Home » Border Issues » Miscarriage of Justice

Miscarriage of Justice


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

Let us say, in accordance with the truth and the counsel of Aristotle in Politics, Bk. 3, ch. 6, that the legislator, or the primary and proper efficient cause of the law, is the people or the whole body of citizens, or the weightier part thereof, by its choice or will expressed orally in a general gathering of the citizens, commanding or determining certain things to be done or omitted with regard to man’s civil actions, under threat of temporal penalty or punishment. I say weightier part, taking into consideration both the number of persons and their quality in the community for which the law is enacted.” Marsilius of Padua: Defensor Pacis, 1, 12, 3. (14th cent.)

The human legislator must attain to that balance, that keen sense of moral responsibility, without which it is easy to mistake the boundary between the legitimate use and the abuse of power. Thus only will his decisions have internal consistency, noble dignity and religious sanction, and be immune from selfishness and passion.”  Pope Pius XII: Summi Pontificatus. (October 20, 1939)

Now, the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society is the preservation of its unity, which is called peace, and which, if taken away, the benefit of social life is lost and moreover the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself. The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, should be to procure the unity of peace.” St. Thomas Aquinas: The Government of Rulers, I, 2. (13th cent.)

“Justice … is the virtue that gives to each his due.” St. Augustine of Hippo: On Freewill, I, 27.
Let justice be done though the world perish.” St. Augustine of Hippo

“The rule of justice is plain, namely, that a good man ought not to swerve from the truth, not to inflict any unjust loss on anyone, nor to act in any way deceitfully or fraudulently.” St. Ambrose: On the Duties of the Clergy, I, 127. (4th cent.)

“Justice is a certain certitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in the circumstances confronting him.”  St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, 61. (13th cent.)

“Peace is more important than all justice: and peace was not made for the sake of justice, but justice for the sake of peace.”
Martin Luther

“You will not be unjust in administering justice. You will neither be partial to the poor nor be overawed by the great, but will administer justice to your fellow-citizen justly.”  Leviticus 19:15 (NJB)

“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.” Psalm 82:2 (NRSV)

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“Decisions made by people who have a respect for persons, reverence for life, and compassion for the suffering are likely to be good decisions, whereas decisions made by people who are insensitive and lack empathy are likely to be morally bad, no matter how much knowledge and skill they might possess.” Ashley & O’Rourke, Ethics of Health Care, 2002: p. 3.



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.

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:

a. 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; …

b. Authorize and arrange for the 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).

c. “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).

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 miles) border.

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 an 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 thereafter.

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 the 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 perpetrated by Eritrea in late May of 1998.

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

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.”


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 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 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 (, 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 Magazine’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?


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 as 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.


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 losers in the process. Only one-side (the one with the better economy and larger population) however, might prevail at the end but with the untold cost to the economy and a heavy loss of human lives. For instance, if the war had to continue for many years, Ethiopia with a population of 67 million and the 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 makeup 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 are 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”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).” (parag. 25). In his observations, he also indicates that “the peace process is at a 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:


%d bloggers like this: