Eritrea urges UN, USA to “pressurize” Ethiopia
ASMARA, Jan 4, 2004 (Eritrean radio) — Eritrean President Isayas Afewerki has urged Ethiopia to comply with the ruling of boundary commission on its border dispute with Eritrea and urged the international community to enforce the ruling. Afewerki has described Ethiopia’s quest for “dialogue” on the matter with Eritrea a ” dead political gimmick” and “public relation exercise”. The following are excerpts from his interview on Eritrean radio on 3 January
[Unnamed interviewer] I want to change from the topic we had been talking about and want to go in to the issue of the peace process and its developments. The cabinet of ministers in its recent meeting, described the weyane [Ethiopian government] peace proposal as a dead political gimmick. As a matter of fact, what is the contents of the weyane peace proposals? What was its intention? How is the Eritrean government handling the issue? Can you please give us a detailed picture of the whole issue?
[Isayas] Many people try to comment on the contents of the statement. But, how can you ask about its contents when it does not have one. It does not have any contents at all. I have said it in the past. We at the beginning when the balloon was released tried to assess its contents, but it was not that difficult to predict its contents even before the balloon was released. I think you can talk about its objectives, but you can not talk about its contents, because it does not have one at all. My personal assessment, comparing with the past three years, specially after the boundary commission’s ruling on April 2002, I say it was 10 steps backward. That was the reason why I said it does not have any content at all. You can call it a new or an old political gimmick, you can give it any name. But, it does not have any content at all. It was presented as a public relations game. The game was focused on dialogue. We are tired of the issue of dialogue and we have thrown out the balloon long time ago. Dialogue on what? The agreements still exist and you cannot erase and throw them out. The agreements signed on 2000 still exist. The commission, which means the court, was the fruit of the 2000 agreement. The court gave its ruling based on the agreement signed. The ruling was made some two and a half year ago or more. The ruling was a straight forward ruling, and it was a final and binding ruling. It is not a question of whether I support it in principle or not. You cannot bring the issue of preconditions to the ruling made. You have to accept and implement it.
Since the agreement was very clear, there are no issues you can talk about. The ruling was final and binding and it should be implemented. If it is going to be implemented, the implementer is well known. All the required measures for its implementations are also completed. Even the specifications and details of the poles that are going to be erected on the border are completed. The only thing remaining is the erecting of the poles. Even if it is a dead political gimmick, what does the weyane want to talk about? Dialogue on what? Like the old saying that says a deaf sings one song, you cannot bring the issue of dialogue now, when people are sick and tired of it, because the issue is long forgotten. I do not think you can talk about it now.
In the diplomatic world, when you say you accept something in principle you really mean you do not accept it [laughter]. May be you can deceive a foolish hunter who does not know how a partridge flies. But, people are sick and tired of this issue [dialogue]. So it does not have any content at all. They [Ethiopia] said the issue of implementing comes through after dialogue. What kind of jokes are these? There is no room for manipulation. You cannot bring any preconditions. The ruling is final and binding. You cannot go back and wander alone by throwing out the respect and dignity of the rule of law. And no-one expects to follow you. I say it does not have any content at all, it is deceiving and it was brought about to buy time. But it was mainly issued for foreign consumption.
We have to say the international community has not done enough and since it was being said in all parts of the world that the issue had taken too long and a dangerous situation was looming in the area, the ruling must be implemented. The dead political gimmick was brought about to kill or hinder what the world was saying. The words were coined with the intention of deceiving ignorant or insane people. And it will lose its weight with time like the flour you eat.
So, you cannot say it had any content at all. It was meant for foreign consumption. However, some say it was directed at the Ethiopian people. But it was not directed at the Ethiopians. In the past it was said that the Ethiopian people declared war [on Eritrea]. When the agreement was signed it was said it was the will of the Ethiopian people and now you cannot take a final and binding ruling to a referendum or take it to the people for voting.
If you try to do so, it means you are joking with the people, it is a prank. So it was not even directed at the Ethiopian people. May be it was brought about to please some narrow minded groups. But, what is the gain? Can you bring something to please a new friend, whom you used to call chauvinist in the past [presumably the Amhara tribe, which was called a chauvinist tribe by the Tigray people]. Some say it could be brought about to please the Eritrean people. This statement makes you vomit.
Three years have elapsed, since the weyane said that it does not abide by the commission’s ruling. The commission was ridiculed, it was called irresponsible [last element in English] and its ruling was said to be illegal. Now when you say you want to work with the same commission you had been calling names, how will people view you?
From the very beginning, we did not want to wander, because we saw it did not have any value at all. We do not care what weyane is saying, we cannot ill-use our time by trying to see whether the issue had any value or not, or to whom it was directed.
They said they will not want war if the other side did not start it. War is in fact declared. Since 13 April 2002, after the [boundary] commission gave its ruling by stating clearly the sovereign territory of both countries. Our sovereign territory was violated, just like our territory which was captured by the weyane regime. That is the time when the weyane declared war on us. The country which says that it still controls a sovereign territory of another country, is saying that it has declared war.
Now after releasing the balloon, if you start saying that various countries have welcomed [last element in English] our proposals – the whole statements were replete with the word “welcome” – there were so many “welcomes”.
They were knocking the doors of various countries to ask them to welcome their proposal. I have never seen such an infantile game. You cannot try to buy time and try to deceive people by bringing a meaningless game that has no content. You cannot also try to deceive people forgetting what you have been saying yesterday [passage omitted].
Even if the issue of dialogue is raised, the dialogue is on what? Is it on the ruling made? Is it on the agreement reached? Are we going to go into dialogue to change the agreements and the ruling made? What is the issue to dialogue on? Is it to normalize relations? You cannot ask for normalization of relations, when you are still occupying some people’s territory. First of all, if you want to normalize relations you have to withdraw from the territory you are occupying [passage omitted].
It is the responsibility of the international community, the UN Security Council, the UN, Africa, Europe, America and Asia to pressurize the weyane regime to implement international law and agreements. The international community has not taken its responsibilities up to now. It is almost three years now. It is the international community which is responsible for this [passage omitted].
[Interviewer] In line with what you had been talking about, there are some reports that the weyane regime is making preparations for war. Can you please give us detailed information on what is on the ground? What is the threat that is forcing the weyane regime to make such huge military preparations?
[Isayas] It is really surprising, we have not seen such military scurry. Militarily it is even difficult to find any meaning to the whole scurry. As I have said earlier could the new proposal be a pretext to seek an excuse for war. There is no any other option. The only solution for the weyane is war in order to run from the whole issue. There are only two options: One is either to respect the law, to respect the signed agreements, to accept the ruling and implement it and to give the chance to the implementers of the ruling, and to withdraw from the territory you are occupying by force. This is the sole option. The other option is war, for weyane. The other issue could be for public relations – that is seeking for support to the new proposal and on the hand it could be a warning of threat to the international community [passage omitted].
I do not see it simple, the [military] preparations under way. Because, militarily when such things happen you do not see it as a simple thing. You have to understand your responsibilities, you have also to understand the danger that is approaching you [passage omitted].
The failure of the weyane regime is becoming vivid. “Welcomes” [last element in English] are being repeated, in fact if you see the contents of the “welcome” statements, whether we like it or not the statements were indicating that the ruling as final and binding and it should be implemented without any precondition [passage omitted].
The international community has the authority to enforce [last word in English] the agreements and decisions. It should discharge its obligation of enforcing the agreements. With all the deceptions, it has been decided that we maintain our political and diplomatic efforts as a policy. The Temporary Security Zone [TSZ] is temporary. Its legitimacy has elapsed, but we have been working by maintaining the policy I mentioned earlier. We gave it ample time. Now what is the role of the peacekeepers and the UN Security Council? Will it continue to stagger on the way we saw it over the past three years or what?
It was decided during the earlier meetings of the National Assembly and cabinet ministers that our efforts had been given ample time and that we are now at crossroads. We keep the emerging so-called new initiatives or efforts within such notes. We will not be in hurry. Indeed, we know patience is not indefinite. However, our choices are not based on legitimacy of the peacekeepers or the TSZ. The TSZ was temporary until the implementation of the ruling [by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission]. If the so-called international community, whether it is the UN Security Council or the USA, will not implement the ruling, then that means the international community itself is infringing the legitimacy of its own existence.
The main question now is where do we go from here? What will be done? Perhaps this is not a topic that should be talked about openly. We, indeed, know what we should do when. We may talk about this when it is time.
Material from the BBC Monitoring Service.