| ETHIOPIA ON THE WEB - COPY OF THE OROMO QUESTION -> Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? |
| Posted By: Hadgu Berehe Posted On: Oct 14, 2003 Views: 574 | Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? On October 13, 2003, the UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) said the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission (EEBC or Commission) urges Ethiopia to comply to its decision. It is astonishing to observe how the Commission has lost its impartiality in a very sensitive issue involving the interest of millions of people. We gather from IRIN's news that, contrary to what should have been, the boundary dispute seems to be between the Ethiopian government and the Commission rather than the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments. As provided in the Agreement that established the Commission and observed in international arbitration practices, members of the Commission are not to side with one or another party both at the stage of litigation and excution. The recent statements made by Sir Elihu, EEBC's chairman, proves that they are doing the contrary. From the statements, one can understand that the Commission is angry with the position taken by Ethiopia and is ready to punish her using whatever means is available. Should Ethiopia continue with the Commission or look for alternatives? The Ethiopian government has made clear that it needs a new body to be established to solve the border problem. In effect, this is a request that EEBC be dissolved and replaced by another body. From the date the Ethiopian government submitted this request to the UN Security Council, the Commission should have stopped its functions because one of the parties that established it has called for its replacement. Legally, whatever the Commission does is null and void after one of the leaders of the the states that signed the Agreement that created the Commission requested for its replacement. The recent letter written by the PM Meles calling for a new body to be created is equivalent to revocing his consent for the Commission's mandate. Under international law, a state can dissolve an international arbitration commission by recalling the arbitrators it elected to the commission or by expressing its loss of confidence on the Commission in gerneral. And Ethiopia is a state and must be heard. By the same token, the call of PM Meles makes the mandate of the Commisiion to demarcte the boundary legally questionable. It is time for the Commision to study the implications of the letter of the PM rather make statements as it wishes. As I see it, the way the chairman of the Commission behaves is unacceptable. I underatand the frustration of the Ethiopian government on this matter. What is also surprising is the side taken by the members of the Commission elected by Ethiopia. Again, international law allows that a state can at any moment remove a member it elected and replace him/her by another or even refuse to replace him/her and effectively kill the arbitration process. Ethiopia is free to remove the members it elected to Elihu's commission. There is no law that can force Ethiopia to elect other representatives for arbitration and that can be the end of the Ethiopia - Eritrea arbitration stand -off. Elihu cannot judge Ethiopia by himself and members elected by Eritrea alone. If Ethiopia wants, it can stop the whole arbitration affair. We should remember that we are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions to EEBC membres and other officers they elected to assist them. They should remember that they are being paid money collected from the poorest nations of the earth in forms of tax. I know that the promises of the UN and others to finance the process will not save Ethiopia and Eritrea from paying the bulk of it to the Commisioners and others. They will charge us to pay them on hourly basis for all the years they wasted on "studying" and "writing" their bad decisions and all the time wasted and to be wasted during the stand off and for all the time wasted for writing a rebuttal abusive statement against the Ethiopian government. Then follows a demarcation that will take years for which Ethiopian tax payers will have to generously pay to the members of the Commission and its staff. The same will be the case with the Claims Commission which will throw its bombshell in the near future. The challenge posed by the Ethiopian government to the Commission's ruling and to the instituion of international arbitration and enforcement of its decisions is serious. There is every reason for the international community to insist that the Commission's decision be respected and, if not respected, sanctions be imposed. If precedence of compromise on a decision of international arbitration is created, it will dispossess the international community one of the important institutions of peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, there is a large amount of money being spent for "peace keeping". In simple terms, it is not the just or the unjust nature of the decision that is important to the international community and lawyers in arbitration, but the institution of arbitration and money. Ethiopians should not allow to be robbed of our land, degnity and money. We should stand firm when challenged by trash subtilities. Condemnation of the anti-Ethiopia activities of the EEBC by the foriegn ministry is not enough. The Commission should be told that its mandate is terminated on the request of Ethiopia. If I were Elihu, I would have packed and left Hague the day I read PM Meles' letter to the UN Security Council because I have no mandate to follow the case. The main reason the Security Council rejected the creation of another body to solve the boundary problem is because of its legal implications. By insisting to continue with the Commission, it validates the Commission's decision. If it had agreed to the creation of a new body, the entire decision of the Commission would have been questionable. The choice for Ethiopia is to insist on the creation of a new body. This will put the legal existence of the Commission into question and pay dividends. If Ethiopia fails to insist, it would be taken mean that it has accepted the rejection by the Security Council and abide by the bad decison of the Commission. Even if this generation fails to to solve the problem, it would be fair to leave it pending after revoking the mandate of the Commission. That would be better legal position than a Commission that mockes on justice and take our land and money. |
| Posted By: Hadgu Berehe Posted On: Oct 14, 2003 Views: 573 | RE: Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? Correction on title : Can the commission urge Ethiopia? |
| Posted By: Selam Posted On: Oct 15, 2003 Views: 568 | RE: Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? Hello everybody I think what we have to know is both countries have agreed to accept the decision of the commission. So it is childish to neglect it just because it doesn't satisfy its expectation. What I am asking is what would we say if it was Eritrea who neglects the decision. So it is better if it will be finished soon and at last both countries can think about the people who are suffering of famine, sickness and poverty. |
| Posted By: Cool Posted On: Oct 16, 2003 Views: 562 | RE: Can the Commission urges Ethiopia? Good blunt generalization.simple question.Have the people of badme and irob been asked of their rights to choose? |