| ETHIOPIA ON THE WEB - COPY OF THE OROMO QUESTION -> Nigeria's cahnge of position | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Nigeria's cahnge of position |
| Posted By: Hadgu Berhe Posted On: Oct 29, 2003 Views: 704 | Nigeria's cahnge of position As usual, the BBC brought us fantastic news on Nigeria today, Wednesday, 29 October, 2003. In the news it reported that Nigeria is to hand contested land to Cameroon. (1)Background What would Ethiopians say to this? Given what the UN Secretary General, the UN Secretariat and Nigerians feel about Ethiopia, the arrangement is no surprise. Ethiopia invoked as an example Nigeria's rejection of the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to support its case for out of EEBC settlement. It seems now that Nigeria has reached a settlement with Cameroon with the involvement of the UN Secretariat and the Secretary General himself. (2)Nigeria's and Ethiopia's confused position on their border issues Nigerian authorities had always sent a mixed message regarding the decision of the ICJ. The President's office, the justice ministry, the foriegn ministry and its several embassies, thier UN representative, their lawyers at the ICJ, etc. were saying differnet things about the decision. One ministry says it has accepted the decision while the other rejects it. The months following the decision was a total confusion. A firm position of rejection of the decision came from NGOs and certain academics that voiced the opinion of the Nigerians in Bakassi. Finally when confronted with election, the President made his position clear which was the rejection of the ICJ decision. Ethiopia's position was more or less similar to that of Nigeria when it received the decision of EEBC. The Government's position was one of jubiliation at first and then scepticism and later to partial regection of the decision. Until recently, it had been releasing mixed statemets from its differnet offices. Under pressure from the people, the government now partly rejected the EEBC decision. (3) The role of the UN in dispute settlements As the BBC reported, "... President Olusegun Obasanjo refused to comply with the judgement (of the ICJ) and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan brought the two countries together to find a way of resolving the dispute." The UN Secretary General's role was to avail his good office for the direct negotiation between the two countries. This power is given to him by virtue of the UN Charter and general custom. By invoking the Nigerian experience, what Ethiopia was seeking from the UN Secretary General is his good office for the direct negotiation between Eritrea and Ethiopia. There is no good reason to provide such an office to Nigeria and refuse it for Ethiopia. There is every reason for Ethiopia's demand for equal treatment in the UN system. (4) Implications of the Nigerian settlement Nigeria's agreement to hand over border villages to Cameroon should not have any impact on the Eritrean-Ethiopian issue. Each must be seen in its general and particular circumstance. What we know is that the UN Secretary General had been working with both Nigeria and Cameroon for months until settlement is reached. The fact that they negotiated the decision is one thing while the settlement is another. Handing over land Nigeria wanted to keep does not mean that Nigeria agreed with the ICJ decision. It negotiated and finally agreed to hand over becaue it is convinced it has to. Ethiopia wants to negotiate with Eritrea and keep the contested areas or hand over if good reasons emerge for doing that. This may include negotiating a wider Ethiopia-Eritrea relation. (5) BBC says outstanding issues still exist We don't for sure know what happened during the negotiation process and what detailed settlements were reached. BBC itself confirmed that "the court's ruling also gave areas of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsular to Cameroon, and its status still has to be settled by the bilateral talks that are now under way in Abuja." Negotiations still going, what was the BBC saying about handing over of land by Nigeria? Again, the important thing is that bilateral negotiation with the involvement of the UN took place after the ICJ decision and the decison is being discussed because one of the parties rejected it. What else is Ethiopia asking except this process to be repeated? (6) Nigeria's commitment similar to Ethiopia The following statement in the BBC report confirms the similarity of Nigeria's and Ethiopia's position regarding conflict. It says "Justice Minister Akin Olujinmi told the meeting that Nigeria did not wish to be dragged into a "meaningless and avoidable conflict with any of its neighbours". One thing does not sound right in the Minister's statement though. He said "I want to assure you, we shall continue to abide by our commitment to respect the judgement of the ICJ." Who knows if they would not change their mind tomorrow and say "oh, there are people on the land"? (7) The sticky issue is people The Nigerian Minister finally said " Nigerians living in the villages are unlikely to be happy - but they will be given the option of leaving if they wish." The question for us, Ethiopians,is would that happen in Ethiopia? Commitment E-mail this to a friend Printable version LINKS TO MORE AFRICA STORIES |
| Posted By: Surafel Gebeyehu Posted On: Oct 29, 2003 Views: 699 | RE: Nigeria's change of position I appreciate Mr. Hadgu's analysis on the recent Nigerian position on Bakassi. I would like to add the following on what he said. (a) The EEBC role in the Nigerian settlement One of the members of the EEBC is Prince Bola AJIBOLA. He is a Nigerian citizen with extensive knowledge and paractice in international law. He was selected by Ethiopia to sit as an arbitrator in the EEBC. He was an ad-hoc judge in the Nigeria vs. Cameroon case decisded by the International Court of justice (ICJ). As is known, Nigeria lost in that case and Prince AJIBOLA differed from the other judges of the ICJ and gave his dissenting opinion. His opinion is available on the ICJ web site. Later on, he became head of the Nigerian delegation to negotiate the boundary dispute with Cameroon. It is dubious how he was selected by Ethiopia to sit in the EEDC. May be it is because he dissented in the dispute involving his country, but that did not happen in the Ethiopia-Eritrea case. Now, as a member of the EEBC and the validity of the Commission's decision being rejected by Ethiopia, wouldn't Prince AJIBOLA use his wealth and connection to influence the Nigerian government to accept the ICJ decison? As said above, he was the head of the Nigerian deligation in the negotiation with Cameroon. Anybody working with Sir Elihu will have to do things that please him. It struck me that Nigeria accepted the ICJ decision when Ethiopia started to draw a parallel between the Nigerian - Cameroon case and the Ethiopia -Eritrea case. As we know it, the Nigerian way of doing things is usually strange. Again, it is time for the Ethiopia government to weigh the disadvantages of keeping arbitrators that it selected to the EEBC. Apart from wasting our money, we should not be victims of back-door diplomacy. (b) The UN Secretary General and the Nigerian settlement As GUEST suggested above, Secretary General Kofi Annan himself was directly involved in the negotiation between Nigerian and Cameroonian governments. The BBC on 15 November 2002 reported: "Talks between Nigeria and Cameroon, chaired by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, have ended without a final agreement in the Swiss city of Geneva... At the end of the discussions Mr Annan said both sides had agreed to a further presidential meeting and to establishing a commission to look at the issue." The stance the Secretary General took on the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute is to force Ethiopia to accept the EEBC decision. This is contrary to what happened to the Nigerian-Cameroon dispute. For the sake of peace in the horn region, he should insist that Eritrea negotiate the EEBC decision with Ethiopia. in no time was the Secretary general heard say that Nigeria should respect the ICJ decision. Here double standard is unacceptable. Nigeria is a powerful nation in Africa. Oil, population, educated manpower, army, out-spokeness, etc. makes Nigeria a suitable partner to the UN and the big nations. Nigeria has proven itself as a power that can interfere militarily in any West African state. It considers itself an economic motor that keeps a sub-region moving. It has good connections both at regional and international levels. It is a nation with ambition to become a member of Security Counsil and it is being courted by the UN to meet its end. Ethiopia is not Nigeria. It falls short of several thing that Nigeria is. But, Ethiopia is a nation with people that very well know what they need and deserve. When they speak they must be heard. If they are not heard, they must be able to say where things went wrong and must be correctd. If we don't speak and stand firm in what we say, nobody will speak for us. The world is a palce for the strong and not for the weak. Nigeria's acceptance of the ICJ decision may result from what Nigeria expects from the UN, the Security Counsil, Western African nations including Cameroon, and the internatioanl community. The fact that Nigeria accepted the ICJ should not lead Ethiopia to follow suit. Ethiopia's expectations from the UN and Secretary General is similar to that of Nigeria in the sense that negotiation with Eritrea must start. If Nigeria takes a U turn for its own reasons, it is her right. But Ethiopia should not follow that course. (c) But what is happening in Nigeria? For those of who followed the statements being made by the Nigerian governemt, there is no adequate reason to make a U turn today. Imprtant issues relating to the Nigerian people in Bakassi are dashed as no issues. As GUEST said above, it was just before a presidential election that the Nigerian government rejected the ICJ decision. The statements that were made to justify the rejection were, however, reasonale. Let's see some of them in the following citations from the BBC. "The Bakassi peninsula is currently occupied by the military forces of Nigeria, which has said it will continue to defend the rights of its citizens living in the swampy land mass jutting out into the oil-rich waters of the Gulf of Guinea. Apart from the soldiers, the Bakassi peninsula is home to a host of small fishing communities, most of whom consider themselves to be Nigerian. "We want peace, but the interests of Nigeria will not be sacrificed. It must be peace with honour, with the interest and welfare of our people protected," he said in a statement quoted by the French news AFP. "What may be legally right may not be politically expedient." "For us, Bakassi is real. It is men, women and children. It is people living in their homes, on their own land... and wanting to be at peace with themselves and their neighbours." Whatever the government way saying put aside, the people in bakassi were told that the governmet stands at their side all the time and they were happy. It is now months since the presidential election has closed and Nigerians in Bakassi are being told to leave the area. ? How would the Nigerian governmet declare the sad order to the people it comforted by sayuing that nothing will happen that will affect their interests? As we recall it, the representatives of the Bakassi community, after getting the comfort of the Nigerian government said "We are bona fide Nigerians, under no circumstances are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed under the bondage of gendarmes." Now that comfort is gone, how would the people in Bakassi receive their predicament ? Before Nigeria rejected the ICJ decision they were heard saying "..., we'll declare a republic of Bakassi." Would they do that or be crushed as the Biafra movement? We will have to wait and see. As GUEST asked, would Ethiopia follow the Nigerian U turn or stand firm in her recent stand on the EEBC decision? Again, we will have to wait and see. |
| Posted By: ASGHEDOM Posted On: Dec 1, 2004 Views: 594 | RE: Nigeria's cahnge of position Just to make things clear from the start I am an Eritrean. It is fair to everyone and to the persons to whose postings I am replying to let them know or guess where I stand. I read your comments and I say quite interesting spin you give to what you dubbed as to creat a similarity with the EEBC-decision of 13th April 2002 and subsequent developments. The most recent being, as I read it in the comments, announced by the Ethiopian Prime Minister on the 25th Nov 2004. Though your analysis were quite interesting to justify the Ethiopian government's rejection[of the decision that had been declared as a victory by the government that organized and celebrated in every corner of the nation]by purposly or genuinly omitting one very important detail that the ICJ didn't have. It is the the term that Ethiopian leaders insisted very much upon. The term is as you well know but for no apparent reason seems missing in your analysis. As they say the devil is in the details, the term has become the devil part of the Algries Agreement. The Dialogue issue is a bit late because it should have been done in good faith before going to Court. Rule of law exist in case parties don't reach a peaceful conclusion to settle their differences. For that reason your reasoning to use Nigeria's position to justify Ethiopia's rejection is uncalled for. In the latter case both parties adhered on their own will to a clause, final and binding, that the first (Nigeria+Cameroun)group didn't need to. To paraphrase the Nigerian Justice Minister it is worth remebering that than bitting a dead dog. The whole world knows where Eritrean and Ethiopian, possibly best neighbours after healing process,borders begins and end. EEBC-decision has been besides being legal a final and binding delimitation. The Ethiopian U-turn has just started for the better, I hope. |