Asab Port

Meles´ Assab Policy Threatens Ethiopia’s National Security
By Belai Abbai * and Zeru Kehishen The issue: A border treaty between Eritrea and Ethiopia is now under discussion. The Meles administration has made two key announcements in this regard: Assab will be ceded to Eritrea, and colonial boundary treaties will provide the basis for demarcating the new boundary. The parameters of the new treaty being thus sufficiently defined, we, as concerned Ethiopians are duty-bound now to take a stand on this crucial national issue. The central question is this: Can a treaty that cedes Assab a priori and invokes irrelevant colonial treaties be justified? Further more: Does this treaty serve Ethiopia’s paramount interests? These are the issues that we address in this paper. 1. Ethiopia’s legitimate access to the sea and international waters. Given Ethiopia’s history of constant external attacks and encirclement, resulting in frequent wars, which have slowed, interrupted and even retarded our nations development, security (i.e. freedom from perils and the deprivations caused by outside forces that control, or threaten to control the sea inlets and outlets) is our most pressing concern. Thus, Ethiopia has a non-negotiable right to free and unfettered access to the sea, to defend and safeguard her territorial integrity against other powers, near and far, and to pursue her economic and commercial interests with friendly nations everywhere. What makes Ethiopia’s access to the sea of critical importance at this juncture in her history is that inspite of her victory over her neighbor, Eritrea, in the recent border conflict, Ethiopia is facing the distinct possibility of permanently surrendering to Eritrea the port of Assab, Ethiopia’s natural, historic, and sole outlet to the sea. This possibility is all the more real, thanks to the open connivance –paradoxically - of the Meles administration in Addis Abeba and the open support shown for Eritrea by external powers (EC, US,) etc. The adverse consequences of ceding Assab to Eritrea should be made clear since this is a question that affects the welfare of every Ethiopian. These consequences are the following: a) Ethiopia will stand to lose the revenue it might have collected from trade levies and port services. Ethiopia will also lose the employment and income opportunities from port-related economic activities that might have accrued to its own citizens. For a poor country suffering growing unemployment this could result in rising popular unrest. This is wholly unacceptable, since there is no natural or moral law that compels Ethiopian citizens to pay taxes and rents to a citizen of another country, for the use of an asset that is rightfully theirs. b) Ethiopia will be constantly vulnerable to blackmail if it becomes dependent on the good will of Eritrea for the import and export of its commodities. In any case the vital national security and economic concerns of a country cannot be entrusted to the good will of another country, however friendly that other country may be – as Ethiopia’s long history has proven repeatedly. Thus Djibouti, Berbera, Mombasa and Port Said must not be the alternatives, when Ethiopia can – and – must have its own port. c) Ethiopia’s historic enemies will attempt to strangle her from the sea, if she is denied its own outlet to the international waters. As in the past, Egypt, because of her strategic interests on the Nile will attempt to destabilize Ethiopia to prevent her from focusing her development efforts on the Blue Nile basin. With Eritrea and Somalia controlling the waters, the potential for destabilization will always be there to be activated at the most critical moments maximum effect by any of her historic and strategic adversaries. d) Those who control the ports used by Ethiopia for importing and exporting its goods and services will also be in a position to collect all intelligence data for hostile purposes. They will be able to monitor and collect information on the type, quantity and source of military imports and other vital economic data. Ethiopia’s potential enemies know where to get the information from and how to use it effectively. These are issues to which Meles gives scant consideration. 2. Ethiopia has a historical right to the Afar Coast. There are no standing or binding treaties that could be invoked to determine the boundaries between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The various historic and legal developments that have characterized the relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia over the last 50 years (Federation, Integration, and Internal Administrative Reorganizations) have nullified all other earlier treaties. Eritrea was an integral part and a province of Ethiopia until its de facto independence in 1991. Thus the border between the two countries must be negotiated and agreed upon now, in the year 2000. This is the only basis for defining the future international boundary between the two countries. Need less to say, such a boundary demarcation should be just and fair to both countries. It should also be seen to be just and fair - and sustainable over time by the people of the two countries. Otherwise a people that feels injured and betrayed by the deal must eventually destabilize both countries. The agreement should thus respect the vital security and economic interests and concerns of both countries as well the historical rights of the nationalities inhabiting the contiguous region. In this regard it should be understood that Ethiopia’s right to Assab and her access to international waters are not negotiable. These are questions of paramount importance. The survival of a nation can not be subordinated to any international agreements and Ethiopia cannot simply sign a suicide note prepared for her by her adversaries. Ethiopia has a historic right to the Afar Coast, which constitutes the historic access to the sea for the front line provinces: Tigray , Wollo, Gondar and Showa and through them for all Central and Western provinces - the origin of Ethiopia’s exports of gold, ivory, coffee etc. since ancient times. From time immemorial, these frontier provinces and the Afar region have coexisted as an interdependent and interconnected entity due to their common economic and security interests. It should also be noted that the Afar region, including the Red Sea Afar area, constituted the Autonomous Afar region within Ethiopia, just as Eritrea (without the Red sea Afar region) was an autonomous region within Ethiopia, until 1991, when it seceded and became de facto independent. Once again it must be asserted that there are no binding agreements - colonial or otherwise - that could rightfully deny Ethiopia’s legitimate right to Assab. On the contrary the pre-existing conditions at the time of Eritrea’s independence can be invoked as an a piori condition for retaining the entire Afar inhabited region as an autonomous region within Ethiopia. Indeed ceding Afar Coast to Eritrea lacks any plausible legal, economic or historical basis. In short Ethiopia has a legitimate right to Assab, just as Eritrea has a legitimate right to Massawa. Furthermore, the Ethiopian government is duty-bound to defend the economic interest and national aspirations of its Afar national minority who wish to remain as a united people, as they were until 1991 when the Afar coastal regions were illegally ceded to Eritrea. 3. Dangers Ethiopia will face if denied access to the sea and international waters. Any internationally sanctioned arrangement or treaty that leaves Ethiopia land locked, and that surrenders her security to Eritrea, a country whose mere existence as a state depends on its gaining access to Ethiopia’s resources by whatever means (including force), and is likely allied to Ethiopia’s traditional adversaries, would be a treaty that creates the pre-conditions for the destabilization of the Ethiopia State from outside. There can be no permanent peace in the region if such a treaty is imposed on Ethiopia. No Ethiopian should forget the geopolitical reality of his country. If Ethiopia is forced once again to be land locked by Eritrea and Somalia, the very same staging posts used by Ismael´s Egypt to destabilize the country during the later part of the 19th century, the entire horn region would be fraught with danger. Although the Egyptians were defeated by Ras Alula at the battle of Gura (1876), they were able to occupy Harar. And given Egypt’s perennial interest in Ethiopia’s use of the Nile waters for development, the two countries will be used as pressure points against her. Therefore the border treaty currently under negotiation has grave implications for Ethiopia’s very survival. 4. The Policies of the present regime are in conflict with Ethiopia’s national interests. Despite the fact that Ethiopian armed forces had defeated the Eritrea armed force decisively, the Meles administration capitulated hastily, under the pretext that Ethiopia had achieved its goals. By taking such a step, Meles effectively bailed out the belligerent Issaias, and his government. More importantly, Meles then proposed to negotiate on the basis of irrelevant colonial boarder agreements, a position that may effectively deprive Ethiopia of Assab as well as any independent access to the international waters. Such a move clearly turns Ethiopia’s victory into a defeat, and sacrifices Ethiopia’s vital long-term security and economic interests. Meles has repeatedly stated a number of interviews that Assab belongs to Eritrea, even before the negotiations on boundary demarcation had begun. The purpose of such statements is to pre-empt any further discussion of Ethiopia’s claim to Assab and her right to a sea outlet. They are designed to kill any debate on the issue and to set the tone and parameters for the negotiations in a manner that pre-determines its outcome in advance. This constitutes an unambiguous message to the Eritrean government, the UN, the OAU, the EU and the US that Ethiopia’s demands concerning the boundary demarcation will not include Assab. This echoes only too clearly the occasion when Meles and his group single-handedly requested that the UN recognize Eritrean independence in the name of the Ethiopian government, without any public debate in Ethiopia. In effect Meles is once again ensuring that Ethiopia remain a landlocked country, legitimizing a goal that the colonialists and the historical enemies of the country had failed to achieve Assab by war. The question of Assab and outlet to the sea is certainly awkward for Meles who does not have Ethiopia’s vital interests at heart. His instinctive and instant response to questions on reflects Eritrea’s interest. He said that Eritrea would not gain any thing if Ethiopia does not make use of Assab. Whether Eritrea benefits or not is the primary concern of the President of Eritrea. It should not be the concern of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. Unfortunately Meles’ previous policy decisions leave no room for doubt that he has all along protected of Eritrean interest while simultaneously sacrificing vital Ethiopian security and economic concerns at the same time. Ethiopia’s primary concern is to determine what may be the consequences, should Ethiopia lose the port of Assab and what may be the security, economic etc. costs that Ethiopia may have to pay if Eritrea should own it. As noted above, Assab is invaluable to our country’s security and economic interests and vital to Ethiopia’s long term survival as a nation. Conclusion: We hold no malice or ill will against the Eritrea people, but as Ethiopians we have a legitimate right to defend our country’s true interests, without causing any harm to our neighbors. Any treaty or any internationally sanctioned border arrangement that makes the security of one country dependent on the whims of its neighbor can only bring conflict and instability in the region. The people on both sides of the border will wish to avoid such consequences. · Belai Abbai, former Ethiopia´s Minister of Land Reform and Senior staff member of the World Bank · Zeru Kehishen , Free University of Amsterdam. Contact address: zeru_kehishen@yahoo.com THE LEGAL CLAIM FOR THE RESPECT OF ETHIOPIA'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE RED SEA IS NEITHER WARMONGERING NOR INCONSISTENT
By: Tseggai Mebrahtu , Specialist of public law and Jurisprudence Almost two years ago the Eritrean invasion of Ethiopia was concluded by Ethiopia's blitzkrieg which led to the EPLF's withdrawal from Ethiopian territories. The victory was possible because all Ethiopians rallied behind their government's call for national mobilisation. However, the pyrrhic victory did not hit its target of ensuring Ethiopia's right of access to the Red sea. Our Government preferred, with out consulting us, to conclude a "peace accord" which provided, inter alia, for the demarcation of a border between Ethiopia and its former province on the basis of defunct colonial treaties. As Ethiopians answered to the Government's call for national defence by sending their children to the war front and by contributing money towards the war effort, it was natural for them to expect that the Government handle the case in such a way as to guarantee the right of our nation's access to the Red sea by all means including military, diplomatic and legal. However, our Government agreed hastily and irresponsibly to sign an agreement which factors out Ethiopia's right to the sea. Not only the Government is saying that it does not care two hoots about Ethiopia's right to the Red sea but it has begun belatedly to taunt with war mongering Ethiopians who claim rightfully for the respect of our national right. As someone who signed an article entitled the "unconstitutionality of the Algiers Agreement", I was led to think again if my article was in any way warmongering. I read also an article by Ethiopia's venerable professor Messay Kebede entitled "Assab or how to make a predicament". The professor explains his dissatisfaction with the arguments and counter arguments regarding Ethiopia's right of access to the sea. He then proceeds to anatomise and criticise three "schools of thought" which he considers to be contradictory. And he presents us with his expiationist theory for want of a better alternative. The professor's article made me cast some doubt on the cogency of my arguments. Although, I was far from believing that my arguments were perfect, I was obliged, in view of the professor's criticism, to reappraise my position. Upon reflection, I convinced myself that my arguments and that of others could hold water. Therefore, I decided to not to write any reply. All the same there are two reasons which made me change my opinion and led me to write this reply. One, I thought that the best service I can do to professor Messay is to express my disagreement when he argues that what he calls the rectifiers' thesis suffers from inconsistencies. Two, unless one demonstrates the defects of the professor's arguments, they may appear to be a sledgehammer and thereby give the impression that all the legal arguments advanced since the signature of the Algiers Agreement are not well-founded and that Ethiopia does not have any cause of action. My contention is that the legalist approach is perfectly consistent. It needs only to be understood in a strictly legal perspective. I argue that if the problem of border demarcation is to be solved through legal means, it is indispensable that all legal and historical arguments which guarantee Ethiopia's right should be explored and pled. If we fail to do so then there is a risk that the decision could have the effect of res judicata (a case ones decided cannot be revised). Basing my self on this purely legalist approach, I will try to show into two sections why this approach is neither war mongering nor inconsistent. And in a third section, I will try to examine if the expiationist theory constitutes a redemption for Ethiopia. The relevancy of the legalist approach. We Ethiopians can only be perplexed when our Government, instead of examining our advice, prefers to dismiss it out of hand as a war mongering. Is our Government not supposed to exercise state power for the common good of Ethiopians? Why should then it behave in such bizarre way as to give credence to insinuations of sell out and conspiracy with our country's historic enemies?. Politics, political philosophers say, is the art of discussion and persuasion in order to produce ideas and ways of solving problems of a polity. Therefore, in maters of national interest the Government should have been on the same wavelength with Ethiopians. A national debate should have been conducted. And, the Government should have acted in accordance with the decision of the majority. We expect our government to govern us democratically and not in a manner worthy of medieval absolutism. The point is even in medieval politics Ethiopian rulers and their subjects used to spoke and act as one man when it came to Ethiopia's sovereign interest, and there lies the secret of Ethiopian independence. The Reader may have heard or read a few weeks ago that the Swiss people were asked to decide by referendum if Switzerland should or should not become member of the United Nations. A fortiori, a referendum is indispensable on such matters as the right of access to the sea for the decision that this Government takes irresponsibly would have far reaching adverse consequences on the present and future generations. However, not only the Government is not addressing our legitimate concern by doing what it is normally expected to do, but it seems to be pleading the cause of the EPLF by taxing warmongering our claim for the respect of our country's paramount interest. Can one in his sane mind consider war mongering a claim for the respect of our country's right? If words have any meaning, the claim is a legalistic one. Unless one wants to condescendingly satirise us, we have never been war mongers. Quite on the contrary, we have been victims of aggression by those vis-à-vis of whom we have been incredibly friendly and generous. That said, although I am averse to politicking and do not want to involve myself in support of one party or the other, I showed in my previous article why the Algiers Agreement was legally flawed from the substantive and procedural point of view. I tried to show that the Algiers Agreement is substantively illegal for it exhumes defunct treaties which were very detrimental to Ethiopia's national interest. I showed also the procedural defects of the Algiers Agreement because the EPRDF Transitional Government acted beyond its powers by agreeing to Eritrea's secession from Ethiopia. What is more, I argued that the 1993 independence was a result of secession and not decolonization, for Eritrea was decolonized by the UN in 1950. The different UN resolutions which considered the Eritrean question to be an internal Ethiopian problem were cited to prove this line of argument. However as international positive law neither forbids nor permits the accession into independence of a territory formerly belonging to a sovereign state, the UN admitted Eritrea as its member in the wake of the Ethiopian Government's official recognition of Eritrea. None the less, the fact that Eritrea became independent did not mean that there was an international border. As Eritrea had been part of Ethiopia, the delimitation of a new border is mandatory if the Government says it would fight to the end to make the independence of Eritrea a reality. What we are saying is that Eritrea could be independent through the combined military superiority of the EPRDF and the EPLF. But one should not forget that what is done politically or militarily can be undone in a similar fashion. I leave that choice to politicians. As a lawyer, let me say that whether the EPRDF Government likes it or not, it does not have the right to nullify the various UN resolutions which affirm unequivocally Eritrea's ethiopianness. Legally and historically, Eritrea belongs to Ethiopia before the arrival of Italian colonialists and after their departure. The "international border" that existed during the Italian colonization of Eritrea had disappeared after the defeat of Italy and Eritrea's reunification with Ethiopia. Consequently, when the Transitional Government illegally decided to recognise the secession of Eritrea, there was no border at all. The region of Assab was not for example part of the province of Eritrea before the illegal secession in 1993. Therefore if there is to be a new international border, it is yet to be drawn. The border cannot be drawn on the basis of defunct treaties unless one wants to harm Ethiopia. In other words, there is no legal basis which enables the Government to exhume defunct colonial treaties whose purpose was the strangulation of Ethiopia. If there is a will and good faith to address our concerns, we are not asking the Government to go to war. We are saying that if the divorce between Ethiopia and Eritrea is final and if a border is to be drawn by legal means, then the Government should enter a plea concerning Ethiopia's right of access to the sea so that we can abide by the tribunal's ruling . However, in stead of presenting all legal arguments which would buttress Ethiopia's claim of access to the sea, the Government has irresponsibly waived our country's historical and legal title to the sea by signing the Algiers Agreement. We are saying that it is up to the tribunal and not to the Government to decide what is our right and what is not. The Government should not bully us "paternalistically" to shut our mouths. Let the Government present all possible legal arguments and we will abide by the final judgement of the arbitration tribunal. What is the secret behind the Government's derermination to impose its diktat manu militari? In my previous article, I tried to marshal facts and arguments in support of my thesis that if the divorce between Ethiopia and its province was to come to a successful end, one could not selectively exhume defunct treaties in a manner as to harm Ethiopia while selectively ignoring other treaties and resolutions which if taken as a basis for demarcation would not have only made impossible the viability of Eritrea but also would have given to Ethiopia an advantage far more superior than what she is laying claim to now. However, in order not to make the position of our Government very difficult and the very existence of Eritrea geographically non viable, we proposed that the new border be delimited on mutual concessions and on the basis of the respect of consent of the populations concerned without however Ethiopia's right of access to the Red Sea be the object of negotiation. When we say that Ethiopia's right of access to the Red Sea is not negotiable, we are not demanding a Christian charity either from Ethiopian leaders or from their Eritrean cousins. We are merely demanding that our right recognised by international and Ethiopian law be respected first of all by our own government and then by the international society. And, it is this claim based purely on a legalistic approach which is being taxed as war mongering. My reply to this ill-founded accusation unbecoming of any government worth of the name is that a claim for the respect of ones right is not war mongering. What is war mongering and politically and legally irresponsible is this attitude which aims to muzzle us from insisting on the respect of our rights. We are only demanding justice. And when justice is not done, then the wronged, the helpless can only look up to his own means or to the help of God so that justice could be done one day. Be assured that the victim of injustice has his day of glory too. To my surprise, Professor Messay described the Government's diktat as ultra-legalist. In my view, it is a misnomer to describe ultra-legalist a phoney "political" argument shrouded in a legal clothe . The idea that Ethiopia does not have a right of access to the sea because of the colonial treaties is not at all a legal argument. It is a simple arbitrary decision. Even if it were a legal argument, it is the personal argument of Ethiopian government officials. If they are genuine about that why do not they allow us to plead our right before the tribunal. We believe sincerely that Ethiopia has watertight arguments as to gain a cause of action. We are sure that the tribunal would rule in favour of us. It is incomprehensible that the Government decided to waive our right. The Government knows pretty well that if it pleads Ethiopia's case before the tribunal, Ethiopia will have a cause of action. What alternatives does our country have now? We have still legal remedies. Namely, the parliament which seems to have accepted "yes-manism" as its guiding principle can this time take a courageous and epoch making decision by refusing to ratify the Agreement or any decision of the tribunal for reasons of national interest. Unless, the Government wants to give up our territory, the decision of the tribunal is not enforceable by itself. There will be no army or no police who would come to execute the decision. I fear that the government is only waiting for the tribunal's verdict as pretext to cede our territories. The fact that the Algiers Agreement forbids any right of appeal bothers me a lot. So we can still refuse to agree to the waiver of our right. No country negotiates on its paramount national interest. The council of Constitutional Inquiry and the House of Federation can review the constitutionality of the Agreement and declare it unconstitutional in accordance with article 9 of the constitution. Paragraph 4 of this same article states that all international agreements ratified by Ethiopia are integral parts of the laws of the country. But if a treaty is to be part of the law of the country, then it has to be conform with the constitution. Otherwise, it is invalid. So in my view, a joint reading of articles 86 and 9 renders the Algiers Agreement null and void. Opposition parties can for example apply to the Council Constitutional Inquiry for a constitutional review of the treaty. Even, the members of the council can examine the question constitutional review on their own initiative and submit their findings to the House of Federation which will for sure review it as unconstitutional. If these institutions do not discharge their constitutional responsibility by seeing to it that the authorities don't tamper with the sanctity of the constitution, they will be responsible of dereliction of duty. You may say that I am naïve. But, the lawyer does not have any other alternative other than to plead for the supremacy of the law. The other argument of the Government and which Messay puts under the rubric of ultra legal argument is "one cannot recognise Eritrea's right to independence and help achieve it while amputating a portion of its territory in the name of Ethiopia's right to the sea. In other words you cannot reincorporate Assab into Ethiopia without challenging Eritrea's right to independence". In first place , this argument begs the question because it takes for granted Eritrean ownership of Assab. In the second place, it confuses Eritrean independence with its territorial jurisdiction whereas the two are completely different things. Eritrea's independence is a matter of acceding to state sovereignty and enjoying international juridical personality. As every body knows Eritrea claimed the Hanish islands basing its arguments, inter alia, on the Ethiopian constitutions of 1955 and 1987 and it is claiming a part of Ethiopian territory. Does it follow that Eritrea ceases to be independent when it was decided that Hanish islands belonged to Yemen by virtue of the theory of geographical proximity? Will it follow that Eritrea will cease to exist if it did not get all the Ethiopian regions which it says are hers? So the argument that you cannot reincorporate Assab without challenging its independence is neither logical nor legally well founded. If the retrocession of Assab had the effect of calling into question Eritrea's independence whereas she has already a maritime outlet, what about Ethiopia which is not only being rendered landlocked but whose right to life is being compromised by the constitutionalisation of the right of secession? If people are that much concerned about Eritrean sovereignty, I wonder why they preach us to accept the "necessity" of the recognition of the right of secession. Why should not we apply to Ethiopia the same logic and consideration that we have for Eritrea? I can see no coherence in this line of argument. The other ridiculous argument is based on the hypothesis that Eritreans will never accept Ethiopia's claim and the only option would be a military one. But we don't ask for any charity. It is a matter of right. If they insist to go to war despite a court decision in Ethiopia's favour, then Ethiopia should defend itself. If the Government does not want to defend Ethiopa's interest by legal means and then by all other means, then I fail to see the purpose for which we have a government. MESSAY also quotes the Government as saying that " the genuine interest of Ethiopia is to leave Assab with the understanding that it has no relevance unless it becomes a port that Ethiopia can use freely". His Excellency the prime minister also said in the past that Assab would remain a watering hole for camels if Ethiopia did not use it. I have the impression that he is taking sixty five million people for foolish who are ready to swallow everything he tells them. What one should know is that Ethiopia is not in competition with Eritreans. Even if time, fellow country men and circumstances have worked against us and brothers have been separated as a result of short sighted and power hungry politicians and we regret the division of one people into two, we continue to believe that Eritreans are Ethiopians therefore our brothers even if some individuals beyond the Mereb are saying that their brothers are on the other side of the sea. But that does not change our conviction and therefore we wish Eritreans all the best. Our good wish does not, however, mean that we will forgo our rights. As the tigrigna saying goes "kab kisadey kisad wedi ney" "which means I prefer to save my life even if that would mean the death of my own brother". What I am driving at is that we don't care if Eritreans exploit Assab or not. We are only demanding that our legal right be respected and be pled before a court of law. The Government should not try to lull us by saying that Assab would be a watering hole unless Ethiopia uses it. As saying goes once bitten twice shy. Our recent experience showed us that if Assab could be a watering hole, it could also be a launching pad from which one can try to choke Ethiopia. Was not the Government obliged to send its troops to guard the port of Djibouti lest the Eritrean army block the passage of arms destined for Ethiopia's defence? So we demand that our government be more serious and stop from considering itself so guileful as to make us swallow all what it says. The problem with our Government is it invents meretricious arguments and gives unconvincing answers, without allowing the people to decide who is the right between the government and the opposition. Why doesn't the government organise a national debate or face members of the opposition party or intellectuals and then leave the decision to Ethiopians themselves? We don't demand our leaders to change their personal opinions. But, we find it repulsively irresponsible to give press conferences and say that Ethiopia does not have a right of access to the sea. And all that in the name of sixty five million people. What a presumption! I think the reader can see from the foregoing that what professor Messay calls an ultra-legalist approach is ultra political, ultra personal which is full of false premises and false conclusions. I hope that my method of reductio ad absurdum has helped me in demonstrating the illogicality and impertinence of what Messay considers to be "ultra legalist". Messay too argues that the Government's approach is contradictory. But he strives also to show the inconsistencies of what he calls the rectifiers approach. Now I proceed to examine if really his argument is convincing. My belief is that the legalist approach is very consistent. The coherence of the legalist approach Despite its coherence, professor Messay Kebede argues that legalist approach (or to use his word, the rectifiers approach, hereafter I am using the expression legalist approach for I don't believe that the word rectifier is appropriate) is contradictory. Messay admits the validity of Ethiopia's claim to the Red Sea. However, for reasons which seem to me philosophical, he proposed that Ethiopia's right to the Red Sea be sacrificed for the sake of peace but also for the sake of Ethiopia's very survival and its modernisation. I said that the professor's argument is philosophical because his contention is that Ethiopia should pay the price for the error she had committed. With all the due respect, I must say that his expiation theory does not alleviate my fear. Before examining his expiationist theory, let us see if the legalist approach suffers from inconsistencies. Messay says that the legalists predicate their argument on the illegality of the colonial treaties in order to retrieve Assab. The present writer, for one, does not refer to the illegality of the treaties to demand the retrocession of Assab. I argued simply that Eritrea was not a colony. It had not been decolonized in 1993. It only seceded from Ethiopia which means it has been part of Ethiopia. Therefore I argued that one could not refer to the defunct colonial treaties. That is if Eritrea is independent it is the will of the Ethiopian Government. Therefore, colonial treaties could not be a basis for the demarcation of the new border. My contention is there is no international border. So I want the reader to understand me that I am not demanding the return of Assab on the basis of colonial treaties. My argument is that as there exists no international border, it is only natural that Ethiopia and Eritrea both have an access to the sea. So either they use jointly or they share it. That is why my previous article was entitled the unconstitutionality of the Algiers Agreement. Because, as Professor Messay says the Algiers Agreement is a culprit in that it has factored out Ethiopia's right of access to the sea. Wherein then lies the inconsistency of the legalist approach? Messays argues that the legalist approach "is not immune from inconsistencies. A point in fact is that it denounces the colonial treaties as illegal, but argues that the Italian invasion annuls the same treaties. If the treaties are illegal from the start, the invasion cannot add to the cancellation of their legality. The truth is that Menelik signed these treaties as sovereign, nay as a victorious emperor. They are therefore valid. In this sense only can the Italian invasion annul the validity of treaties. But the position of the "rectifiers" is uncomfortable with this interpretation for fear of admitting that Menelik recognised the inclusion of Assab into the Italian colony. So they protect themselves by denouncing the treaties as illegal agreements forcefully imposed on Ethiopia. In thus presenting Menelik as victim while denouncing the Italian invasion as cancellation of treaties, they both deny and maintain the sovereign nature of the Ethiopian state". This is the pith and the core of Messay's argument. Let us try to examine it. The first remark that springs to mind when one reads Messay's argument is that he has never made any research on the issue other than basing himself on the arguments of those which he considers to be inconsistent. The fact that we are mistaken does not mean that Ethiopia does not have right as long as that is not decided by a court. But, I have every reason to believe that Messay himself has not understood the argument. In the first place arguing that colonial treaties were illegal and arguing also they were annulled by Italian invasion of Ethiopia is not contradictory as the venerable professor seems to think. What it means is that the colonial treaties were illegal(and of course they were void ab initio) but if one does not accept that they were not illegal then they were annulled by Italian invasion of Ethiopia. The argument continues: if one were to say that the invasion did not annul the treaties, then they were annulled by the Treaty of 1947. Then if one still does not accept this argument they were annulled by the UN decision to decolonize and federate Eritrea with Ethiopia. To make things clear this is not an inconsistency. In the jargon of law we call it alternative pleading. It is a normal pleading procedure used by the international court of justice or any arbitration tribunal. For those who want to be reassured I refer them to the various arguments that Yemen and Eritrea presented regarding the ownership of Hanish Islands. To demonstrate that the treaties were not illegal, Messay argues that Menelik signed these treaties with out there being any duress. How far is Messay sure about that? What evidence does he have? Yes, Menelik was victorious. But why should a victorious sovereign agree to give his territory to an enemy? Let me remind him that in a letter addressed to all European powers Menelik made it clear that if God gave him power he would do every thing to be in repossession of all Ethiopian territories from the Sudan to Madagascar. In view of this fact, how is Messay to reply to the argument of what he calls rectifiers when they argue that Menelik could not refuse to sign these treaties on pain of losing the whole Ethiopia? Was it not because of that that Menelik did not want to pursue the Italians and drive them away from Ethiopia? On this issue there is a consensus between historians that if Menelik pursued Italians as Ras Alula had wished, then Italy could send more reinforcements and the hard won victory could be lost. There was no way Ethiopia could hold on for years as long as it did not have a full control of her sea outlets. What is more, if King Menelik, a consummate diplomat capable of pitting one power against the other did not adopt such a policy, I argue that the French were there waiting for the occasion. By the way one should not forget the fact that if England decided that Italians take the port of Mitsiwa in violation of the Adoa treaty of 1884, it was because they feared that the French army would take the port. Besides, one should be reminded of the French government's plan to create a French African empire which would extend from Djibouti to their colonies of Northwest Africa and from Djibouti to Madagascar targeted Ethiopia. So any one who thinks that Menelik was out to give up his territories either overlooks the critical situation in which Ethiopia found itself in or forgets that the Europeans were there to devour Ethiopia, or fails to take into account the geopolitics of the day. I don't ask Messay to accept my argument . But I find it a bit inappropriate on his part to categorically affirm without any evidence that the treaties were valid because Menelik signed it. I leave to pshychoanalysts to tell us what was the motive of Menelik.. But the circumstantial evidence is there to show that Menelik had no choice but to sign. Menelik also signed an agreement with the English pledging that he would never construct a dam around the Lake Tana. Do you really think he did that as a victorious and sovereign? I can tell to Messay that the signature which forbids Ethiopia from constructing a dam in her own territory led Western specialists of international law to consider Ethiopia as an independent country with out sovereignty. Basing on the Bodinian concept of sovereignty they concluded that a country which deprived itself of its sovereign right to construct a dam was not a sovereign country albeit independent. So despite Mesay's argument, I think to have enough historical and circumstantial evidence to maintain that the treaties were signed under duress. This was not only the case of Ethiopia. China was for example forced to cede Hong Kong by an agreement to the British. Now china has recovered Hong Kong. If Hong Kong were to secede, who can really invoke colonial treaties ? A related argument of Messay is that Menelik included Assab into the Italian colony. One should know in the first place that Assab was Italian colony before the creation of Eritrea in 1890. Therefore, Assab was not part of Eritrea till 1905. So if we look at case chronologically, Eritrea and Assab were two different colonies. The signature of the 1908 treaty does not change any thing as to the fact that the treaties were the result of duress and intimidation. For me, in view of the fact that England, France and Italy informed Menelik by the treaty of 1906 that they would divide Ethiopia into their respective sphere influence and given also the ageing condition of the sovereign, it is not surprising at all that he signed the 1908 treaty. Can you really say no when three colonial powers tell you unashamedly that they are going to share your country in case there is a problem of succession? But Menelik had no choice other than saying that their tripartite agreement would not have any impact on Ethiopia's sovereignty. That was in fact a face saving reply. He knew he could do nothing against three colonial powers. What one should bear in mind is that when we argue that the treaties were null and void, our intention is not as Messay seems to think to maintain the sovereign nature of the Ethiopian state. What we are saying is that these treaties cannot be a basis for the demarcation of a new international border. There is a great difference between the two. As for me, my main argument is the decolonization of Eritrea in 1950 and its reunification with Ethiopia with the blessing of a world body entrusted with the decolonization of dependent territories. .So, I don't see any point in the argument of Messay who adds that " the above contradiction finds a renewed expression in the fact that the "rectifiers" endorse the OAU charter with respect to the immutability of borders inherited at the time of independence while maintaining it does not apply to Ethiopia... if it is demeaning to Ethiopia to be asked to recognise colonial borders, one fails to see why it is not so for Africans in general....if the charter is less a legitimation of colonialism than a useful device , then the case of Ethiopia hardly constitutes an exception. ...That is why the OAU never took in consideration the claim of the Somali Government to Ogaden though the arguments of historical and ethnic links are here undeniable". To tell the truth, I don't see any contradiction of basing Ethiopia's argument on the principle of uti possedetis. Let us say that this principle was first applied by Latin American countries which were Spanish colonies and which obtained their independence at the at the beginning of the 19th century. They were supposed to be one Spanish speaking country but with the demand for independence they agreed that the former provincial boundaries inherited from the parent country continued to be valid. Now if we come back to Africa, we see that African countries with exception of Egypt began to accede to independence starting 1957. Whereas Ethiopia had already a known territory. So if the OAU charter is to be applied it could not be in a retroactive way. It was prospective. If we accept this then the OAU charter could not apply to Ethiopia. The argument of professor Mesay is that if it applies to other African countries why not for Ethiopia. But we are not requesting a special privilege for Ethiopia. We are saying that the Charter could not apply to Ethiopia because the case of Ethiopian territory was already known and recognised by the international society. Ethiopian territory was not the creation of colonialism. It is a historical territory. But Messay says that had it been for fear of creating a chaotic situation, the other African states could have also made territorial claims on the basis of "historical title". I agree that they accepted the frontiers as they inherited them. But, I am not sure that they had historical claims. Historians and political scientists make a distinction between what they call historical states and new states. With exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, all African countries south of the Sahara are new states. That means that they were creations of colonial powers. When the colonialists arrived in Africa, there was no country by the name of Kenya, Ouganda, Somalia, Niger, Nigeria, Ghana, Zaire et cetera. On the contrary there existed a country called Ethiopia at least starting from the 6th century of the Christian. And this country had a more or less clearly defined territories. Ethiopia can fulfil more or less the three elements (defined territory, population and central government)which students of international relations consider as criteria to qualify an entity for stateness. In this regard neither Somalia nor other neighbours can fulfil such requirements. Therefore, they can not make a historical claim. You cannot lay a claim to something which existed before your start to exist. Messay seems to be contradictory when he says Ethiopia can be no exception and when he also argues that the Eritrean reunification with the motherland was a noble cause. If the reunification is noble(and yes of course it was) that means the territory and its inhabitants were under one state administration. Even the TPLF accepts that Eritrean highlands were part of Ethiopia since the 14th century till 1890. Because of this Ethiopia was reunited in 1952 after 60 years separation. For this I continue to think that Ethiopia never asked a derogation from the OAU charter. There is no doubt that the Charter could not apply retroactively to Ethiopia regarding the intangibility of frontiers. If we take the case of Ogaden, we know that Siad Barre yesterday and Hussein Adeed today are saying that the Ogden belongs to Somalia not because there existed any state called Somalia in the past not either that Ogaden had ever been under the administration of a Somali state in the past, but simply because they think that people who speak the same language should be brought together. Of course, this attitude is imported from a western nation state based on romantic conception of people. If we were to base on this idea, then the majority of Eritreans would have remained Ethiopian. But, the danger of this conception is that if two peoples who speak the same language should be brought together all nations of the world have to be remade. What we should not forget in this respect is that the reunification was not based on ethnic similarities only. It was based on above all on the decision of Eritreans themselves to be reunited with the mother land. If not do you really think that the British would have allowed the reunification if it was not for the decision of Eritreans to be reunited by all means? On the struggle of Eritreans to be reunited with Ethiopia, you can read the excellent book of Sylvia Pankrust. If you have a doubt as to the behaviour of the British, you have the case of India and Pakistan as a living testimony. There was no country called Pakistan before 1947. There was only India. But , the British made everything to separate Hindus from Moslems. They tried to apply the same policy in Eritrea by proposing that western Eritrea be attached with the Sudan and Eastern Eritrea with Ethiopia. En passant, I would like to say regarding the case of Ogaden that the Somali lacked and lack any historical and legal basis to claim Ethiopian territory. Historically not only a state called Somalia had never existed but historical research shows that the port of Berbera used to utilised by Ethiopia. Besides we know that although what is called today Ogaden was not under the control of the Ethiopian central government starting from 1527 because the weakening of the state as a result of the war with Ahmed Gragn and the Oromo migration into central highlands, historical research has proven that it was Ethiopia's territory till the war between Ahmed Gragne and king Libnedengil in 1527. Was it not true that the war between Ahmed Gragne and king Libenedinguel was fought because Gragne's refusal to pay taxes to the central government? The widespread theory that Gragn was Somali and declared Jihad on Christian Ethiopia is completely false. Gragne was a full blooded Ethiopian . He father was an Amhara priest from Shewa. His mother was an Afar woman from the same province. For those who want to know the detailed history, I refer them to two books: Ethiopian History from Axum to the Revolution written by Doctor Berhanu Abebe and "Ethiopia, yesterday and today" by Andre Davy. It is also important to know that the Somali speaking Ethiopian citizens migrated to the area which they inhabit now because of bombardment of Mogadisho and other areas of the present day Somalia by the Portuguese navy when they were in war with Ottoman Turks for the control of the Indian Ocean (Doresse 1970). Famine in Mogadiscio and its environs which was triggered by the Portuguese bombardment obliged inhabitants to migrate to Ethiopia (ibid) This being the facts, we cannot say that Ogaden could have belonged to Somalia had it been for the principle of uti Possedetis. It is essential that intellectuals refrain from airing unverifiable conclusions which if taken lightly could led to false irredentist claims although the word irredentism is irrelevant for Ogaden had never belonged to Somalia. Finally Professor Messay argues "the other inconsistencies of the rectifiers is that in isolating the case of Assab from that of Eritrea they undermine their own claim. Their rejection of colonial treaties is not consistent enough to refuse the very independence of Eritrea. Through admitting the historical inclusion of Eritrea in Ethiopia, their position maintains that Assab is a special issue. Because, such a position wants to recover Assab while considering a lost cause, it finds the rejection of the independence of Eritrea naïve and self-impairing. This attempt to isolate the case of Assab while accepting the independence of Eritrea is damaging in that it suggests that the incorporation of Eritrea had nothing to do with the historical right of Ethiopia and with the noble cause of reuniting the forcefully detached with the motherland. These were simply false protests designed to cover up the real purpose, namely, to take the hold of the port. Some such position only reinforces Eritreans in their belief that they were right to seek the independence from Ethiopia". Professor Messay is saying that either you have to reject Eritrea's independence in toto or you cannot claim to have an access to the sea. How valid is this argument? I argued supra that Eritrea's accession to sovereignty and the question territorial demarcation are completely different things. Now, as Professor Mesay says some Ethiopians have argued for the retrocession of Assab while accepting Eritrea independence as a fait accompli. I am one of them. My argument is that contrary to what the professor says there is no contradiction in accepting Eritrean sovereignty as long as it is a political decision and demanding at the same time that the demarcation of the new international border(because there is no legally recognised international border) should not deprive Ethiopia of its right of access to the sea. Because, as far as I am concerned, Eritrea has not acceeded to independence through the process of decolonization but through secession. Another additional proof is the letter which the Transitional government Ethiopia wrote to the former secretary general of the UN. In that letter His Excellency the former president and current prime Minister of Ethiopia said that the transitional government of Ethiopia had accepted the accession into independence of Eritrea. If Eritrea had been decolonized, it would not have been the business of the Ethiopian government to write to the UN to send a representative because of Ethiopia's decision to allow the independence of Eritrea in accordance with the right of secession incorporated in the transitional charter. My argument is what ever argument Eritrean and Ethiopian governments have, they cannot change as far as international law and Ethiopian law are concerned that Eritrea was decononized in 1950 and it had been part of Ethiopia and every request by Eritrean nationalists to consider the Eritrean issue as a colonial had been rejected by the UN and the Eritrean question have been considered as an internal problem of Ethiopia. I would have liked that Professor Messay explore all the questions with out limiting himself to showing the "contradictions" of the various positions. But Messay could rejoin by saying that one cannot ask for sea outlet for Ethiopia and at the same accept Eritrean independence. Still, I persist on what I said. No connection with the two. In fact what is Messay saying is that if you forfeit one right, you forfeit also other rights. On what basis? Yes, one people is separated. If a father bequeaths his two children a house wherein they should cohabit and if the younger brother wants to leave because common enemies tell him that he would be better off if he separates from his elder brother, should the elder brother abstain from demanding his due because his young brother does not want the cohabitation?. The analogy may not be very pertinent but it is on a similar vein that professor Messay tries to show us the supposed inconsistency of the claim of Ethiopia's right of access to the sea. I would argue that it is not true to say that raising the issue of access to the sea is a false protest designed to take hold of the port. It is a question of asserting ones rights. Why does , Messay who does not contest Ethiopia's right to the sea, argue that one cannot claim an access to the sea and accept Eritrean independence? Why does, Messay who believes that Ethiopia has historical title, does not push his argument and argue for the respect of this right. What legal ground(because the question is whether Ethiopia has a right or not) does have Messay not plead for the respect of this right? One cannot argue that Ethiopia has a historical right and Eritrea's incorporation was legally and politically correct while claiming Assab should be sacrificed for the salvation of Ethiopia. Seen from a strictly legal perspective, this is a contradictory opinion. It does not help in any way to assert Ethiopia's right. If the professor said that Ethiopia had not any right like His Excellency the prime minister, he could have been at least consistent even if he would have no basis to say that. On this score, I believe that it is the TPLF which is consistent contrary to what thinks professor Messay. The TPLF said, tout court, it did want to hear of Ethiopian right of access to the sea. But Messay who believes he is consistent, tells us yes you have a historical right but you cannot claim it while accepting Eritrean independence. He says Assab should be sacrificed for the survival of Ethiopia. If we have right why should we sacrifice it? Is it not to decide who has right and who has not right that an arbitration tribunal has been established? Why should not we be given the right to plead our cause before the court and see what the court has to say? Contrary to what Messay seems to believe I don't believe that our arguments lead to war. Our approach is a legalist one. Whether Ethiopia should go to war to respect her right is to be decided by the leaders of the country and not by lawyers. What could lead to war is the condescending and irresponsible waiver of our right. Therefore, although, admitting Ethiopia's right of access to the sea and at the same time sacrificing the same right is without doubt contradictory, let me go out of my province and venture some comments on the expiationist theory and see if it really constitutes a political therapy for our nation's ills and if it can dispel our fears and possible risks. Expiationist theory - an ethical therapy for Ethiopia? Professor Messay tells us that Ethiopia should forgo her right for the sake of survival, modernisation and peace. He also argues that Ethiopian survival is threatened by ethnicity. The conclusion is therefore that Ethiopia is so much plagued by problems stemming from the ethnification of the political system that she cannot afford to lay claim to her sea outlet. The idea is if we insist on recovering Assab, we should go to war and that would be too costly for our country. But why should we go to war? Cannot we plead our cause before the arbitration tribunal if our government had not signed the Algiers Agreement so hastily and "with out reflection"? Why should the issue of sea outlet be assimilated with war? But if we sacrifice our right lest the EPLF wage war on us, what guarantee do we have if the EPLF were to say that it would not be satisfied short of getting what it asked from the very outset? A few weeks ago, some Eritreans were saying blatantly that they would go to war if the arbitration tribunal did not rule in their favour. So despite Messay's sacrificial theory, we will not escape from being victims of aggression. If Eritrea invaded us whereas our country was under its domination and vassalization as Raymond Goy writes, what guarantee do we have that it would not resort to such intimidation ? Remember that the Eritrean leader declared in March 1998 that the economic policy of Ethiopia was so harmful to Eritrea that he could not let that to continue to happen. He said that he could make or break Ethiopia. That braggadocio did not remain empty words. And what about if he resorts to the same intimidation after the normalisation which our Premier Minister wants to see happen some time in the very near future? what about if tomorrow the Sudan or Somalia happen to invade us? Until when and how much are we to sacrifice? Now, even Djibouti is intimidating Ethiopia not to use Sudanese ports. If the Sudan and Djibouti colluded to increase the freight cost as is the practice of the members of the petroleum producing countries ? Did not Djibouti impose unilaterally a 30% increase in January 2001? Is it not because of that that Ethiopia has been obliged to use Sudanese ports? And if the Arab league decided to take punitive measures against Ethiopia by asking its members to boycott Ethiopia in case we decide to electrify our country by using the water of the Nile? how are we to deal with the problem? Has Professor Messay envisaged such eventuality? He may say it is foolish? But who had imagined that EPLF would invade and destroy Ethiopian northern territory whereas Eritrean independence would have been inconceivable without the help of the TPLF leadership? In sum the thesis of Professor Messay does not ensure us against being invaded or blackmailed by near or far away enemies. For this reason, I refuse to adhere to his theory. Because, it does not address my concern. The other point of the theory of expiationist is that Ethiopia's survival is menaced by the politics of ethnicity. This is a very generalised conclusion. I believe that it is the principle of self determination and the ensuing territorialization of "ethnic politics" and not ethnicity which is endangering our nation's survival. For me, there is a great difference between ethnicity and self determination. Ethnicity is not incompatible with democracy and nation building. It all depends on the use you make of it. For example liberal communitarians such as the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor argue that ethnicity is necessary in order to rehumanize what has been dehumanized by the rationalist of philosophy Enlightenment. Ethnicity is not therefore a monster in North America. You have also the case of Switzerland, Belgium, Canada or India. However, ethnicity in these countries does not threaten the national unity with exception of Belgium and Canada where there is a separatist demand. But in the case of Canada and Belgium, their specific history has to be taken into account. Self determination in the Ethiopian case has nothing to do with democratic pluralism. The noble idea of nation building is abandoned in Ethiopia. Ethiopian nationalism is considered by the government as anti revolutionary democracy. It is doing its level best to build a regional ethnonationalism as an antidote of Ethiopian nationalism. We know also from the experience of other countries and from the experience of the last ten years that ethnic nationalism is anti democratic. It is the cause of ethnic cleansing like the case of Rwanda and Bosnia. Fortunately, our people is so disciplined and chewa that we have not such a problem except the few cases in Harar, Eastern Wollega and in Arssi. Even in those cases our government has taken measures to correct the situation. The so called democratic nationalism which the EPRDF uses to refer to the ethnic territorialization is in fact an oxymoron. Democracy and nationalism are incompatible. Whereas democracy is pluralism and diversity, ethnic nationalism is aggressive, exclusive because it is based on primordial belongingness as professor Messay once wrote. But we must not forget that ethnicity is not a creation of the TPLF. Ethnicity is a consequence of the patrimonialization and concentration of state power starting from the time of King Menelik to Mengistu Hailemariam. We should not consider the past as a belle époque as if there was no problem. We can take the example of Geberehiwot Baikedagn who complained of the marginalisation of the aristocracy of Gojjam, Wollo, Tigray, Semien and Beguemdir. The marginalization of Gojjam's nobility led Afework Gebreyesus to overtly accuse King Haileselasie of being an anti Gojjam and when the Italians invaded Ethiopia, he asked Ethiopians to accept Italian domination. For his devotion to Italy, he earned the title of Afe caesar. I tend to believe that it was the monopolisation of power by the Shewan aristocracy which led Afework to ask his fellow country men to be European slaves. It was also the problem of political marginalization which pushed Ras Hailu of Gojjam and Haileselassie Gugussa of Tigray to betray their country. Remember Haileselasie Gugussa who was a son-in-law of the Negus had been several times disappointed by the reception he got from the Shewan aristocracy. He is quoted as having said that Tigray could not pay taxes to fill the pocket the Shewan aristocracy. All this shows that that there was a problem of integration of the peripheral elite in the central administration. Malintegration of the peripheral elite in the central administration led to mushrooming of marxist ethnic liberation movements. My point is that ethnicity was already there. The kefefileh giza policy of King Haileselassie was the main cause of ethnicity. The marginalisation of the southern elite and the expropriation of the lands of southern peasants led to ethnic prise de conscience. The EPRDF utilised ethnicity to monopolise power but it did not create it. It was it self the by product of ethnicity. Now even if there is no democracy based on free and fair competitive elections, there seems to be more ethnic representation in today's Ethiopia although those who are "representatives" are not democratically elected ethnic representatives but political vassals of the EPRDF. Ethnicity is therefore a socially constructed phenomenon. It is a reaction against a feeling of injustice. The feeling of injustice should not necessarily be real. It suffices that it be perceived. Therefore, we cannot simply say that ethnicity is a danger. We should determine what causes ethnicity. Ethnicity is not a permanent phenomenon. When its causes are no more present, then it melts away like a morning dew. We should do every thing to uproot its causes by behaving towards our fellow Ethiopians in accordance with the requirements of chewanet. Ethnicity needs a breeding ground to develop. The most important of those is a blind hate towards the members of a language group, which obliges them to look for primordial solidarity. In this regard, I believe that such a feeling of threat has helped to bury for the moment fundamental regional differences both inside Tigray and Eritrea. If this feeling of a supposed threat were to fade away, there is no doubt that there will be no tigrean or Eritrean identity. Because, it did not have a historical basis. What exists and what is very difficult to abolish is regional identity because of its very long history. There is no amhara objective ethnicity. There is a Gojjam, Gonder Shewa regional identity. Similarly, there is no tigrean objective ethnicty, there is only Agame, Axum, Enderta, Adwa et cetera, regional identity. It is for this reason that Professor Mesfin Woldemariam argues rightly that there is only regional identity in Ethiopia. No one knows more than him the relationship and the sentimental attachment between a territory and its inhabitants in our country. However, our government tries in vain to abolish regional identity in order to create new ethnic identity. I would argue that no force or policy can abolish regional identity as long as there is de facto inequality before the law. This de facto inequality before the law is expressed on such discriminatory practices such as regionalism, cronyism, nepotism, et cetera. I believe, although I don't have data, that this could apply to the whole Ethiopia. So, I happen to think this is perhaps a good thing for Ethiopia. As long as no real internal ethnic solidarity exists, Ethiopia has a chance. The problem is as said above some part of the intelligentsia has the feeling of being threatened. And that leads them not to question the system despite its perversion. Nonetheless, there is also a danger because some ethnic intellectuals may think that power is being the monopoly of the tigreans and their vassals whom they consider to be "traitors" or to be belly politicians to use the expression of the leaders of the All Amhara peoples' Organisation. And if they believe that they will never have the chance to govern Ethiopia, then they may opt for independence. So the EPRDF policy is an agent of ethnic differentiation as it marginalizes those who are opposed to it and who consider its rule to be another form of "Abyssinian hegemony". This kind of new ethnicity is thus the result of the EPRDF becoming a state party. However the cause of the EPRDF becoming state party is not ethnicity. It is the patrimonialisation of the state which is the cause of all our political ills. Professor Messay said in his earlier articles that ethnicity prevents the impersonalization of the state. I don't agree if by that he means that ethnicity is necessarily liked to the personalization of the state power. Even if it is indispensable to deterritorialise ethnicity for the sake of Ethiopia's survival, I believe firmly that ethnicity would be necessary in the form of personal federalism or personalised decentralisation. My thesis is that ethnicity should not be condemned in all its forms. What I am saying is that we should not take the effect for the cause. The cause is patrimonialism and ethnicity has come to aggravate what has already been a chaotic situation. Some people may find these argument ill founded. They may even say I am a mouthpiece of "chauvinists" or regionalists. They may think that Ethiopian ethnic groups have now the right to administer themselves, they can use their language and they can develop their culture. The list may be very long. But, let they not be mistaken. I am not against that. That is why I say one should not dismiss ethnicity out of hand as dangerous. However just as I differ from those who reject ethnicity completely, I differ also from those who see it as a panacea for our political ills. As a free thinker, I fear that the current policy leads to the emergence of a generation which does not have a common language of communication. Are we then to use English? It is a great humiliation. For this reason, I would prefer that amharic be the national language and that regional languages be taught as a subject matter or some of them be upgraded into a national language following the example of South Africa. WE have used amharic as lingua franca for nine centuries. It has become a national language. This is a national asset. Why should we be like other countries of Africa? Our problem is not amharic, our problem is absence of accountable government, a government which works only for the well being of all Ethiopians. Other problems are secondary. So, it is in this perspective that I say learning in ones language, although necessary, is not sufficient by itself. If having the right to learn in ones language were sufficient, why do we have several hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians who are in foreign countries and who are obliged to speak only the language of the host country and to live as second category citizens? Liberty and economic well being are the most important things for a human being. So I think that using amharic as our national language is a small sacrifice that we should pay for the sake of our Ethiopianness and for the sake of the survival of our beautiful country. The fact that we have the language autonomy has not led to the abolition of patrimonailization of the state on national, regional and local levels. You have absolute rulers nation wide. You have potentates on provincial, district, communal and village levels. The population can do nothing against these people who have a carte blanche. As long as they continue to enjoy the support of the EPRDF, they don't have to be worried about the consequences of their acts. They are immune to any accountability. They can misappropriate public fund, they can give decisions which violate the right of the individuals who has no remedy against their unjust decision. No administrative remedy against ultra vires or intra vires decisions. Even the courts cannot rule on administrative grievances on the pain of triggering the anger of officials by whom they are appointed. The only possibility is to appeal to a hierarchically superior authority. As they are linked by a network of relationship, the aggrieved person cannot have a remedy unless he has some one in the administration to help him. In short, there is no effective administrative law in Ethiopia. The point is that it is not only the country and the people who are the victims of the patrimonialization of state power, but even the dignitaries of the regime are the victims of the very system whom they were the architects. We know that the former president of southern Ethiopian learned his removal from his post by a letter written by the vice president of the region. The president of the Somali region has also been revoked by his vice president. We know also how presidents of Oromia and Tigray regions were removed from their posts despite the supposed regional autonomy. The proclamation which forbids release on bail aimed at preventing the release of the former defence minister. Yesterday's most feared dignitaries become all of a sudden disgraced persons with no more right than the street man whom they treated arrogantly and that because they happen to have a different opinion from that of the prime minister. They started to tax the government as a sell out, dictator as if they had not boasted of having established a real democracy in Ethiopia. Volumes of books can be written on the misadministration caused by patrimonialism. This shows that Ethiopia does not have an administration governed by the principles of rule of law. The principles of accountability and transparency which the constitution says should be the guiding principles of the working of the government have never been applied. His Excellency the prime minister unusually admitted that his "party" had been gangrened by croynism, corruption, provincialism, tribalism, et cetera although he threw the responsibility on the door of his political adversaries. All that shows that power is the personal property of the PM. If not he could have been held accountable for all the administrative and political malpractice of his administration. He should have resigned. Because, he has proved to be very incompetent to lead a great country. The ploy of finding scapegoats does not pay any political dividend. This brings me to argue that the greatest threat to Ethiopia's survival is not ethnicity but patrimonialism which emanates from the fact that the Prime Minister enjoys absolute power. To paraphrase Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is the absolute power of the prime minister which is the principal cause of impunity. Thus, I differ from those who think that the source of all Ethiopian problems lies in the maternal and paternal ethnicity of the PM. I don't think that the mere fact of his Eritreaness could account for the hellish situation in which our country finds itself in. I don't deny his commitment to Eritrea's well being. His policies from the period when he was in the bush till now are good evidences. However, for me Eritreaness is not by itself a problem for there are many Eritreans who wish the well being of Ethiopia and who could have done a lot to reunite the disunited people if they were to be the leaders of Ethiopia. Those who accuse the PM of his partiality to Eritrea forget that the whole TPLF and EPRDF is not different. If that were not the case, they could have left the organisation. So, I agree with the PM when he said that he should not be condemned because of his maternal ethnicity but for what he does as a leader. Yes, But I argue that he is the sole responsible for all our problems. If he were a mensch, if he were a law abiding leader if he were a democrat respectful of popular will, then he should have resigned after publicly acknowledging that EPRDF rule of Ethiopia during ten years was full of corruption, nepotism, provincialism, et cetera. He has failed during ten years. Not only that, he and the organisation which leads are responsible for Ethiopia's landlockdness. He has several times violated the division of functions of the government. He takes the liberty to interpret laws, to intervene in regional affairs. He does not consider himself or acts as a first public servant of Ethiopia as the signification of prime ministry would require it. He considers state power not as function but as a private property. That is why he refuses to give interview to the private press. He may like or hate the press as an individual. As a leader, he has no right to do so. As a public official, it is normal that he be the object of harsh and unfounded criticism because he is taking decisions which affect our daily life and our future as a nation. A democratic leader cannot behave like a feudal baron. Criticism is the price that one should learn to put up with when one when one assumes public office which leads him necessarily to make decisions which affect the life of people. But the absolute power he has led him to think he is the owner of the people and the country like his predecessors. He would have liked therefore that the independent press be charged with the offence of lese-majesty when it criticises him severely. That is an old fashioned mentality. As a result, , there is no difference between him and his predecessors regarding the exercise of power. The difference lies only in the rhetoric. To come back again to the sacrifice theory, I am obliged to ask if the waiver of our right of access to the Red sea can lead to a veritable depatrimonialization of power and to the democratization of Ethiopia? Absolutely no. We are always at square one if not worse. When the Transitional Government was established, it was more pluralist if not representative. Eleven years after, you have a de facto single party whose ideology is opposed to liberal democracy? Although, from the socio-economic point of view, the relevance of ultra liberalism can be subject of discussion, there is no real democracy outside liberal democracy from the political point of view. Despite that, we are being told that Ethiopia would need a watered-down form of communism known in the name of revolutionary democracy. Look at communist china and Vietnam; they have a very liberalised economy although politically they are totalitarian states. Compared with Vietnam and China, Ethiopia has a less marketized economy although politically she is not very much different from them despite the legalisation of political parties. If this is the case, how is then that the sacrifice of our right of access to the sea is to help us effect change or political modernisation? And despite the expected change and modernization, how about if we were to embark on the road to serfdom (I borrow this expression from a title of Frederick Von Hayek's book). These are, of course, simple hypothetical examples which should not be taken seriously. But they can show that the expationist theory is not at all reassuring. That means despite all the sacrifices that professor Messay wants us to make, there is no guarantee that it will pay off. Professor Messay suggests no hint as to how it would happen. Professor Messay urges us to learn a lesson from countries such Korea, Germany and others. He says Germans paid the price for the mistake they made. He continues that instead of being bogged down in the refusal of separation and preparing for war, Germans transformed them selves by becoming economic power. But, still, I fail to follow him. I cannot see the relationship between the case of Germany, Korea and Ethiopia. In the first place, one should not forget the huge investment America made on Germany, Japan and Korea lest these countries fall prey to communism. For America, we are not as important as Egypt and as its Middle Eastern allies. Besides, I don't think that Messay's argument would have received the approval of the student of geopolitics. Fortunately or unfortunately, we happen to find ourselves in a geographically strategic position. Arab nationalists have already classified Ethiopia as being part of what they call the Arab father land. They have a very long term policy which aims at a complete arabization and islamization of Ethiopia. As Islam is an indigenous religion, that could not be a problem. But, we are first Ethiopians and then Africans and we don't want to change our proud identity. How are we to cope with Arab nationalists if they exploit our landlocked status to realise their iniquitous plan of destroying us? Don't think I am schizophrenic You have only to look at our recent and past history. Who has been buying our religious relics at astronomic price? Who are those who happen to be arrested often by our police men when they try to take out the relics of our church secretly from Ethiopia? Have you not ever heard of the condemnation of such people by our courts? The expationist theory does not alleviate my concerns despite all the good intentions of professor Messay. In stead, I feel so claustrophobic that I wonder why our leaders are in capable of appreciating our grave concerns. Still, I ask readers not to ascribe this grave omission to the maternal ethnicity of the PM. If you read an article by the former second top banana of the TPLF which was published in the reporter web page, he never mentioned about Ethiopia's right of access to the sea. No erstwhile member of the TPLF has, for that matter, ever advocated Ethiopia's right of access to sea. If they were to topple the PM, I don't think their attitude towards the issue of maritime outlet could have been different from that of the PM. They only argue that no inch of "tigrean territory" should be given to the EPLF. Of course, I agree with that. But, I seems to me politically retrograde to argue against the cession of "tigrean territory" while denying Ethiopia's right to the sea. I do not agree either with those who say that we should not argue for a stretch of some kilo meters of land while the most important thing for Ethiopia is the access to the sea. These people forget that in the territories whom they consider to be "secondary" vis-à-vis the issue of sea access there exist men and women who were very instrumental of the military debacle of the EPLF. You don't have to forget that the EPLF was stopped in its 1998 offensive not by the regular army who was not there but by peasants and local militias who fought with unbelievable bravery and determination in the face an enemy armed with tanks. Saying that these areas are secondary is forgetting the very people who saved Ethiopia from being physically occupied by an enemy who was out to humiliate her before the world. To come back to the example of Germany, the Professor knows that Germany had never been a victim of foreign aggression after the invasion of Prussia by Napoleon Bonaparte. Besides, Germany does not have a problem of sea outlet. Korea does not have either any of the problems that Ethiopia has? Ethiopia has ennemies who would leave no stone unturned to hinder its economic takeoff. Our Nile makes enemies for us. One should not forget that if we have not been modernized, it is also because there is a foreign intervention. Since the 16th century Ethiopia had never enjoyed a fifty years uninterrupted peace. Foreign aggression coupled with internal discord prevented the creation of a stable society. Even the greatest part of 20th century (can we really claim to 20th century?) was a war time. Unfortunately, despite all the possibilities that we had to create a modern state, our conservatism made us impervious to any political innovation. Despite the revolutionary rhetoric and the sempiternal democratic discourse, the political culture of our country remains as it used to be in the past. Ethiopians are workaholic. But, when it comes to politics, Ethiopian political elite has failed to come to an agreement and to elaborate a societal project which could rally all Ethiopians. We fail to lay down rules of a political game approved of by all political players and abided by those rules. We have had four constitutions in a space of 60 years. This means that we have a constitution every 15 years. That shows that our society is very unstable. No "modern" constitution has ever survived the regime by whom it is written. As it is designed to legitimate a regime, it is suspended when the regime is toppled. I think it is for this reason that professor Yohannes Chane was led to conclude rightly that the Ethiopian ruling class (I am using this expression not in the Marxist sense but from the elitist theory point of view) are not good political animals to be governed by constitutional rules. However, history shows we are a very legalistic people. Look at the Kibrenagast, at the Fitha nagast at the Ser'ate mengest which were a true constitutional documents and which had been in effect for centuries. These documents show that law and justice used to have a cardinal role in our society. Remember the road side system of justice which is very unique to Ethiopia. Every Ethiopian has an innate sense of justice. It is not an exaggeration. Our legal history shows that amply. We are a nation who have the greatest sense of justice. Our philosophy of justice is based on humanistic values. This philosophy can be summed up by what Ethiopians call chewanet or civility. Unfortunately, this philosophy of chewanet based on integrity and altruism has begun to wane with the creation of administrative structures patterned after Western institutions. Despite, the extreme westernization of our legal and administrative systems, they have remained a paper tiger. We have imported weberian bureaucracy but patrimonialism, cronyism, provincialism, patronage in brief, belly politics continue to pervade our political system. A system very modern in theory but extremely perverted and predatory in practice. Is Ethiopia not suffering from a political decay(this expression is borrowed from Samuel Huntington) or is she on the way to political modernization as some would like us to believe?. State power continues to be seen as "belonging" to one ethnic group or to one person. Yesterday we said amharas dominated Ethiopia. Today we say state power is monopolized by tigreans. Both are right and both are false. Both are right because Ethiopians don't think that power belongs to each and every Ethiopian, that it is not a monopoly of one ethnic group, that state power is exercised for the common good. It is false because neither the amhara population nor the tigreans own power. It is not true that they are beneficiaries of any economic trickle down. It is some individuals and their minions who control and misuse state power for their personal gains. I believe contrary to what is maintained even by Professor Messay (because in his previous articles he had overtly spoken of the difficulty he had had to differentiate tigrean interest from Ethiopian interest), no single ethnic group had ever been a beneficiary. If the Amhara were the beneficiary, I wonder how the EPRDF could have entered Menelik's palace had it not been for the fact that amharans were not the beneficiaries of the previous regimes. The same is true for the tigrigna speaking population. You cannot accuse a population who lives on foreign aid of enjoying special privilege. It is a slap on the face to say that the overwhelming majority is a beneficiary of this government's policy whereas the fact is that the tigrean peasantry finds exceedingly difficult to make both ends meet. Such unfounded accusations can only intensify aggressive ethnicity. They are negative. Therefore, they should be combated. But, I understand also that if people are led to think such or such ethnic group is a beneficiary of the system, it is because there is a problem of desinstitutionalisation of state power. Power continues to be exercised as if it were a household property. In this regard, we can say there has been a veritable degeneration in the 20th century. Whereas the source of all our problems has been the extremely weak institutionalisation of state power, we have been led to mistaken the effect for the caause by adopting ethnicity as the deus ex machina which would help Ethiopia's modernisation. But, believe me, that is a very wrong problematization. Although the question of ethnicity cannot be dismissed as irrelevant, I believe that it is neither the most important of all Ethiopian problems nor does it constitute a best solution. Our problem is the colonisation of state power by the leaders who fail us to exercise it for our common good. Our problem is the determination of our leaders to monopolise power at all costs. I was surprised when the EPRDF said following the schism in the ranks of the TPLF that Ethiopian survival could have been called into question had the splinter group succeeded. It is frightening to hear that. Why should Ethiopia's survival be compromised because the EPRDF is gone? Frightening also because it shows that the EPRDF has not the intention of leaving power one day to the other parties. If that was not the case was it perhaps a lapsus linguae that our leaders said no peace without the EPRDF? The facts are there to speak for themselves. The EPRDF seems to say that it has divine right to reign on Ethiopia. So, whether ethnicity is a problem or not, it is far from being a solution. Self determination is on the other hand a threat because our country is faced with the problem of desocialization with the result that communal identity is replacing national identity when it comes to Ethiopian children born during the reign of the EPRDF or whose who were children when the EPRDF took the mantle of power. The danger is that ethnicity which is caused by the patrimonialisation of power is exacerbating the same patrimonialisation. Unless state power is depatrimonialised, no political modernisation, no economic development is conceivable. We will continue to be plagued by corruption, impunity and opacity. There is a risk that the country would collapse because patrimonialism is the antidote of constitutional rule of law and economic development. We have only to look at Zaire which was richer than South Korea in 1960 but which has now sink into chaos and economic quagmire despite its enormous natural resources. The culprit was the late Mobutu who privatised the state. I believe that the Ethiopian state has been privatised. It has ceased to be at the service of the whole people for a long time. One can no more define the Ethiopian state as the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (Max Weber). There has only been an illegitimate monopoly of physical violence. So, it is true that our country has been very fragile with successive governments who decide to rule as manu militari and not in accordance with popular will.. It is perhaps for this reason that Professor Messay wants us to pay for our mistakes. Yes, but we have paid a lot. Our international image is tarnished. We are a country of famine. We are considered to be lazy. We happen to beg the international society unceasingly to feed us. Our eternal begging has led Gerard Prunier to describe the international society as a cash cow of Ethiopians. Is there a humiliation more excruciating than this?. So our plagues are numerous. The solution lies in a Copernican revolution in the field of law so that we will start to be governed by equitable laws and not by the arbitrary will of men. Instead of building a constitutional state as it promised ten years ago, our government seems to concentrate it self on the economic development although the economic problem is inextricably linked with the patrimonialization of state power. The experience of many countries shows that no development without democracy. And no democracy without a relatively highly institutionalized state power. Barro Tumsa, the founder of the Ethiopian oppressed peoples party was aware of the necessity of institutionalising state power as early as 1973. In an excellent LLB thesis entitled " decentralisation and nation building in Ethiopia", he argued for institutionalisation of the state so that it could cease to be identified with any ethnic group. But, I wonder why he did not develop this penetrating analysis into a political programme and embarked on creating a party of oppressed ethnic groups whose membership was reportedly closed to amharas and tigreans. Be that as it may, Barro's advice remains the only solution to our problems. We need to fight patrimonialism and personalism if we are to build a political community based on constitutional rule of law. Unless we succeed to do that the risk of disintegration is hovering on the country. As a result we will remain always prone for attack or intimidation. Could Hussein Aideed have dared declare to the world from the capital of our country his intention to create Greater Somalia by dismembering Ethiopian territory? Could international financial backers have played with our security by asking the demobilisation of our armed forces? To sum up, Ethiopian salvation does not result from forgoing our sovereign rights but from being united as one man where we are and from our determination to develop a sense of public service and common good and ethiopiawinet. It also results from our capacity to fight against divisive attitudes on a person to person level. Our intellectuals have a great responsibility in this regard. We don't want intellectuals who take the liberty to decide who is a good Ethiopian and who is not. We don't want either those who dare explain the "non nationalistic" behaviour of members of the TPLF by looking at past tigrean history while concealing the hard fact that ancient tigreans were the creators of Ethiopian nationalism even if they did that not as tigreans but as Ethiopians. This is to say that even if EPRDF is the promoter of ethnicity, it is also true that independent journalists, intellectuals, political party leaders have played a great role in the ethnic differentiation without forgetting the negative role of western anthropologists who want us to be a laboratory of their theories. By being non ethnic we can prevent patrimonialism from destroying our country. So this requires an individual commitment of every Ethiopian. Some might be ethnic because of manipulation or because of belly. Others could be ethnocentric because it helps them to reign over their ethnic groups by brandishing the "threat of chauvinists". We have to therefore be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, for condemning others because they belong to this or to that language group does not help. Only by de-ethnifying ourselves can we oblige our government to recognise us not as its subjects but as citizens who have rights against it. Only that way can we oblige it to get our blessing when it decides on our fate. Only that way can we contribute to the depatrimonialization of the state power so that personal merit and competence could be the only criteria to join the public service. Only that way can we oblige our government to take us for what we are as human beings first. It is only and only then that Ethiopia can build a constitutional state based on a humanistic values and our enemies can start to refrain from interfering into our internal affairs. This is not some thing which we cannot do. It only requires a radical change of attitude which consists in a demonstration of a sense of public service and a sentiment of fellow citizenry towards every Ethiopian irrespective of sex, religion or language. It is only when we have a sense of public service and common good that we can really make the difference and embark on modernisation. We need to make sacrifice which is different from the one which Professor advises us to accept. It means a change of mentality on the part of every Ethiopian for: "The changes that we make in the social order in which we are implicated necessarily involve our also making changes in ourselves. The social conflicts among the individual members of a given organised human society, which , for their removal, necessitate conscious or intelligent reconstructions and modifications of that society by those individuals, also, and equally necessitate such reconstructions or modifications by those individuals of their own selves or personalities. Thus the relations between social reconstruction and self or personality reconstruction are reciprocal and internal or organic; social reconstruction by the individual members of any organised human society entails self or personality reconstruction in some degree or other by each of these individuals and vice versa, for since their selves or personalities are constituted by their organised social relations to one another, they cannot reconstruct those selves or personalities without also reconstructing, to some extent, the given social order, which is, of course, likewise constituted by their organised social relations to one another" .(Herbert Mead, Mind, self and society, 1934 quoted by David E. After, The politics of Modernisation , 1969, PP. 272-273) Border Demarcation with Eritrea and The Question of Assab By Dr. Yacob Hailemariam January 19, 2001
By Dr. Yacob Hailemariam We heard the disturbing news recently that Ethiopian authorities are poised to sign a border demarcation agreement based on three treaties Emperor Menelik signed with Italian colonial expansionists, affirming forever Eritrea's dominion over Assab - an Ethiopian territory and its natural outlet to the sea. The negotiations have been conducted in such secrecy and stealth that would put an American radar evading fighter plane to shame. With the signature of a border agreement Eritrea becomes a state in earnest, which heretofore was only a concept, an idea or a stretch of some land north of the Ethiopian territory of Tigray. This agreement puts Eritrea on the world map and awards it Assab as its indisputable Eritrean territory. Next to the Prime Minister's letter to the U.N urging the world organization to grant recognition to the Ethiopian breakaway province, this agreement is the most important step in the long struggle of the TPLF leadership in its role as a midwife in the birth of the Eritrean State. It was in the eleventh hour that the Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affaris broached the subject in a longwinded interview where he in fact said sweet nothing. He avoided like a plague - apparently in a pre-arranged agreement with the "interviewer"- the most important issue in the border demarcation, namely Ethiopia's right of access to the sea through the Port of Assab and the right of self-determination of the Red Sea Afars. Without discussing Assab, the interview was much ado about nothing. Few things in recent memory have gripped the imagination and anxiety of the Ethiopian people as the frightening prospect of losing Assab and being landlocked. No Ethiopian issue in recent memory has galvanized the otherwise fractious Ethiopian intellectuals with such unprecedented unanimity. Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs had nothing to say about it. Whatever anybody says, however, the question of Assab is not going to be put to rest by mere signatures of their Excellencies Ato Meles and Mr. Isayas followed by the obligatory bear hug. It would be belaboring the obvious to dwell on the fact that borders are sacrosanct for Ethiopians. Need we make head-counts of lives lost at the Welwell, the Dogali, the Ogaden, the Badme and innumerable other clashes to show what the sanctity of borders means to Ethiopians? For most Ethiopians, border demarcation with Eritrea is not whether Eritrea has made an incursion of a kilometer here or a kilometer there - though that is important too. Border demarcation with Eritrea for most Ethiopians is nothing more or nothing less than ensuring Ethiopia's right of access to the sea through its own Port of Assab, period. After WW II, recognizing Ethiopia's right of access to the sea, the 5-nation UN mandated Commission that convened to come up with measures for the disposition of Eritrea had underlined its recommendation by clearly stating, "Taking into account in particular Ethiopia's legitimate need for adequate access to the sea." Furthermore, in its recommendation, the Commission had warned, "The creation of a separate Eritrean State entirely on its own would contain all elements necessary to seriously prejudice the interest of peace and security in East Africa now and in the future." At the Paris peace conference on September 24, 1945, among the many world leaders who gave testimonials regarding Ethiopia's right of access to the sea, John Foster Dulles, head of the American Delegation, said, "to avert the possibility of [Eritrea] being used at any time in the future as a base against Ethiopia, and to give that state address to the sea, the eastern part of Eritrea including Massawa should be incorporated into Ethiopia." The British Delegate Mr. Mcnill also said, "the territory ceded to Ethiopia should include the Danakil Coast, the Port of Assab." The French and Italians said the same thing. It is mind-boggling to learn any leader of a country would ever accept illegal colonial treaties, which were part and parcel of the same colonial scramble for Africa, as a basis for border demarcation. Yet in the same breath the Minister of Foreign Affairs rightly condemns "maps that have been prepared by Italy, when Eritrea was its colony, [as] reflect[ing] the unilateral interest of the colonial power, and could not serve as an authorized international boundary." (Ethiopian Herald, December 20, 2001, p.l). Whether the acceptance of colonial treaties as a basis for the border demarcation is a case of bad advice or there is something more sinister lurking under it, only time will tell. Ethiopian scholars at home and abroad dissected these so-called colonial treaties in their legal, historical, political and demographic contexts and concluded: 1. These treaties, driven by colonial ambition of Italy, were designed for the sole purpose of asphyxiating the only sovereign African State and the second black free nation with Haiti. A treaty whose purpose is to subjugate a free people is inherently illegal and therefore null and void. 2. It is an established doctrine both at international and municipal law that if a party to an agreement violates material intent or purpose of the agreement, the other party may exercise the right of abrogation. When Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935/1936 and changed the boundaries creating Italian East Africa, the treaties became not only null and void, but also Italy was forced to pay war indemnity to Ethiopia in the form of Koka Dam, among others. 3. Agreements are binding between contracting parties or their authorized agents only. At the time when the so-called treaties were signed, Eritrea did not have legal existence. The theory of inheritance of earlier government action by a subsequent one does not apply here. Therefore Eritrea can neither enjoy any rights emanating from the treaties nor be subject to any obligations the treaty may impose on Italy. 4. According to all the treaties, Emperor Menelik in actual fact never ceded any territory to Italy. It is clearly and emphatically stated that if Italy for any reason whatsoever relinquished the territories it acquired through those treaties the whole of Eritrea or any part thereof would revert back to Ethiopia. 5. The Wechalle Treaty, which later was renegotiated, reserves the Debre Bizen Monastery in the outskirts of Asmara along with its sister monasteries and large swath of land to Ethiopian's ownership. So if the Ethiopian authorities are going to live and die by defunct colonial treaties, how is it that they pick and choose those provisions that put Ethiopia at a disadvantage? All these and many more acts could have been ammunitions in the arsenal of arguments available to the Ethiopian authorities for reclaiming Assab and environs. We implored, pleaded, coddled and begged EPRDF leaders to assert Ethiopia's right of access to the sea. We pleaded with the EPRDF leaders to do no less than the Americans, the UN, the British, the French and others who at several forums acknowledged and pressed Ethiopia's right of access to the sea through the Port of Assab. Even as late as April 2001 the Arbitration Tribunal which awarded the Hanish Island to Yemen could not categorically refer to Assab as Eritrean territory. Rather it said, "Assuming the Bay of Assab as Eritrean internal waters." Incidentally, Yemen was able to retain its fishing rights on the waters around Hanish Islands. Have Ethiopian authorities done even that much about Assab? No, the position Ethiopian authorities took is one of total capitulation and abdication of responsibility. What was EPRDF's response to our pleas, entreaties and appeals? EPRDF's response was to rub salt on our open wounds by the Prime Minister making unsolicited declaration and affirmation in front of the World Press in Washington DC that Assab is Eritrean territory. The threat the EPRDF dangles before us is: if Ethiopia refuses to sign the border demarcation agreement it will draw international ire in the form of economic sanctions, the banning of the Ethiopian Airlines international flights, etc. This argument is hogwash because it has no basis in international law. International sanctions are imposed for violation of some tenet of international law or practice. While customary and conventional laws my prohibit use or threat of force for settling disputes between belligerent states, there is no law which requires states to enter into border demarcation agreements or sign friendship treaties. What is to be done? The obvious question at this juncture is: what can citizens do at the 11th hour of signing the border demarcation agreement? The only thing we can do at this time is to make yet another plea to the Prime Minister to desist from signing arguably the most infamous treaty Ethiopia has ever been a party to - a treaty which may be guaranteed by the U.N, the U.S., OAU and which may be impossible to ever undo. We should flood the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Speaker of the House with letters, faxes, e-mails, telephone calls denouncing the forthcoming treaty. If nothing else let them go to the signing ceremony with a cloud of illegitimacy hanging over their heads. The Ethiopian people must peacefully express their outrage over the border demarcation to the United Nations and the OAU. Silence on such matters of overriding importance may be construed as agreement with the government's action, which will shut off 67 million people from the sea and divide Afar families and communities. It may be foolhardy to expect the House of Peoples' Representatives and the House of the Federation, dismissed by many as a rubber stamp of a Party, with the exception of few patriotic elements, to expect them to break ranks with the Executive and defend Ethiopia's interest. Miracles sometimes happen though. The constitutional right of rejecting Executive decisions, which is available to the House of Peoples' Representatives, and the power of judicial review, vested in the House of Federation, are at present the only escape route out of the fetters of the forthcoming border demarcation agreement which will seal off Ethiopia from the sea. A. Article 55, sub-articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Constitution empower the House of Peoples' Representatives to ratify or reject international agreements concluded by the Executive or question the Prime Minister or review the power thereof. The House of Peoples' Representatives can therefore reject the border demarcation agreement when it is presented to it for ratification as being inimical to Ethiopia's interest. The agreement will then have no binding power on Ethiopia. This is quite a common practice in democratic countries as exemplified by the recent congressional rejection of the Kyoto Agreement which President Clinton had signed. Many such examples abound in most democratic countries where the people's representatives vote according to their conscience and the interest of their nation rather than kowtowing to party or government lines, which are one and the same in Ethiopia. B. In the Ethiopian Constitution the House of the Federation doubles as a legislative and judicial body, a rather curious melange of constitutional authority for a constitution which purports to separate the three branches of Government. The House of the Federation, under article 62, has the power to interpret the Constitution - a function normally reserved for Supreme Courts or Constitutional Courts in other jurisdiction. Through its interpretive power the House of the Federation can rule Legislative or Executive decisions as unconstitutional and therefore null and void following the procedures set out by the Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution has the Executive been given the power to cede any part of Ethiopian territory to any country. The demarcation agreement with Eritrea, which will forever bestow dominion over Assab - an Ethiopian territory and its national outlet to the sea - is above and beyond the authority granted to the Executive by the constitution. The House of Federation therefore has the duty of declaring such a flagrant agreement null and void. The House of Peoples' Representatives also must reject the agreement when it will be presented for ratification. This may be one great opportunity for the Representatives of both Houses to stand up and be counted and with a stroke of a pen capture the hearts of all Ethiopians which have so far been elusive. Let us remind them also that ceding any Ethiopian territory to any other country is a treasonous act which cannot be erased by statute of limitation. Nor is parliamentary immunity a defense. Conclusion Assab in the hands of Eritrea will always be a menace to peace for Ethiopia as well as for Eritrea itself. Nobody can deny that Eritrean struggle for secession from the day of its inception has enjoyed material and diplomatic support of we know who, without whose support the secessions would have been a pipe dream. It is not farfetched to think that the piper may one day feel that she has to be paid, embroiling the Horn of African in the Arab - Israeli conflict. In addition, since Eritrea has absolutely no use for the Port of Assab, it may pass it over to enemies of Ethiopia, providing yet another opportunity for Assab to become a flash point for conflict. I can also not imagine that any future generation of Ethiopians will ever acquiesce to Eritrean annexation of Assab and let itself be asphyxiated. These statements should be construed as a plea for banishing war from our region. We Ethiopians want to live with our neighbors in peace and good neighborliness, particularly with Eritreans with whom we are inextricably intertwined for the better or worse - a relationship which could be developed for mutual benefit. The Eritrean and Ethiopian politicians who in my view could not see beyond the tip of their noses elected for separation of a people which should never have been torn asunder. Though we do not know the true sentiments of the Eritrean people regarding separation, we wish them peace and prosperity wherever they are. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be landlocked and condemned to perpetual poverty and approbation and entrust our security to even our kin, if we can help it. The ball is on the Eritrean court. For us Ethiopians, access to the sea and the rights of the Red Sea Afars hold the key to the bliss that may await Ethiopia and Eiritrea. The Eritreans we hope will understand the emotion, sense of anxiety the loss of Assab spells among Ethiopians, and we hope they will have the foresight and the maturity to see to it that this useless piece of property for Eritrea, yet a life-line for Ethiopia, will forever be a wedge of hostility between these two sisterly African nations. There are myriad peaceful ways of incorporating Assab with Ethiopia, which are equitable, fair and just to all parties concerned. What is needed is goodwill on the Eritrean side and a little more interest on the part of the Ethiopian authorities to ensure that the largest recently landlocked country and yet the closest to sea anywhere in the world, has an access to the sea as it did for several millennia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article originally appeared in the Reporter, January 9, 2002, Addis Ababa. Dr. Yacob Haile-Mariam is Department Head and Associate Professor of Business Law and International Management at Norfolk State University. Dr. Yacob was senior trial attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda.

	ASSAB, OUR PROPERTY!
HOME ANETHIOPIAN PAN-AFRICAN ALBUM ETHIOPIA PAN-AFRICANISM ASSAB PORT ETHIOPIA STUDENTS MOVEMENT