Eritrea-Ethiopia: Agreements are as Good as they are implemented!
By Daniel Berhane*
23, 2007 — I was induced to write this small response to a piece titled “Eritrea-Ethiopia – The Algiers Agreement – A Trap without Exit” by Toommaa Imma. The author’s selective reading of history and mingling of unrelated issues is faulty. In the middle of the hullabaloo, the author mark at three points identified as the “fallacy fallouts of the Algiers Agreement”. Namely the author points at; “… (1) the demarcation issue that leaves families and communities along the frontiers in suspense, (2) allotting a corridor to the sea for Ethiopia, and (3) the fate of the Afar population that is divided against its wishes between three states.” [Appeared on Sudan Tribune March 12, 2007]
I am not here to sanitize the image or character of the Eritrean Government or to tarnish the image or character of the Ethiopian Government. My main concern is to address the author’s selective reading of history and faulty analysis that attempts to rewrite history. With that in mind, here is my response.
1. The demarcation will not leave families and communities along the frontiers in suspense. Once the boundary is demarcated, there is no suspense. It will all be over and the people on both sides of the boarder will go on with their lives as usual. As far as the life of the ordinary people is concerned, the demarcation will have no to a very limited impact. On the other hand, continued no-war-no-peace status is aggravating the people of both countries. This harm is amplified when it comes to the segments of the society who reside on both sides of the frontiers. If the Ethiopian government would only honor its treaty obligation and allow the demarcation to proceed as agreed; I see no room for suspense and tension. Clearly demarcating the border will erode any possibility of opportunistic attempts by the current or future regimes or groups who wish to plunge these sisterly people into war and misery.
2. Allotting a sea corridor to Ethiopia is an independent issue. In all fairness, Ethiopia deserves to have access to the sea. But it does not mean it has to happen at the expense of Eritrea’s wishes and sovereignty. There are some 43 countries in the world that are landlocked. Among which, Africa comprises a total of 15 landlocked countries; Europe has 14, Asia 12 and South America has 2 countries.
In other words, Ethiopia is not the only country that is “denied” direct access to the sea. Eritrea’s rightful ownership of the coast by the Red Sea is beyond discussion. However, in the age of economic interdependence, it would be very advisable and beneficial for Eritrea and Ethiopia to sign an agreement or some treaty that guarantees the peaceful use of Eritrea’s direct link to the Red Sea. Once again, such treaty or agreements would only be the result of pure economic, political and strategic interest duly and independently assessed and decided in order to benefit both countries, and not as the result of Ethiopia’s “historic” or “legitimate” claim over any of Eritrean waters. Any other argument or proposal that aims to open doors of discussion to question the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Eritrea will amount to a futile attempt to rewrite history!
In order to secure Ethiopia’s desire to have a guaranteed access to the sea through Eritrea, Ethiopia has to unconditionally and unequivocally renounce its “ifs, ands or buts” on the Eritrean boarder issue. Moreover, Ethiopia needs to come to the negotiation table with a clearly defined and forward looking agenda in order to secure the peaceful and beneficial use of Eritrean waters. Such negotiation is only designed to address the issue of technicalities of the use and not the issue of ownership of ports, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Eritrea. What a better way for Ethiopia to show this commitment and respect for agreements than by fully accepting the boundary panel’s final decision, and by allowing the demarcations to proceed. This would be in line with principle of “pacta sunt servanda” or every agreement in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in goodfaith. The principle entitles countries to require that obligations be respected and to rely upon the obligations being respected. [Wekipedia – emphasis added]. Given the significant economic and strategic impact it has on both countries, the issue of access to the sea can and should be addressed candidly by a solid agreement or treaty without casting any doubt as to the issue of Eritrea’s rightful ownership of its waters. The Ethiopian government has to demonstrate that it is true to its words and in goodfaith perform its treaty obligation. Namely, by accepting and implementing the boundary decision in letter and spirit.
3. The fate of the Afar population is no unique phenomenon in Africa. The fate of the Afar population is the result of unfortunate history of colonialism that divided the African continent without any regard to the local realities or the wishes of the people. This truly tragic inheritance of African countries has been a source of resentments and civil wars in many countries. Fully aware that any attempt to undo the tragedy would result in endless conflicts, in 1964 the OAU passed a resolution aimed at preventing inevitable wars. The resolution states that the principle of stability of borders would be applied across Africa. This would be in line with the key principle of “uti possidetis juris” meaning national borders of newly independent countries would match with former colonial borders. [Wekipedia – emphasis added]
As we all know, Ethiopia was among the main countries that orchestrated the establishments of the OAU [the predecessor of AU], who favored this approach. The principle of stability of borders as inherited was the only to spare Africa from conflicts. Thus African boundaries were to remain untouched in order to save the African continent from endless bloodshed. Thus, as sad as it is, the issue of the Afar population is no different than the issue of any other population or ethnicity in Africa. After all, where would one stop? Are you ready to allow Somalis scattered in Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia to come together for instance? If we were to attempt to redraw the boundaries to suit human geography, it would be the end of African boundaries as we know them. I also believe that it would result in the complete undoing of the whole continent.
The faulty analysis and selective reading of history looks like an attempt to validate a narrow political agenda of stirring or perpetuating conflicts. I urge the people of both countries to encourage our respective governments to make forward looking political and strategic moves. Peaceful resolution of our issues and dealing with each other in a no-nonsense manner is the only way to go forward. Such approach will deliver our countries from war and misery and ultimately guarantee a peaceful coexistence between these two sisterly nations. And the international community has the obligation to do everything that is required to realize the aspiration of the people and guarantee the respect and integrity of treaties.
* Daniel Berhane, an Eritrean currently residing in Washington, DC, USA. He can be reached at [email protected]