Eritrean statement to the UN Security Council on Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict
Eritrea-Ethiopia-UN, Politics, 3/24/1999

Below is the statement, in full, of Eritrean Foreign Minister Haile Woldensae made yesterday before the United Nations Security Council, presenting his country's view of the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia:

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies,

It is indeed an honor for me to be given the opportunity to brief the
Council on the border conflict between my country and Ethiopia which has
unnecessarily and irrationally escalated to full scale war leading to
thousands of casualties and the suffering of so many. I say unnecessary
because, as we, and I am sure Your Excellencies, have always believed, the
border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia could be solved through peaceful
and legal means; and irrational because the use of force, as has been and is
being attempted by the Ethiopian regime, can never lead to a solution.

Let me say at the outset that Eritrea highly appreciates the deep concern of
the Security Council and the rest of the international community about the
conflict as well as the efforts that have been and are being made by
different parties for its peaceful resolution.

Excellencies,

Allow me to present a synopsis of the genesis of the conflict, where we are
now and what we believe needs to be done to curb Ethiopia's designs to
continue its war of aggression and to move to the final settlement of the
border on the basis of the OAU Framework.

It is known to the Council that Ethiopia has so loudly and persistently
announced its "full acceptance" of this Framework which Eritrea did also,
after considering the necessary clarifications from the OAU High-Level
Delegation and making compromises to pave the way for its implementation,
full-heartedly accept.

Eritrea has been consistent in its argument that the borders between Eritrea
and Ethiopia were clearly delineated by duly signed treaties during the
colonial period and remained unaltered until Ethiopia forcibly annexed
Eritrea in 1962. Even after the illegal annexation, the borders of the
annexed "province" of Eritrea remained the same during both the Haile
Selassie and Mengistu regimes.

Excellencies,

It is the pattern of expansionist and aggressive behaviour of the Ethiopian
regime that is the root cause of the existing conflict, and it is the proper
understanding of the measures Ethiopia has taken that expose this behaviour,
we strongly believe, that can lead to a correct, just and legal approach to
end the conflict and settle the dispute peacefully.

International law clearly states that every state has an obligation to
respect the territorial integrity and sovereign independence of every other
state. The United Nations Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, states that: "All
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations."

The actions that Ethiopia undertook prior to May 1998 to attempt to alter or
undermine Eritrea's borders were illegal aggression, and illegal aggression
cannot be the basis for acquisition of territory. Ethiopia's pattern of
behaviour over recent years indeed shows a spiral of increasing disregard
for Eritrea's inherited boundary. It presents a classic case of aggression
under accepted definitions of international law.

1. Ethiopia's attack in Bada

In August 1997, Ethiopian troops illegally entered Adi Murug in the Bada
area of Eritrea. That this was an illegal incursion was undeniable, and
Ethiopia did not attempt to justify the incursion by denying Eritrean
sovereignty over the area. Instead, Ethiopia explained that it had been
pursuing rebel forces that fled Ethiopia and took refuge in Eritrea.
Nonetheless, while present in Eritrea, the Ethiopian military dismantled
Eritrea's governmental presence and administration in order to set up an
administration of its own.

Under the United Nations General Assembly's Definition of Aggression (1974),
this incursion clearly constituted illegal aggression. Article 3 states:

"Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war,
shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2,
qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of
the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however
temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the
use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof."

The Definition of Aggression not only identifies the Ethiopian behavior of
1997 as aggression, it also clearly provides that such aggressive activities
cannot constitute the basis for any "territorial acquisition or special
advantage" in the territory occupied. According to Article 3, "No
territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression shall
be recognized as lawful."

As with all of Ethiopia's other illegal military activities on Eritrean
soil, Ethiopia cannot have obtained any vested rights in military incursions
that were intrinsically illegal.

2. Ethiopia's encroachment in Badme

Starting in mid-1997, Ethiopia also directly initiated efforts to alter the
international border on the ground in the Badme region. As is well known,
Ethiopian officials operating in the area around Badme commenced a program
of placement of piles of rocks in an effort to establish a new international
border. In certain cases, Ethiopia was not satisfied with the scope of its
initial incursion into Eritrean territory and came back a second or third
time to move the rock markers to try to encroach even further into Eritrean
territory.

Such efforts clearly violate international law, which requires respect for
the existing international boundaries of a state. The United Nations General
Assembly's Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations states that "Every State shall refrain from
any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national
integrity and political independence of the State or country," and that "the
territorial integrity and political independence of the state are
inviolable."

3. Ethiopia's unilateral issuance of maps incorporating Eritrean territory
into Tigray

In 1997, Ethiopia issued a map that purported to claim large portions of
Eritrean territory. Entitled "Political Map of Tigray," it was prepared by
the Planning and Economic Development Bureau, Physical Planning Department.
The title of the newspaper article containing this map was "New Map of our
Administrative Zone Prepared." According to the text of the article, "the
map defines the new boundaries of Tigray with other countries and with
Administrative Zones in Ethiopia." It was said to be the result of three
years of research and to have been approved by the Central Mapping Authority
in Addis Abeba. Comparison with standard administrative maps of Ethiopia
shows that the changes effected by this new map were quite substantial.

Ethiopia obviously knew that the map was a "new" one which altered the
traditional borders, but it made no effort to justify or explain this
unilateral incorporation of Eritrean territory. It did not state what facts
or legal arguments turned up in the "three years of research" that might
have led it to think that it had the power to unilaterally define "the new
boundaries of Tigray with other countries" or to draw the line in the
location that it did. To this day, it is simply unclear what Ethiopia thinks
that it has a right to. Although asked many times, it refuses to say.

While Ethiopia refuses to state the extent or the basis of its territorial
claims, it can hardly be doubted that this map was intended to be an early
step in a campaign to acquire portions of Eritrean territory. Such efforts
to acquire territory on the other side of an existing international boundary
are, as stated above in 2, illegal under international law.

4. Ethiopia's attack on Eritrean officials in Badme on 6 May 1998

Ethiopia's efforts to redraw the international boundary in Badme culminated
in its attack of 6 May 1998. On that date, about sixty Ethiopian army troops
completely encircled a group of ten Eritrean officers who were present in
the Badme region and opened fire. Four were killed and three wounded. This
initial attack further led to spiraling clashes in the subsequent days, with
both sides bringing in reinforcements and a final showdown on 12 May 1998 in
which Ethiopian troops were driven out of Badme.

Eritrea's reaction to this completely unjustified attack presents a classic
case of self-defense under international law. Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter states clearly that every state has an "inherent" right of
self-defense against armed attack. "Nothing in the present Charter shall
impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international
peace and Security."

5. Ethiopia's declaration of war

Ethiopia subsequently declared war on Eritrea on 13 May 1998. And, on 4
June, the Ethiopian Prime Minister ordered the Ethiopian Military to
implement this declaration of war. The following morning, Ethiopian forces
attacked Eritrea throughout the common border, and at 2:10 p.m. the same day
the Ethiopia air force bombed the capital city of Eritrea.

Eritrea's constant and consistent calls for cessation of hostilities, the
demilitarization of the entire border, the deployment of neutral monitoring
forces and the speedy demarcation of the border continued to be ignored by
Ethiopia.

6. Ethiopia's all out attack on 6 February 1999

In early February 1999, Ethiopia launched an all out offensive against
Eritrea. The supposed justification was an air raid that (according to
Ethiopia) had taken place in AdiGrat on 5 February. Several independent
sources confirmed Eritrea's official statement that no such air raid had
ever taken place. However, Ethiopia continues to cite this supposed "air
raid" as the rationalization for its all out war. In mounting this attack
since 6 February, Ethiopia has violated the US brokered moratorium on air
strikes and has bombed civilians fleeing northward into Eritrea from areas
near the border. Eritrea has not violated the moratorium, even in the face
of Ethiopia's illegal bombing of its territory.

In the months leading up to the February attack, Ethiopia had engaged in
full scale build up of troops and armaments at several places along the
border. Ethiopia also issued continuous threats to Eritrea that it would
"teach Eritrea a lesson," that it would replace or overthrow the current
government of Eritrea, and so forth. Among its other violations of
international law are its deportation of over fifty four thousand persons of
Eritrean family origin, the internment without trial of unknown number of
persons in Ethiopian prison camps, and the 9 February forced entry into,
ransacking and continued occupation of the Eritrean Embassy residence in
Addis Abeba.

Excellencies,

It is evident from the series of measures briefed above that the Ethiopian
regime had violated Eritrean sovereignty and territorial integrity through
illegal acts of aggression prior to 6 May 1998, not to mention its
subsequent acts of aggression. From the start of discussions with the OAU,
these developments, along with evidence of where the border lies and that we
remained inside our territory, were brought before the OAU High-Level
Delegation. We consistently argued, and rightly so, that illegal aggression
cannot be the basis for acquisition of territory, and for this reason, any
proposal that takes May 1998 as the relevant "status quo ante" rewards
Ethiopia's illegal efforts to undermine the existing international border in
place between Eritrea and the Tigray state of Ethiopia, and is a violation
of international law. If measures taken on the ground needed to be reversed,
they were the illegal, aggressive measures taken by the Ethiopian government
to forcibly alter the established border between the two countries and not
the legitimate measures taken by Eritrea to defend its sovereignty.

When the OAU finally came up with its proposed Framework Agreement for a
peaceful solution at the Summit of the High-Level Delegation in Ouagadougou
in November last year, Eritrea expressed its positive stance considering the
Framework as a basis for discussions that would lead to an agreement
acceptable to both parties. In this spirit, Eritrea invited the OAU
Secretary General for consultations to Asmara on 12 December, 1998, and
submitted a list of queries on which it sought clarifications prior to its
full acceptance of the Framework Agreement. Eritrea hoped that the
clarifications would be given prior to the Summit of the Central Organ which
was then scheduled for 17-18 December. Unfortunately, and for reasons that
are better explained by the OAU High-Level Delegation, this did not happen
as expected. While noting the respective positions of both countries, the
Central Organ endorsed the Framework Agreement and called on both sides to
cooperate with the High-Level Delegation.

The written clarifications were provided to Eritrea on 26 January 1999. But
before Eritrea could digest the clarifications to give its considered
response, Ethiopia launched yet another offensive against Eritrea on 6
February 1999. This was in clear contravention of the OAU's repeated calls
for both sides to observe maximum restraint and continue to uphold the de
facto cessation of hostilities which was, indeed, a primary element in the
Framework Agreement in order to pave the way for a final solution on the
basis of the demarcation of the boundary.

Excellencies,

Eritrea accepted the proposed Framework as a compromise, as a measure of
"goodwill," as requested by the OAU delegation, to stop further bloodshed
and expedite the demarcation of the border. Eritrea did so because it was
led to believe that the proposals and written clarifications that were
provided by the OAU High-Level Delegation, which were known to Ethiopia,
were "fully accepted" by Ethiopia as well. That, Your Excellencies, is what
the OAU and the Security Council led us to believe Ethiopia had done and
urged us to do likewise in the interest of peace. And that is what we did.

How could these very bodies now fail to condemn the Ethiopian regime when it
reverses its position and presents a new and totally unacceptable condition
not only to ensure its illegal occupation of Eritrean territory, but also to
provide itself a smoke screen to continue its war for wider agendas against
Eritrean sovereignty? How far is Ethiopia to be appeased to move the goal
post of its aggressive demands further and further as we are required to
make unjustified compromises to accommodate its dictates?

For us, Ethiopia's designs and tactics are clear. The Ethiopian regime has
made no secret of it. It intends to maintain its illegal control and take
more of Eritrean territory by force, defeat the Eritrean army completely and
replace the Eritrean government by a puppet regime which will respond to its
dictates. Your Excellencies, the Ethiopian regime has already formed such a
"government in exile" from terrorist groups such as the Islamic Jihad in
collaboration with the National Islamic Front government of the Sudan.

Excellencies,

I would like to conclude my remarks by reconfirming that Eritrea has always
called for and is now ready for a cease-fire. It has likewise expressed its
readiness for the immediate implementation of the OAU proposal which the
Council has supported. Any attempt to revise that proposal which both have
avowedly accepted would lead to a total nullification of that proposal, thus
postponing the demarcation of the border which alone can definitively settle
the conflict. To reiterate our firm position, Eritrea has accepted the
proposal to withdraw from its own territory in Badme and its immediate
environs only as a "goodwill measure" not because of any other
justification. If the Ethiopian regime insists on new conditions to persist
on its war path against Eritrean sovereignty, Eritrea has the
responsibility, capacity and resolve to defend itself.

I thank you.

Previous Stories:
  Ethiopian statement to the UN Security Council on Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict   (3/24/1999)
  Confrontation continues between Ethiopia, Eritrea   (3/18/1999)
  Fighting continue between Ethiopia, Eritrea   (3/17/1999)
  Ethiopian President: No intention to occupy lands from Eritrea   (3/5/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search