Page
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa
23 Jun 1998
Background to the Current Border Dispute Between Eritrea and Ethiopia
From the Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, DC
Contact [email protected]
1. The crisis between Eritrea and Ethiopia is rooted in the violation by
the Government of Ethiopia of Eritrea's colonial boundaries, and to willfully
claim, as well as physically occupy, large swathes of Eritrean territory
in the southwestern, southern and southeastern parts of the country. This
violation is made manifest in the official map issued in 1997 as well as
the map of Ethiopia embossed in the new currency notes of the country that
came into circulation in November 1997.
2. Ethiopia went further than laying claims on paper to create a de facto
situation on the ground. The first forcible act of creating facts on the
ground occurred in July 1997 when Ethiopia, under the pretext of fighting
the Afar opposition, brought two battalions to Bada (Adi Murug) in southwestern
Eritrea to occupy the village and dismantle the Eritrean administration
there. This unexpected development was a cause of much concern to the Government
of Eritrea. Eritrea's Head of State subsequently sent a letter to the Ethiopian
Prime Minister on August 16, 1997, reminding him that "the forcible
occupation of Adi Murug" was "truly saddening." He further
urged him to "personally take the necessary prudent action so that
the measure that has been taken will not trigger unnecessary conflict."
A week later, on August 25, 1997, the Eritrean Head of State again wrote
to the Prime Minister stressing that measures similar to those in Bada
were taken in the Badme (southwestern Eritrea) area and suggesting that
a Joint Commission be set up to help check further deterioration and create
a mechanism to resolve the problem.
3. Unfortunately, Eritrean efforts to solve the problem amicably and bilaterally
failed as the Government of Ethiopia continued to bring under its occupation
the Eritrean territories that it had incorporated into its map. Our worst
fears were to be realized when on May 6, 1998, on the eve of the second
meeting of the Joint Border Commission, the Ethiopian army launched an
unexpected attack on Eritrean armed patrols in the Badme area claiming
that they had transgressed on areas that Ethiopia had newly brought under
its control. This incident led to a series of clashes which, coupled with
the hostile measures that were taken by the Government of Ethiopia, resulted
in the present state of war between the two countries.
4. Ethiopia's unilateral re-drawing of the colonial boundary and flagrant
acts of creating facts on the ground are the essential causes of the current
crisis. In light of these facts, Ethiopia's claims that it is the victim
of aggression are obviously false and meant to deceive the international
community. Indeed, Ethiopia to this day occupied Eritrean territories in
the Setit area in the southwestern part of the country.
5. Ethiopia's blatant act of aggression is clearly in violation of the
OAU Charter and Resolution AHG/RES 16(1) of the First Assembly of the Heads
of State and Government held in Cairo in 1964. Unless rectified without
equivocation, Ethiopia's refusal to abide by the OAU Charter and decisions,
and its continued occupation of undisputed Eritrean territory will open
a Pandora's box and create a cycle of instability in the region. The acceptance
of Ethiopia's logic will not only affect all African States but will indeed
backfire against Ethiopia itself, since its sovereignty over much of its
territory, including on the Ogaden, is based on the same principles of
international law.
6. A simple border dispute has assumed this level of conflict because of
Ethiopia's continued escalation of its hostile and provocative acts. Among
these are:
* the declaration of war by Ethiopia's Parliament on May 13, 1998;
* the launching of an air-strike by Ethiopia on June 5, 1998, on Asmara;
* the imposition of an air blockade and maritime access blockade to Eritrean
ports through the threat of incessant and indiscriminate air bombing;
* the mass expulsion and indiscriminate arrests of thousands of Eritreans
from Ethiopia.
In spite of all these, Eritrea has been restrained and committed to
a peaceful solution of the dispute. In this vein, it has already presented
constructive proposals (attached). The proposals center on:
i) the demarcation of the entire boundary between the two countries
on the basis of borders established by colonial treaties;
ii) the demilitarization of the entire border area pending demarcation;
and,
iii) the establishment of appropriate ad hoc arrangements for civil
administration in populated demilitarized areas in the interim period.
In addition, considering the state of war that exists between the two
countries, the Government of Eritrea has been calling--and continues to
call--for:
i) an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities; and,
ii) the start of direct talks between the two parties in the presence
of mediators.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Asmara, June 19, 1998
Attachment:
Proposal for a Solution Submitted by the Government of Eritrea
1. PRINCIPLES
The Government of Eritrea and the Government of Ethiopia agree that
they will resolve the present crisis and any other dispute between them
through peaceful and legal means. Both sides reject solutions that are
imposed by force.
Both sides agree to respect the clearly defined colonial boundaries
between them. In this respect, both sides further agree that the actual
demarcation of the borders will be carried out by a mutually acceptable
technical team. In the event that there is some controversy on delineation,
both sides agree to resolve the matter through an appropriate mechanism
of arbitration.
The demarcation of the borders shall be effected speedily and within
an agreed time frame.
Both sides agree to be bound by this agreement.
2. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
2.1 The UN Cartographic Unit, or any other body with the appropriate
expertise, shall be charged with the task of demarcating the boundary in
accordance with existing colonial border treaties.
2.2 The time frame for the demarcation of the boundary shall be six
months. This time frame may be shortened or prolonged subject to justifiable
technical reasons. This requisite time frame shall be designated as AN
INTERIM PERIOD.
2.3 The demarcated boundary shall be accepted and adhered to by both
sides.
2.4 If there are segments in the boundary whose delineation is under
controversy, the matter shall be resolved through an appropriate mechanism
of ARBITRATION.
2.5 The technical details relevant to the practical implementation of
the DEMARCATION process shall be annexed to the agreement.
3. DEMILITARIZATION as a measure for defusing the crisis and expediting
the demarcation of the borders so as to ensure a lasting solution shall
be accepted and adhered to by both sides.
3.1 DEMILITARIZATION shall begin by the Mereb-Setit segment; proceed
next to the Bada area and be implemented throughout the entire boundary
in accordance with this phased pattern.
3.2 DEMILITARIZATION shall be implemented through the involvement and
monitoring of observers. The team of observers shall be composed of the
forces and commanders from the facilitators as well as representatives
of both sides.
3.3 DEMILITARIZATION shall be completed within the time frame of one
month.
3.4 The issue of civil administration in populated demilitarized areas
shall be addressed through appropriate ad hoc arrangements that will be
put in place for the interim period.
3.5 When the INTERIM period comes to an end following the completion
of the demarcation of the entire boundary between the two countries, the
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES shall regain full jurisdiction over their respective
SOVEREIGN TERRITORIES.
3.6 The details regarding DEMILITARIZATION and its implementation modalities
shall be included in the main agreement as an annex.
4.0 A full INVESTIGATION of the incident of May 6, 1998, shall be conducted
in tandem with the demilitarization process.
5.0 This COMPREHENSIVE agreement, signed by both parties, shall be deposited
in the UN and OAU as a legal agreement so as to ensure its binding nature.
Statement, on Security Council Resolution and Eritrea's Response
------- Yes, But
From: Embassy of Ethiopia in Stockholm, Sweden http://www.ethemb.se/news.htm
30 June, 1998
It must have been very obvious to all those who have been following
the crisis imposed on Ethiopia by the Eritrean authorities through their
aggression, that Ethiopia's preferred option for resolving the crisis has
been, and remains to be, the peaceful way. This, despite its prerogative
under international law to exercise its legitimate right of self-defense.
Ethiopia's unequivocal acceptance of the U.S-Rwanda proposal is a confirmation
of this Ethiopian commitment to peace and its resolve to seeking a peaceful
resolution of the military confrontation. Ethiopia's full and unreserved
acceptance of the proposal by the facilitators should, in this context,
be understood for what it really means. Ethiopia accepted the proposal
not because it has no quarrel with everything contained in the proposal---a
fact that can easily be overlooked---but because peace demanded that Ethiopia
must do whatever is necessary, short of accepting that which would reward
the aggressor and humiliate Ethiopia and its people.
On Eritrea's part, its response to the peace initiative was negative
from the outset. It refused to co-operate with the facilitators who happened
to be mutual friends of the two countries and whose good offices were accepted
by both, willingly and with no reservation. Eritrea refused the proposal
by the facilitators for one reason only, because it failed to give blessing
to Eritrea's illegal occupation through aggression of Ethiopian territory.
Then came the decision of the 34th Assembly of Heads of State and Government
of the OAU which unequivocally endorsed the proposal of the facilitators
and appealed to Ethiopia and Eritrea to accept the proposal and implement
it. True to form, the Eritrean reaction was negative and the Asmara authorities
once again made it clear that peace was not their interest.
It is under these circumstances and following Eritrea's rejection of
the appeals of both the facilitators and of the OAU, at the highest level,
that the United Nations Security Council was made to be seized with the
crisis between Ethiopia and Eirtrea. There was virtually no stone unturned
and no trick left unutilized by Eritrea----including pure and simple fabrication
of stories and other diversionary tactics all unprecedented in the annals
of diplomatic history-----to prevent the Security Council from being seized
with the issue, most particularly to prevent the Council form coming out
with a just verdict.
But Eritrea failed to succeed and the Security Council did adopt a resolution
on 26th of June, 1998, whose key elements gave endorsement to the OAU decision
and , ispo facto , to the proposal by the facilitators.
Ethiopia has accepted this resolution by the Security Council in its
entirety, without picking and choosing and with no Ifs and Buts.
On the other hand, Eritrea's response has been no more than gimmick.
The Eritrean authorities have found it necessary this time around to conceal
their lack of commitment to peace.They could not afford to be seen to always
reject appeals for peace, all the more so because this time the appeal
was being made by the Security Council. Accordingly, the Asmara authorities
decided to let it be known that they would go along with the resolution
of the Security Council,but---and this is the key----on the basis of a
selective reading of the Council's decision and of picking bits and pieces
from the resolution which is calculated to ignore its key elements.
The international community, and the Security Council in particular,
cannot, and we are confident will not, allow the Erirtean Authorities to
get away with possibilities for prevaricating and for being disingenuous.
They should be pinned down on whether or not they are prepared for a peaceful
resolution of the crisis which hinges on their acceptance of the proposal
which requires them to vacate Ethiopian territory that they have occupied
through aggression.This is one of the key elements of the resolution by
the Security Council and Eritrea cannot say yes to the decision by the
Council, and then in the same breath pretend that it is not required by
the same resolution to accept the proposal of the facilitators one of whose
Key elements is Eritrea's withdrawal from Ethiopian territory. Eritrea
should not be allowed to succeed in this attempt at fudging the issues
involved which is transparently disingenuous.This again is a reflection
of the underlying unwillingness of the Eritrean authorities to accept and
implement the proposal of the facilitators which they know perfectly well
is the only viable and realistic basis for avoiding that option which Ethiopia
has refused resorting to because of its commitment to a peaceful resolution
of the crisis.
Now that the Security Council has spoken in clear terms in support of
the proposal already on the table, Eritrea should be denied all possibilities
for creating confusion and should be required to implement the provisions
of this important Security Council resolution without Ifs and Buts. On
this depends whether or not the slim chance which might be available for
a peaceful resolution of the crisis would be used properly. Here again,
as it has always been since the beginning this crisis, the ball is in Eritrea's
court.
In this context, the international community has the responsibility
of continuing to put pressure on the Eritrean regime to withdraw its troops
from Ethiopian territory on the basis of the proposal made by the facilitators
and endorsed by the OAU as well as now supported by the Security Council.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
1st July, 1998
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the Africa
Policy Information Center (APIC), the educational affiliate of the Washington
Office on Africa. APIC's primary objective is to widen the policy debate
in the United States around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa,
by concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant information and
analysis usable by a wide range of groups individuals.
|
