THE PRECARIOUS IROBLAND
ISSUE & THE
UNITED NATIONS-LED BORDER DEMARCATION AT GUNPOINT:

Failure
of Arbitration or Miscarriage of Justice?

 

By the Reverend
Abba Tesfamariam Baraki

An
Irob-Ethiopian-American Citizen

Washington, D.C.,
USA

14 July 2003

 

“… However, incursions
across the southern boundary of the Temporary Security Zone could have a serious destabilizing effect and therefore can have
considerable implications for the peace process …”

 

(Mr. Kofi
A. Annan, UN Secretary-General, 6 March 2003)

 

“The absence of
political contacts between the two countries since the negotiation of the Algiers
Agreements has undoubtedly hindered the normalization of bilateral relations —
a vital element of any peace process.”

 

          (UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, Progress report
on Ethiopia and Eritrea, 23 June 2003)

 

 

“We will not accept the decision of the Boundary Commission, we will
die in our land; unless we all perish, our land will not be given away.”

(The
Irob people, The Ethiopian Reporter (Amharic), 23 June 2003:
the English version of the quotation by Dr. G. Araia)

 

 

Prelude: Words of Wisdom for
Reflection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 PART ONE

 

Introductory Statement and the Irob People’s Reaction

 

As the
Eritrean-Ethiopian boundary demarcation quickly approaches, I feel that I have
a moral responsibility to raise global consciousness concerning the possibility
of another conflict that could develop soon in the contested border areas of Ethiopia
and Eritrea.
Such an tragic development could easily lead to
another untold bloodshed between the two peoples of Eritrea
and Ethiopia.

 

Unfortunately,
the international community has totally failed so far in their attempt to bring
mutual reconciliation and improvement of bilateral relations for the two
countries. As a matter of fact, the independent Boundary Commission and the
United Nations have failed to arrive at a just settlement of those contested
boundaries. In terms of an equitable distribution of territories, the very
existence of ethnic minority groups has been threatened in those regions.

 

The
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission has ignored the persistent pleas and
outcries of the Irob minority ethnic group in the Central Sector of the Endeli
Projection. The Commission has continued to rebuff and humiliate them with its
unwavering and resolute ill-fated “Decisions” of 13 April 2002
and its subsequent “Determinations”
of 7 November 2002
and “Observations”
of 21 March 2003
issued at The Hague.
As a matter of fact, the
Hague’s verdict threatens the very
existence of the Irob minorities. It violates fundamental human rights which guarantees that people can live as a cohesive
ethnic community and freely choose which country to belong to as citizens. It
prevents them from living in unison, undivided and/or not-separated from their
ancestral families, relatives, and communities tied to by birth/origin,
culture, and language.

 

Hence, this treatise
is not meant to be a scholarly debate, but rather a voice of plea on behalf of
the voiceless people of Irob, who lack full knowledge and understanding of what
is happening in the international arena regarding the fate of their
native-lands and their sociopolitical future. It is a condemnation of the
complicity of the EEBC, U.N., and those relevant parties who are determined to
split apart the Irob peoples.

http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/News/News_Aug6_Tigrai.html

http://www.ethiospokes.net/Backgrnd/Articles/June99/a0906993.htm.

 _{http://www.waltainfo.com/conflict/articles/1999/june/article16.htm}.

Regrettably,
their very existence as an ethnic community is seriously endangered by the same
international body that would defend and protect their rights under the
international law of justice. The United Nations Security Council appears
determined to expeditiously implement the Commission’s boundary delimitation
and demarcation decisions despite major controversy. The inhabitants of the
border regions have voiced clearly their determined resolution to reject the
Commission’s ruling and the United Nations’ interference. As a matter of fact,
Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia in
his article, which appeared recently on various websites, says, “As reported by
the Ethiopian Reporter (May 5 and June 23, 2003), the Irob have told the
world in no uncertain terms: We will not accept the
decision of the Boundary Commission, we will die in our land; unless we all
perish, our land will not be given away”.

 

In order to
substantiate the title of this article, the writer invites your reading the
following direct quotations taken from the reports of the Eritrea-Ethiopia
Boundary Commission and the UN Secretary-General and submitted as
recommendations to the UN Security Council.

 

The
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s Position:

 

“A further
problem relates to the security of all Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission
personnel in the field – both the field office staff and, in due course,
the construction personnel. It has become evident that in certain locations they may be confronted by the hostility
of local inhabitants due, for example, to the fact that the boundary line may
be perceived as dividing communities or separating them from their cultivated
fields … The Commission is pleased to record that … both parties
have assured the Commission that they each will provide fully adequate security
in this respect” (EEBC’s Eighth Report,
Part Four, no. 21, 21 February 2003).

 

 

“The Commission
therefore hopes that consideration can be given to the possible enlargement of UNMEE’s authority so that its forces may accompany all
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission personnel and thereby deter or react to any threat to their security” (Ibid.,
no. 21).

 

 

“In sum, the
Commission expresses the hope that the Security Council will:

(b)      Call
upon the parties to cooperate promptly and fully with the Commission to enable
it fulfill the mandate conferred upon it by the parties of expeditiously
delimiting and demarcating the boundary; …

(d)   Authorize and
arrange for provision of security by UNMEE 
to all Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission personnel in the field and
for the protection of pillar sites after mine clearance and during
the construction phase, with authority to use as may be necessary for this
purpose” (Ibid., Part Five, parag. no. 24).

 

(e) “Security
of construction personnel in the field. The
question of security for Field Office staff and contractors’ personnel
continues to be of great importance. Having taken note that Security
Council resolution 1466 of 14 March 2003 ‘urges
both Ethiopia and Eritrea … to take all steps necessary to provide the
necessary security on the ground for the staff of the Commission when operating
in territories under their control’, the Commission and its staff are
currently engaged in exploring the modalities for security and obtaining the
appropriate assurances from the parties.” (Ninth
report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, parag.
no. 8(e), 9 June 2003

 

 

The United Nation’s Position:

 

“With regard
to the provision of security for all Boundary Commission personnel in the field
– both the field office staff and, in due course, the contractors – UNMEE remains
of the view that this is the basic responsibility of the two sovereign
Governments in their respective territories, a responsibility that the
Governments have accepted. …Under the rules of
engagement given to the UNMEE’s
peacekeepers for the implementation of this
mandate, they are entitled to use force only in self-protection, and in order to save the lives of
international civilians under threat.  However,  UNMEE is able … to intervene in
extreme cases for the protection of human lives … ”  (Progress report of the Secretary-General
on Ethiopia
and Eritrea,
III, no.16, 6
March 2003)

 

“By the same logic, UNMEE is
fully prepared to monitor the pillar sites so that they are not tampered with
after mine clearance has been completed and during the construction phase;
the responsibility for ensuring security at these sites obviously remains with
the parties. UNMEE is also amenable to monitor
pillar sites for a limited period following the emplacement of pillars,
with the full understanding on the part of all concerned that physical
protection of the pillars is the sole responsibility of the parties” (Ibid., parag. no.
17).

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/sgrep03.html

 

 

Commentary
Statement:

 

The reader may
conclude that there is very little concern given to the peoples adversely
affected by the border demarcation process. It appears that the EEBC and the
U.N. are more anxious about the safety of their own troops and personnel in the
field and the protection of the pillars of the boundary demarcation to be
constructed along the 1000 km (600 mile) border. http://www.waltainfo.com/Boundary/Ethio_Eritrea/Boundary/All_The_Maps.htm

 

It is morally
appalling that the Boundary Commission and the United Nations openly
demonstrate a greater commitment to the protection of their own people and the
inanimate symbolic pillars designed to divide brotherly people permanently into
two unfriendly nations. In the process, would they even allow the use of military force against those victimized
border area peoples (such as the Irobs) who would undoubtedly show civil
disobedience as a means of airing their frustration and desperation?

 

Undoubtedly, the
voiceless villagers, like the Irobs and residents of Badme
and its environs, seem prepared (as we have been following closely through the
Internet media) to protest the demarcation and disobey any authority threatening
their civic and human rights. Certainly, their reaction will be perceived as a dangerous
move by the international community. However, it should not be forgotten what
the Commission stated that “in certain locations
they may be confronted by the hostility of local inhabitants due, for example,
to the fact that the boundary line may be perceived as dividing communities or
separating them from their cultivated fields”.

 

It is unbelievable
that people, who were born and inhabited those places in peace and harmony for
centuries now could be considered as dangerous
criminals. It is tragic that human beings through irresponsible and unjust
human laws will attempt to override God-given rights which entitle all peoples
to live in sacrosanct birth-places and countries of choice.

 

In my opinion,
the voiceless villagers of the Irobland and other similar regions should not be
perceived nor treated as lawbreakers who threaten the peace of the world. They
are the victims of injustice. Hence, if any conflict arises which leads to
confrontation and bloodshed, the EEBC, the United Nations, and relevant parties
must be prepared to assume full responsibility not only before the world but
also before God.

 

After all, it is
morally justifiable for victimized peoples to defend their dignity and rights
against any force that threatens their existence or uproots them from their
God-given places of birth. I believe that what is at stake here is judicially
flawed justice which threatens disintegration of defenseless human societies.

 

Does the End Justify the Means? Should Injustice Be Justified and
Legalized?

 

The reader is requested to reflect on the following
quotations taken from the Eighth report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
Commission to the UN Secretary-General on the Ethio-Eritrea
boundary issue:

 

“The Commission has always made it clear that it has not been
given the power to vary the boundary delimited in the April Decision. In
particular, the December 2000 Agreement expressly precluded the Commission from
deciding matters ex aequo et bono: it did not
confer on the Commission, as it could have done and as has been done in the demarcation
arrangements for many other boundaries, the power to vary the boundary in the
process of demarcation for the purpose of meeting local human needs. The Commission
regrets that the boundary lines found by it to follow from the Treaty
provisions and international law which it is bound to apply may at certain
points result in physical divisions within communities that may adversely
affect the interests of the local inhabitants. The
Commission has not been insensitive to certain likely problems; it expressly
contemplated the possibility of variations to the line, but only at the request
of and with the agreement, nothing would preclude their doing so in the
course of the demarcation, even on a location-by-location basis.” (EEBC, Eighth report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission,
Part One, par. 4, 21
February 2003).

 

“… It may be regrettable, but it is by no means unusual, for
boundary delimitation and subsequent demarcation to divide communities. This may require
some movement of communities, some reconstruction of community facilities and
some understanding between the parties regarding cross-boundary movement. But
those are not matters to be remedied by the Commission. Rather they are
a concern of the United Nations, as a expressly laid down in Article 4.16 of
the December 2000 Agreement” (Ibid., par. 7).

  

In principle, the conflict resolution for the attainment of
peace between the two unfriendly countries of Eritrea
and Ethiopia,
which fought one of the bloodiest wars of our times (1998-2000), is good and
desirable. Nevertheless, the approach and method employed by the EEBC through
its detrimental and harmful ruling of 13 April 2002 is flawed
because of its destructive nature and negative consequences. As a matter of
fact, the people of Irob who lived peacefully in their fatherland for centuries
are threatened by the damaging verdict which will coerce their division into
two nationalities. It will separate and uproot them from their sacrosanct
native-land despite their determination to remain as Ethiopians, in their
motherland Ethiopia.

 

Hence, we, particularly as Irob natives are forced to
question the motives and the moral justification of such a harmful decision. We
are compelled to dispute the irresponsible endorsement given by the United Nations,
the European Union, the African Union, and others to the compulsory
implementation of the boundary demarcation forced upon peoples who are still
categorically opposing it.

 

How can such prestigious international bodies justify the
act of dividing, separating, and disintegrating communities, families, and
friends, who existed peacefully for centuries for mere political compromise and
the satisfaction of political leaders? Can evil means justify the relatively
good end of illusive border settlement? Where is the moral justification which
allows sacrificing voiceless people in such an unjust and contentious legal
process? Will measures imposed forcibly by the
Commission and the United Nations on the Irob people guarantee a peaceful
resolution to the boundary conflicts between Eritrea
and Ethiopia?

 

In my opinion, the EEBC and the United Nations have failed
the peoples in the border areas by ignoring their outcries and aspirations. They
seem to be more interested in the ambitions of political leaders than the
protection of the voiceless peasants who will suffer the consequences of their
ill-fated decisions.

 

It is regrettable that, while there were some feasible
solutions suggested by concerned groups from the border areas, the international
community ignored their persistent call to be heard.  For instance, the people of Irob have argued that
the recognized pre-war borders of 1998, particularly in the Irob region, would
have been the best solution for political stability and peaceful coexistence.
To our dismay, however, the EEBC and the United Nations disregarded the Irob
people’s advice and have manifested a single-minded determination to adhere to
their controversial decision. As a matter of fact, they are determined to
demarcate those contested boundaries no matter what adverse outcomes result.

 

Sadly, since the eruption of hostility in 1998, the two
countries have never demonstrated any signs of reconciliation, normalization of
bilateral relations or any compromise toward avoiding further war. It is well
known that each government is supporting opposition groups in order to
overthrow each other’s regime. Both governments want to appear committed to
peace in that they are abiding by the ceasefire agreement signed in Algiers,
December 2000.

 

The EEBC and the United Nations realize that Eritrea and
Ethiopia are not in a position to settle the matters of their boundary and
related human rights issues concerning the minority populations (such as in the
Irobland and other areas). These international bodies are placing pressure
particularly on Ethiopia
to accept the controversial demarcation of the border scheduled to begin
sometime in July 2003 or shortly there after.

 

If this criticism is considered to be unfounded, then let the concerned parties openly respond and disprove
it. Otherwise, all implicated parties must take full responsibility for the
miscarriage of justice particularly against the voiceless Irob ethnic
minorities.

 

1.  Bias against the
Irob and their Land

 

Why do the EEBC and the
United Nations avoid mentioning the Irobland and the Irob People in their
reports or documents? Why is it that the Issue of the Irobland is not as
significantly important as the Issue of Badme to the
relevant parties and the international community?

 

The United Nations–which should be protecting (see Universal Declaration of Human
Rights) the rights of all individuals and societies around the globe–seems
to demonstrate bias against the Irob ethnic minorities of Ethiopia.
Although the Irob natives in diaspora as well as in urban Ethiopia
persistently voice their concern over the helpless and voiceless people of Irob
in the Irob Woreda, the international community continues to ignore their
outcries for justice and human rights. 
The United Nations never condemned the Eritrean invasion and occupation
of the Irobland (1998-2000) and their mistreatments and human rights abuses
against the inhabitants. Now the UN would order the Irob people to be divided between
Eritrea
and Ethiopia,
in spite of the Irobs persistent opposition and pleas.

 

To the Irob people’s further dismay, after the issuance of
the Boundary Commission’s ruling in 2002, the EEBC and the United Nations
purposely avoided mentioning in their documents or reports the name of “Irob”
or the “Irobland”, while “Badme” often has been the
focal point and the core of concern. The Irob people want to know why the
international community demonstrates such biases?  As a matter of fact, the Irob people are dismayed
that even the Ethiopian Government reluctantly admitted the invasion and abuses
against the Irob people perpatrated by Eritrea
in late May of 1998.

 

http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/news2001/Nov/Appeal_for_a_Fair_Judgment.html

http://www.telecom.net.et/~walta/conflict/articles/article1467.html

 

Now the United Nations wittingly is preparing to render a
final blow of death to the Irob ethnic minority for the sake of an illusive
peace settlement and for satisfaction of the two governments.

Irob Reaction to Demarcation
(Tigrinya)

Irob
Reaction to Demarcation (Amharic)

Ethiopian
Government’s Comment on Irob

 

2.  The Issue of the
Unaccounted Missing Irobs

 

Why are the United
Nations and the relevant Parties in silence regarding the abducted and missing
civilian Irobs during the Eritrean occupation of the Irobland? Does their
behavior demonstrate good faith in the peace process for the two countries?

 

The EEBC and United Nations have angered and humiliated the
people of Irob by ignoring their legitimate questions regarding the human
rights of those abducted Irob civilians (over 80) who disappeared during the
Eritrean aggression and occupation (1998-2000) in violation of the Geneva
Convention (IV) of 12
August 1949. (The reader is encouraged to
visit the following website:  Conventions)

 

If the United Nations is truly and equally concerned about
global populations, then why is the UN ignoring the Irob people who never
stopped raising their voices for justice? Why is the issue of missing Irobs not raised or discussed with responsible parties at
the UN level? Do their lives matter to the
United Nations? If so, why are they not addressing this humanitarian issue
before any boundary settlement?  The Irob
people are demanding an immediate response from the United Nations as well as
from their government regarding the humanitarian condition of loved ones whose
whereabouts during the past four years are not known to the world.

http://www.ethiospokes.net/Backgrnd/Facts/December99/gc1112991.htm

 

In respect to its
global responsibilities, the United Nations is urged to investigate the matter
of Irob abductees still unaccounted for. As concerned Irob natives we beseech
the United Nations to place pressure on the Eritrean Government to settle this
problem before any borderline demarcation takes place. This is a matter of
justice; otherwise, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.”

 

PART
TWO

 

Matters of Neutrality in the Peace Process

 

Are the EEBC and
the United Nations acting with impartiality in the Ethio-Eritrean
peace process?

 

“Since
my last report, however, local Ethiopian herdsmen and the their livestock
have been entering grazing land around Drum Drum and Gafnat Aromo in Sector Center in
the Temporary Security Zone, the almost on a daily basis. Despite the
persistent efforts of UNMEE peacekeepers to dissuade the Ethiopian villagers
from grazing their cattle inside the Zone, the practice has continued unabated.
While these incursions have been relatively peaceful in
nature, they have become a source of tension in the area, and on 18 December 2002 an Ethiopian herdsman was found shot inside the Zone.
In cooperation with the two the parties, UNMEE investigated
the incident, but was unable to determine the perpetrator.” (UN
Secretary-General on Ethiopia and Eritrea, parag. n.
3,  6
March 2003)

 

To the dismay of Irob
people, the Hon. Mr. Kofi Annan,
Secretary-General of the United Nations, made an unwise statement involving a case
under investigation. First, the so-called “Ethiopian herdsman” who was gunned
down by three armed Eritrean men with military/militia uniforms (according to
the account of local Irob villagers) was certainly an Ethiopian nationality
from the Irobland in the vicinity of Aromo. Secondly,
the UN Secretary-General was misinformed by UNMEE peacekeepers, who have had poor relations with the Irob people from the
beginning. This resulted because the Irob people refused to let them set their
tents in the Ethiopian side of Drum Drum valley and Gafnat, an Irob territory historically disputed by both the
Irobs and the the Eritrean villagers. Thus,
unfortunately, the Irob people never trusted the UNMEE, and vice versa.

 

What do the Irob
people say regarding the herdsman who was killed? As it has been posted on the
Aiga Website last June (www.aiga1992.org),
a reporter from the Woyne Magazine interviewed some
of the local Irob villagers in the area where the killing took place. The
interview reveals a contradiction between what was reported by the UNMEE and
then by the UN Secretary-General in New
York City.

 

According to the
Irob villagers’ allegation, the UNMEE peacekeepers in the immediate area had failed
to guard the border by allowing three armed men in uniform from the Eritrean
side pass into the Irobland of Drum Drum and Gafnat in order to rustle cattle and abduct the herdsman.
When the herdsman resisted, he was gunned down and left dead. The armed
Eritrean men fled from the site.

 

The Irob
villagers have blamed the peacekeepers for not pursuing the perpetrators of
this crime. When villagers gathered on site of the incident, the UNMEE
peacekeepers arrived on the site to tell the villagers that the site of killing
was Eritrean territory under the Temporary Security Zone and that the herdsman had
crossed into the other side illegally. According to the interview with the
villagers, they were told by the UNMEE troops to pick up the body and go home.
According to the Woyne Magizne’s
report, the Irob villagers refused to take the man’s body for burial until the
perpetrators were identified and held responsible for the crime. In addition,
the herdsman, who was killed, was 51 years old and the father of six children.
The UNMEE peacekeepers careless report said that “A boy has been found dead in
the Temporary Security Zone.”  The body remained
on the ground for the whole night until higher officials confirmed that the
herdsman indeed was fatally gunned down by the armed men from Eritrea.
Then the body was taken by the villagers and buried properly.

 

The Irob people
strongly resent the fact that the UNMEE personnel continue to use bias against
the Irob tribe and show favoritism toward the other side. They are accused of
not being neutral in fulfilling their mission and mandate. Their mission is to
monitor the ceasefire and sustain peace between the two sides with impartiality
and full neutrality. The Irob people have no choice but to blame them for being
corrupted by Eritreans who work with them inside the 25 km buffer-zone known as
TSZ, which is within Eritrea.
The Irobs also accuse them of receiving distorted information from the Eritrean
side, and then making imprudent and biased judgments regarding such sensitive
and controversial matters as the boundary issue.

 

Hence, as natives
of the Irobland, we decry the public and biased statement of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations on 6 March 2003 (S/2003/257)
based on a one-sided story regarding the “Ethiopia
herdsman” killed in the Drum Drum and Gafnat area. The Irob people are also saddened to hear the
Secretary-General make a report to the Security Council and to the whole world,
saying “… local Ethiopian herdsmen and their livestock have been entering
grazing land around Drum Drum and Gafnat
Aromo in Sector Center in the Temporary Security
Zone, the almost on a daily basis. Despite the persistent efforts of UNMEE
peacekeepers to dissuade the Ethiopian villagers from grazing their cattle
inside the Zone, the practice has continued unabated.”

 

The Irob people
claim that Drum Drum and Gafnat
are their territories and that they always lived in these places and used the
territory for grazing and watering of their livestock. Certainly, some areas
are disputed by the local villagers from both sides, but we wonder how the
UNMEE and the UN Secretary-General reached a unilateral conclusion that Drum Drum and Gafnat belonged to Eritrea
and thus it is in the TSZ?

 

 

PART THREE

 

Border Demarcation and the Issue of Famine

 

As
the world community knows, Ethiopia and Eritrea at this moment are facing a
devastating drought and probable starvation of millions of their populations.
Thus those of us who are seriously concerned about the possible consequences of
the unwise and untimely border demarcation scheduled to begin in July and to be
completed in November 2003, are obligated to pose the following difficult
questions:

 

Is it a sound idea for
the EEBC and the UN to proceed with the controversial demarcation of the border
while all Ethiopians are opposing it? Is this move taken during a disastrous
situation aw well as unstable political environment going to warrant the
desperately needed peace? Would it be better for the international community to
focus on maintaining the shaky ceasefire between the two governments? Could
they intensify humanitarian aid to help them feed and rescue the overwhelming
numbers of starving and dying peoples? What is the real motive behind the hasty
decision of the EEBC and the UN to finalize the highly controversial and risky
boundary demarcation at this crucial time for both peoples and countries?

 

The Boundary Commission and the United Nations must know
that some thing is terribly wrong with the Eritrean and Ethiopian governments’ interaction
regarding the peace process. It is very clear that the peace process is flawed.
In spite of this, however, the international community is pushing hard to
finalize an “expeditious” demarcation of the controversial border issues
between the two nations, knowing full well that this could re-ignite another
bloody conflict. Then, who takes the responsibility in the case of such a
disastrous event?

 

The inhabitants in the contested border area have expressed
repeatedly their angry voices of opposition against any forced demarcation,
especially as it had been adjudicated by the independent Commission in The
Hague and is being planned for
implementation by the United Nations. Despite starvation, the people are
determined to reject any move that would threaten their existence as ethnic
societies.

 

1.  International
Community Should Avoid Apathy in the Face of

    Human Tragedy

 

In my opinion, the International Community need not
demonstrate apathy towards the estimated 20 millions of peoples who are facing
starvation and death in both Ethiopia
and Eritrea.
The stalled peace process between the two countries should not be a hindrance
to the world community in responding generously to the socioeconomic and
humanitarian relief crises faced by both countries.

 

However, both the EEBC and the United Nations are using
this opportunity to place pressure on Ethiopia,
so that it will surrender and accept an “expeditious
implementation” of the independent Commission’s “final and binding” decisions
on the boundary delimitation and demarcation according to the Algiers Agreements
of 2000. Otherwise, Ethiopia
would face economic sanctions which would strangulate over 15 million people
who are victims of a natural disaster plaguing the country.  As a matter of fact, Ethiopian leaders are
showing signs of fear and might be inclined to submit and yield to the
pressures coming from the international community in this regard.

 

2.  Relief Aid Should
Not Be Used as a Political Weapon by the Donors

 

No matter how Ethiopia
is perceived by the international community due to the drought and the famine
problems it is facing now, it should not be manipulated into sacrificing its
territorial integrity, sovereignty, and its citizens for the sake of a
political compromise with Eritrea.

 

The world community should realize that what is threatening
peace in the region is primarily a lack of justice for all. When there is no
justice, peace is impossible. When peace is not possible, economic growth is
paralyzed and the security of people is endangered. Therefore, let the
concerned parties of the international community first and foremost promote
justice which will lead to peace, political stability, economic growth, and  prosperity for
both Ethiopia
and Eritrea.

 

The international community must free itself of any bias concerning
Ethiopia
and its citizens who cry out for their territorial
claims and rights for a genuine peace between the two countries. All human
rights issues must be addressed. The world community should not blackmail Ethiopia
by threatening to withhold humanitarian relief aid and monetary assistance for
this poor country in need of solving its food shortage problems through
intensive and aggressive agricultural and water conservation developmental
programs. If the international community is fully cognizant of the developments
and sentiments of the Ethiopian people, then it should be proceeding cautiously
and prudently in order to resolve the boundary dilemma between the two nations.

 

3.  Famine and Human Suffering Should Not Be
Labeled with Color of

     Skin

 

Human suffering does not know skin color. It seems that
when it comes to Africans of black skin, color is detrimental. It is a well
proven fact that when human, political or natural tragedies occur in the European
or Asian skinned populations’ countries, the entire western world is mobilized
to avert the crises before greater damage occurs.

 

On the other hand, when black Africans are faced with all
forms of human, political, and natural tragedies, the international community’s
response is pathetically weak. For example, in the event of the recent Iraq
crisis, the reaction and dedication demonstrated by the United Nations and the international
community to avert war and avoid human tragedy will go down in history.

 

The fact remains that over 15 million people in Ethiopia
and two-thirds of the Eritrean people are facing devastating starvation and the
epidemics of HIV/AIDS. The United Nations is pressuring Ethiopia
to accept the controversial ruling of the Boundary Commission in accordance with
the signed Algiers Agreements of December 2000 or face economic sanction and the
withholding of relief and developmental international aids. In other words, the
UN and others are forcing Ethiopia
to surrender her sovereignty over disputed territories like those in the
Irobland, Badme, and others for the sake of receiving
relief and other developmental aid. What the international community and the
United Nations seem to misunderstand is not only the Ethiopian Government’s
dilemma but the Ethiopian peoples’ anger and refusal to accept the Boundary
Commission’s unjust decisions which will make Ethiopia landlocked and some of
its citizens divided into two hostile nationalities. Ethiopian people are
refusing to compromise on the basis of national pride and national territorial
integrity which their ancestors inherited through tremendous human sacrifice.

 

Eritrea is staunchly opposed to any kind of further compromise or
constructive dialogue between the two countries regarding boundary issues.
Certainly, no one can blame Eritrea for its position since the Boundary Commission’s ruling fully
favors Eritrea and guarantees Eritrean total victory in attaining most of the
claimed territories. However, for the minority ethnic peoples, particularly in
the Irobland, The
Hague’s verdict is unjust
because it threatens their very existence and violates their fundamental human
and civil rights in today’s civilized world.

 

PART FOUR

 

Final
Statement and Appeal

 

In conclusion, the writer of this treatise believes that Ethiopia
and Eritrea
must avoid conflict which would lead to further bloodshed between these two
brotherly peoples. The so-called “senseless war” fought by the two countries
from 1998-2000 resulted in the loss of an estimated 70,000 to 100,000
Ethiopians and Eritreans. It also had an immeasurable negative impact on the material
and socioeconomic fabric of the peoples of the two countries. All these tragic
events should cause us to reflect on lessons learned from this evil.

 

In the writer’s opinion, neither Eritrea
nor Ethiopia
should boast about their military power or victory, as they have claimed in the
past. Certainly, if both countries choose to continue fighting and sacrificing
their citizens, no one will stop them from doing so, but both countries will be
equal loosers in the process.  Only one-side (the one with the better
economy and larger population) however, might prevail at the end but with untold
cost to the economy and a heavy loss of human lives. For instance, if war had to
continue for many years, Ethiopia
with a population of 67 million and larger economy could sacrifice up to five
million of its people in order to protect its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. In contrast, can Eritrea,
with an estimated population of 4.5 million, afford to sacrifice five million of
its population in successive wars in order to protect its sovereignty and
territorial integrity? Or will Eritrea
rely on other countries to fight for her sovereignty and territorial integrity?

 

Hence, both countries need to achieve a genuine and durable
peace which will enable them to exist as good neighbors without the need war. In
this respect, the regimes of both countries need to change their egopathic ways and negotiate a meaningful peace and
political stability in the region.  They are
urged to resolve their political differences and relational problems by
demonstrating a commitment to the peace process which would include compromise in
rectifying certain problematic and controversial border issues through productive
dialogue for the good of their respective peoples and peace; a healing of past
wounds through a true spirit of reconciliation; a demonstration of political wisdom
in exercising their authority responsibly and compassionately through rendering
of justice to the peoples in the border regions (especially to those in the
Irobland).

 

The international community is urged to understand the
historical, cultural, sociological and psychological make up of the local
peoples, such as the Irobs in the Irobland. These peoples will suffer the dire
effects of any flawed decision, made by the international community, who’s lacking
empathy, which might cause a failure in the rendering of justice.

 

The primary responsibility of the international community,
particularly of the United Nations, should be protecting the most helpless and
endangered groups around the world and safeguarding their civic and human
rights.  In Ethiopia,
the Irob ethnic minority group’s existence is endangered by a compulsory
disintegration because of an uprooting from their native places as ruled by the
independent Boundary Commission and endorsed by the United Nations Security
Council. Sadly, it is clear from the statement of the UN Secretary-General, that
the United Nations and the Boundary Commission appear not interested in the
issues adversely affecting the peoples, such as the Irob, in the Ethio-Eritrea border areas. They are more interested in
giving priority to the “expeditious demarcation” of the border and the
“protection and security” of the personnel involved in this matter. For the
Irob people, this is truly a miscarriage of justice!

 

 “… I
addressed letters to Prime Minister Meles and
President Isaias Afwerki …
to assure the two leaders that the United Nations would be prepared, without
compromising the Boundary Commission’s decisions, to facilitate the
resolutions of problems that may arise as result of the transfer of territorial
control … ” (Progress report on Ethiopia and Eritrea, parag.
13, 6 March 2003).

 

“…
The United Nations is prepared to facilitate the resolution of problems that
may arise as a result of the transfer of territorial control, as provided
in article 4.16 of the December 2000. …However, it is obvious that such support
by the international community can only be provided on the basis of an accepted
demarcation line.”  (Ibid.,
parag. 36).

 

“…
While the immediate priority is the initiation of
demarcation, we must not lose sight of the fact that agreement on the
timing and modalities for the transfers of territorial control should
not necessarily await the completion of demarcation …” (Ibid., parag. 37).

 

“…
In this regard, it is particularly important that they begin to sensitize
their populations about the demarcation process and its implications.” (Ibid., parag. 39).

 

 

In his latest Progress report on Ethiopia
and Eritrea
of 23 June 2003
(S/2003/665), the Secretary-General has clearly indicated the possible “humanitarian and human rights consequences of the eventual
transfer of territorial control that will follow demarcation of the border”
(parag. 25). In his observations, he also indicates
that “the peace process is at critical stage” (parag.
29). He believes that “the lasting peace cannot be built on the basis of
temporary arrangements” (parag. 30). Nonetheless, the
Secretary-General strongly stresses the fact, saying, “… expeditious demarcation of the border is crucial”
(parag. 30). He also lists some of the possible
consequences on the peoples this “expeditious demarcation of the border” will
entail:

 

“Initial UNMEE analysis identified the following issues which
could possibly be involved: nationality/citizenship rights; protection from
statelessness; property rights; family rights/avoidance of family separation;
protection of children’s rights; immigration and residency rights; avoidance of
forced migration and population movements; rights of return of previously
displaced persons; resettlement/reintegration possibilities; and cultural
rights and traditions of communities in border areas”
(parag. 25).

 

 

 

Website References:

http://www.telecom.net.et/~walta/conflict/articles/article378.html

_{http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/news2000/Nov/Open_letter_to_UN_and_PM_on_the_UNMEE_ref_map.html}

_{http://www.dcpages.com/Commentary/June98/Ethopian98.html}

_{http://www.waltainfo.com/Conflict/Articles/2002/May/article3.htm}

_{http://www.telecom.net.et/~walta/conflict/html/article428.html}

_{http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/pol.ethiopia/2001-April/000484.html}

_{http://www.tigrai.org/News/Articles1/Ethiopian-scholars.html}

_{http://www.ee.princeton.edu/~xzhu/pol/amnesty_hypo.html}

_{http://www.tigrai.org/News/Articles2002/IrobNov.html}

_{http://www.geocities.com/dejenca/irob.htm}

_{http://www.waltainfo.com/Conflict/BasicFacts/2002/June/fact_03.htm}

_{http://www.ethiopiannationalcongress.org/haile_larebo.htm}

_{http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/news2002/Jan/ZALA_AMBESSA_AND_IROB.html}

_{http://www.aiga1992.org/irobcommunity.htm}

_{http://www.geocities.com/ethonlinepublication/CommentsToEEBC.html}

_{Missing
Irobs: http://www.socepp.de/november_20.htm}

                                _{Irob Captives}

_{Map of
Irob Region: Dissected
Irob Region}

_{Eritrean
Views of Irob: Genesis
of Border War}