--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DEHAI] An article for posting: DIPLOMATIC CAMOUFLAGE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: asghedomzt xy (asghedomzt@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 20:05:47 EST



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A DIPLOMATIC CAMOUFLAGE

Asghedom Tzeggay-Tefery, Québec - Canada, 28 November 2004

I have always believed, and still do, that legitimacy is still definitely Eritrean! I have also never doubted that when Ethiopian manoeuvres reach at the end of the rope the nation’s leaders would accept the EEBC- decision regardless how illegal!

Before that hour ring we’ll see and hear a lot of make beliefs just for the sake of diplomacy; not in consideration of human misery caused by such art of intrigues that some might describe it as lies.

When one is let to believe that it is a normal process to be:

· A litigating party

· A provocateur

· An aggressor

· An invader

· A police

· An arbitrator

· A self appointed judge who can override and annul judgement at whim labelling it illegal

or

· All the above at the same time

Then everything is possible. Such is the case with the Ethiopian attitude as expressed for over eighteen months following the refusal of the EEBC-decision. Ethiopia still calls it illegal and yet accepts it in a qualified manner. What a change of heart. The International Community seems to fall for the game and has expressed acquiescence of the old Ethiopian refusal standpoint as a new resolution (for the year 2005). The members of this Community seem to welcome Ethiopia’s acceptance while calling that the two nations to dialogue! That is the catchword.

Then though obvious from past discussions, it becomes more than obvious to reiterate the same old question “why dialogue?” when there is a legal judgement/decision, meant to be final and binding, based on a mutually accepted agreement waiting to be applied or put in practice?

Why is that the International Community overprotecting Ethiopia, that has just finished shopping jet-fighters thanks to the debt relief consented by donor nations, for uttering the word “accept” and not pay attention to the rest of the conditions stipulated in the five-points proposal?

As we see them hereunder the Ethiopian Prime Minister calls for dialogue in-order to:

1. Resolve the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea through peaceful means. The first step to resolve a dispute is before going to Court. Once litigating parties have been there and judgement has been pronounced then if we were to speak about a first step then it means that the first step starts by abiding by the conditions of the judgement rendered, by the Court. And neither of the litigating party can reverse the decision as illegal. For such act is what is commonly known as contempt to Court, punishable according to terms of law. That makes it an illegal act.

2. Resolve the root cause of the conflict through dialogue. The first step to resolve the root cause of the conflict is to be found in the judgement clearly stated and rejecting, the Ethiopian claim of territorial integrity and, subsequent request for appeal consideration. For that reason again, the first step to resolve the root cause is to abide by the rule of law that recognises that Badme(h) is in Eritrea. The claim of administering Badme(h), like the rest of Eritrea for the previous 40 years, hasn’t been a solid proof for Ethiopian claim.

3. Ethiopia agrees to pay its dues to the EEBC and appoint a liaison officer. The payment of dues is a non-issue in regard to Eritrea. It has more to do with Ethiopian obligation towards the International Community. In regard to the appointment of a liaison officer I think it would be very proactive and helpful if Ethiopia were to abide by the terms of the EEBC-decision.

4. Start dialogue immediately with a view to implementing the decision. There is a clear reply from the start when Ethiopian leaders invented the notion of Dialogue and UN Secretary-General endorsed it. The answer has been and is clear "If Ethiopia accepts the Boundary Commission's decision, that cannot be separated from the demarcation. We have to see the pillars on the ground…". The Dialogue notion is so empty and lifeless that it still makes no sense regardless of how often it is being repeated. It is like putting the cart in front of the horse! The road to peace is one, and one only; abide by the rule of law. In this case the EEBC-decision of 13th April 2002, originally and still agreed to be as final and binding.

Why is that the International Community taking for granted the other party, Eritrea? Why is that the Community calling for a dialogue when there is a legal decision it should see through? The problem hasn’t been Ethiopia. The problem has become and still remains to be the nonchalance of the International Community that doesn’t seem to support the relentless Eritrean resilience at work, for a better future of Eritrea and peace with warmongering neighbours whose reasons vary from becoming a regional military influence to religious dominance mission.

Eritrea is, notwithstanding reputations fabricated by spin-doctors, the only secular nation in the region. From its history its people has learned that “the cane of truth maybe thin but it never breaks”(betri HaKi t’Qhetn imber ay’tsbern).

Eritrea is the only party who is genuinely committed to the peace process from the start. Likewise, I have no doubt that Eritrea will remain committed to the EEBC-decision. During the past long struggle of independence the International Community had abdicated its responsibility and had let Eritreans fight it all in-order to accommodate the same present day aggressor, Ethiopia.

The Community has a lot of explaining to do, for letting Ethiopia’s capricious behaviour occupy the vacuum created within the Community, before announcing a peaceful settlement what the peoples of the two nations yearn.

For the rest, the recent announcement of the old position, heralding that Ethiopia accepts "in principle" border outline with Eritrea has nothing new in substance but a modified Ethiopian diplomatic camouflage while in search of another pretext (maybe refusal of dialogue) that would be accepted by the International Community if eventually Ethiopia attempts to violate Eritrean sovereignty.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2004
All rights reserved