A Spectrum of War between Eritrea and Abyssinia (Pseudo-‘Ethiopia’)

With the defeated Abyssinian army gradually withdrawing from Somalia, with the mutually advanced disintegration of Sudan, Abyssinia (fallaciously re-baptized ‘Ethiopia’), Somalia and Yemen, and with the paranoid Abyssinian dictator Zenawi struggling to survive, another phase of the war between Eritrea and Abyssinia seems nigh.

The war would be triggered mainly by the need of the Abyssinian dictator Zenawi to demonstrate his ability to bring to his ailing tyranny some sort of nationalistic success that will help him gain the sympathies of the regime’s Ethio-fascist, chauvinist and criminal elements, the Amhara and Tigray Monophysitic Abyssinian minority (18% of the total population) that has always controlled the Abyssinian anachronistic, colonial and rogue state.

The Amhara Threat Against Zenawi

The danger for the paranoid, rogue tyrant Zenawi is great; worse than him, worse than any other African dictator, worse than Stalin and worse than Hitler, the evil Amhara leaders of Kinijit and Ginbot – 7 have been hyperactive in order to convince the colonial lobbying of America and Europe that they can "do the job better".

The evil, inhuman and murderous Amhara political establishment has never ‘excused’ their Tigray counterpart’s rise to power. Invaded by the most inhuman form of hatred and hysteria and possessed by an abysmal desire for evil, totalitarian power, they played their comedy of resistance against a person, namely the tyrant Meles Zenawi, and even went to the jail in order to diffuse the idea that the Amharas have been persecuted by the Tigray dictator.

This is all a shameful aberration and a theatrical performance geared to confuse the non-insiders.

Amharas: Indivisible and Beneficiary Part of Zenawi’s Regime

If the Amharas were persecuted at the times of the Zenawi administration, the tyrannical Abyssinian state’s army, police, secret services, and public administration would not be manned by Amharas in their majority.

If the Amharas were persecuted at the times of the Zenawi administration, certainly Amharic would not be the official language – tyrannically imposed by the Zenawi administration – of the following regions: Benishangul – Gumuz, Diredawa, Southern Nations, Gambella, and the so-called Addis Ababa (in reality Finfinnee, which should not form a separate region from Oromia, as it is the capital of Oromia).

A War: the Only Means for Zenawi to Survive

The problem is precisely that Zenawi needs a war and a victory in the war, in order to oppose the accusations of the Amhara criminal Ethio-fascists, who want to return to power only to impose a far worse system of tyranny than Zenawi’s, denying the existence of all the subjugated nations of Abyssinia and thus heralding a new, worse circle of genocides; Zenawi has therefore to ‘deliver’.

In a country that falls apart only because of the spread of Internet, in a tyranny where life has absolutely no value, the only way for the dictator to survive against the Amhara allegations (that he is undemocratic and that he is destroying the supposedly unitary character of the country – which is a racist Amhara lie) is to make a victorious war. In the aftermath of the Abyssinian defeat in Somalia, and with thousands of coffins having been sent back home from Somalia, Zenawi has to present a certain success.

With Ogaden in chaos, and with the OLF successfully staging attacks against the criminal tribal pseudo-army of the state, Zenawi has only one choice – to attack Eritrea, which has long been the target of the Amhara Ethio-fascists.

What will be the result of a successful war against Eritrea?

Zenawi will be able to convince the ‘deep’ state (the military, the paramilitary, the administrative machine, and the influential ‘debteraw’ – monks and religious leaders) that he is able to carry on; an invasion of Assab would thus be presented as a great victory, due to which Abyssinia will not be a landlocked state anymore.

An Amhara Military Coup Against Zenawi Possible

With the ‘deep state’ unhappy, Zenawi risks facing a military coup at any moment; carried out by Amhara Ethiofascist generals, the coup would simply be a return to Amhara totalitarianism and racism, despite the extreme pro-democracy rhetoric that is expected to be unleashed from the filthy mouths of the Amhara gangsters – generals.

The chances of a military coup against Zenawi, to bring ‘democracy’ back to Abyssinia, are by now high. The conflict between two groups of Amhara military and paramilitary (pro-royalist and pro-communist) has caused some confusion and delay, as it is reflected in the existing political formations (Kinijit is full of communist collaborators and ministers of the murderous dictator Haile Mengistu, whereas the Ginbot-7 Ethio-fascist criminal elements are connected with the disreputable remnants of the lewd and barbaric Abyssinian monarchy).

Urgent Eritrean Diplomatic Activity Needed

Eritrean President Afwerki’s Letter to the UN Secretary General is therefore a document of the utmost gravity, as it may be the final official document before a new war phase explodes.

By using the term "clarion call", President Afwerki sent the ball back to the UN Security Council; it’s up to the international body now to take the measures needed to thwart another war that will certainly plunge East Africa to a far worse crisis than any previous.

The UN Security Council, with Turkey as non permanent member, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference are the diplomatic fields where the Eritrean diplomacy has to focus now; Eritrea has the task to prepare "the Black Book of Ethiopia", an extensive if not comprehensive list of crimes perpetrated against Islam by the perfidious, racist, and Anti-Islamic state of "Ethiopia".

"The Black Book of Ethiopia" must be submitted to an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference whereby all members should agree to suspend in unison their diplomatic ties with the evil, anti-Islamic state, and provide Eritrea with all the necessary means to utterly destroy Abyssinia.

A coordination with the tyrannized Afars, Ogadenis, Hadiyas and Oromos, as well as with the oppressed Amhara and Tigray Muslims of Abyssinia will be essential in this regard.

I re-publish integrally President Isaias Afwerki's Letter to the UN Secretary General, and in addition, the Final border report on Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute sent to Security Council, which was the reason of the Eritrean President’s demarche.

President Isaias Afwerki's Letter to the UN Secretary General
http://hornofafrica.de/index.php?id=18&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1132&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=d97a5048c4

I would further like to express our gratitude for Your Excellency’s instructions, effected on 2 October this month, to circulate to all UN Security Council Members the Report of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, the President of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, of 25 September 2008, and to file it in the official records of the United Nations. The full report is annexed as a reminder.

Your Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary General
The United Nations
New York

May I kindly request Your Excellency to ensure that this letter is put on the record of the United Nations and circulated to all UN Security Council Member States.

I would further like to express our gratitude for Your Excellency’s instructions, effected on 2 October this month, to circulate to all UN Security Council Members the Report of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, the President of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission, of 25 September 2008, and to file it in the official records of the United Nations. The full report is annexed as a reminder.

It must be underlined that the message of President Lauterpacht highlights the fundamental legal issue and substantive matters on all the seven points invoked.

In the second point, the Report ascertains that the EEBC’s Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002 as well as its Determinations of 27 November 2006 are binding on the two parties.

In the third point, the Report underlines that after the refusal of Ethiopia to nominate a replacement for its (deceased) Commissioner, "the Secretary General has not exercised his power of appointment pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000". The implications of this statement must be evident to Your Excellency.

As a fourth point, the EEBC not only ascertains that it has deposited, in the UN registrar, copies of its maps as the last act of the conclusion of its legal mandate but it further underlines the failure of Ethiopia to meet its financial obligations to the EEBC in violation of Article 4(17) of the Algiers Agreement.

In the fifth point, President Lauterpacht’s Report explains the legal rationale and significance of its letter of 18 June 2008 to the Parties.

In the sixth point, the Report underscores the importance of Eritrea’s response of 1 July 2008 while confirming Ethiopia’s failure to give any response.

In the seventh point, the Report asserts that after the completion of ongoing administrative tasks related to the termination of its mandate, the EEBC will effectively consider itself as "functus officio".

Mr. Secretary General,
Your Excellencies: Members of the UN Security Council

This historic message, at this crucial juncture, is a "clarion call" to the UN Security Council. This is a legal and moral message to the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities and ensure the eviction of Ethiopia from Eritrea’s sovereign territories that is occupying in violation of the rule of law, the Charter of the United Nations as well as the final and binding decisions of the EEBC as stipulated in the Algiers Peace Agreement.

Mr. Secretary General
Your Excellencies: Members of the UN Security Council

It is against this backdrop that the US Administration has chosen a "propitious" time to contrive and orchestrate a seemingly new and diversionary scheme under the rubric of a "border conflict". This was effected through the "submission" that the President of Djibouti was made to lodge, anew, to the UN Security Council yesterday. This appalling scheme has further been accompanied by outright intimidation and saber rattling against Eritrea. Eritrea’s position on the whole episode has been clarified repeatedly and does not merit repetition here.

Mr. Secretary General
Your Excellencies: Members of the UN Security Council

Eritrea will not abandon its request for Justice and legality; its adherence to the rule of law; and, its compliance with the Agreement it has signed under deceitful schemes and threats. Eritrea will not indeed succumb to intimidation. Nor will it be dragged into a non-existent conflict.

In the event, I urge the UN Security Council not to shrug its responsibilities but to ensure the eviction of Ethiopia’s occupation from our sovereign territories; including the new occupation of our land at Mount Musa Ali since May this year.

Sincerely
Isaias Afwerki

Final border report on Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute sent to Security Council (http://www.biddho.com/content/view/974/29/lang,english/)

13 October 2008 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has transmitted to the Security Council the last report issued by the independent commission on Ethiopia and Eritrea’s common boundary.

In 2002, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission handed down a final and binding decision awarding Badme, the town that triggered fierce fighting between the neighbouring Horn of Africa nations, to Eritrea. But the two countries have since been at an impasse on that demarcation.

The report notes that the body’s mandate has been fulfilled and that all administrative issues connected to its termination have wrapped up.

The Commission has given both sides a deadline of 26 November 2007 in which to place pillars on the boundary.

In a letter sent to the two countries in June, it wrote that "as there has been no communication from the parties, the Commission must now reach the conclusion that… no further activity on its part is called for, and that it should therefore take the few final steps involved in winding up its operations," including returning resources to the United Nations.

The final report said that it received a response from Asmara, but none from Addis Ababa.

In July, the Security Council voted unanimously voted to terminate the UN peacekeeping mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, known as UNMEE, after restrictions placed on the peacekeeping operation by the latter country undermined its ability to carry out its mandate.

As such, Mr. Ban said in his recent letter to the 15-member body that he will no longer provide regular reports on the situation between the two nations.

United Nations S/2008/630

Security Council
Distr.: General
3 October 2008
Original: English

Letter Dated 2 October 2008 from the Secretary General Addressed to the President of the Security Council

As you are aware, with the termination of the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea as of 31 July 2008, I will no longer provide reports to the Security Council on the situation between the two countries on a regular basis. However, I have recently received a final report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, which the Registrar of the Commission felt would be useful to circulate as a document of the Security Council.

I would be grateful if you could bring the attached report to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

(Signed) Ban Ki-moon

Twenty-seventh Report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission

1. This is the twenty-seventh and final report of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, covering the period from 1 January to 25 August 2008. The previous report covered the period from 27 September to 31 December 27 (S/2008/40, annex II).

2. In its previous report, the Commission recalled the terms of paragraph 22 of its Statement of 27 November 2006 ("the Statement") and noted that, its meeting with the parties of 6 and 7 September 2007 notwithstanding, no progress had been made towards the construction of boundary pillars in the manner foreseen in the Statement. Noting the positions of the parties as expressed in letters of the Government of Eritrea dated 19 and 29 November 2007 and the letter of the Government of Ethiopia dated 29 November 2007, the Commission reaffirmed the considerations of fact and the statements of law set out in its Statement, and emphasized that the Delimitation Decision of April 2002 and the Statement of 27 November 2006 remained binding on the parties.

3. The Commission notes that, pursuant to articles 4 (4) and 4 (6) of the Algiers Agreement, Ethiopia had until 4 January 2008 in which it might appoint a substitute Commissioner for Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC. Ethiopia informed the Commission that it did not consider it necessary to appoint a replacement. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has not exercised his power of appointment pursuant to article 4 (4) of the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000.

4. As noted in its previous report, the Commission considers that it has fulfilled the mandate given to it. The Commission notes that the following administrative matters connected with the termination of its mandate have now been concluded:

(a) On 17 January 2008, a copy of the maps illustrating the points identified in the annex to the 27 November 2006 Statement was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Another copy for public reference has been retained in the office of the United Nations Cartographer.

(b) As the Commission noted in its previous report, Ethiopia continues to be in arrears of its share of the Commission’s expenses, in breach of Article 4 (17) of the Algiers Agreement. A final financial account shall be transmitted to the parties and the remaining funds held on deposit shall be returned to the United Nations Trust Fund.

5. On 18 June 2008 the Commission sent a letter to the parties stating that:

"It is now over six months since the expiry of the period which the Commission indicated in its Statement of 27 November 2006 and during which the Commission had hoped that the parties would either themselves proceed to the placing of pillars on the ground or allow the Commission to do so. As there has been no communication from the parties, the Commission must now reach the conclusion that the boundary stands demarcated in accordance with the coordinates annexed to that Statement, that no further activity on its part is called for, and that it should therefore take the few final steps involved in winding up its operations, These include the return of physical assets to the United Nations and the preparation of final accounts.

6. On 1 July 2008, Eritrea responded to the Commission’s letter, stating:

"The meeting that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission convened with the parties in The Hague on 6 September 2007 to move the process forward was not successful because Ethiopia was still not prepared to accommodate the requirements that the Commission stipulated. While Ethiopia’s refusal to comply with the Commission’s delimitation and demarcation decisions is unfortunate, it in no way undermines the final and binding nature of the Commission’s conclusions.

"When Ethiopia refused to come into compliance within the specified one year period, the Secretary of the Boundary Commission dispatched to the parties 45 maps, on a scale of 1:25,000, containing the demarcation of the boundary by coordinates.

"Eritrea considers that the mandate of the Boundary Commission has been fulfilled as of that time. In this spirit, Eritrea has and continues to press the United Nations Security Council to exercise its legal authority of enforcing the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission.

"Eritrea wishes at this point to reiterate its gratitude for the Commission in fulfilling its mandate under these difficult conditions."

7. A copy of Eritrea’s letter of 1 July 2008 is annexed to the present report. Ethiopia did not respond to the Commission’s 18 June 2008 letter within the above time period.

8. Since the Commission has now concluded all administrative matters connected with the termination of its mandate, it now considers itself functus officio.

(Signed)
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC
25 August 2008

Annex

Letter Dated 1 July 2008 from Eritrea to the Eritrea – Ethiopia Boundary Commission

Thank you very much for your letter of 18 June 2008 concerning the Boundary Commission’s winding up of its operations.

As emphasized in my letter to you of 29 November 2007, Eritrea has consistently supported the work of the Commission and has from the outset recognized (as required by the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000) the Commission’s delimitation and demarcation decisions as authoritative. As stated in article 4, paragraph 15: "The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding."

Eritrea remains committed to this principle and to all of the "delimitation and demarcation determinations" to which this paragraph refers. As my letter of 29 November 2007 clearly states, this includes not only the Commission’s delimitation and demarcation decisions in general but also the Commission’s coordinates:

Eritrea acknowledges as both final and valid the coordinates that the Commission has specified and believes that these coordinates are as binding as other Commission decisions.

In its communication to the parties on 27 November 2006, the Commission notified the parties that it "cannot remain in existence indefinitely". The Commission had further noted:

"If, by the end of that period [November 2007], the parties have not by themselves reached the necessary agreement and proceeded significantly to implement it, or have not requested and enabled the Commission to resume its activity, the Commission hereby determines that the boundary will automatically stand as demarcated by the boundary points listed in the annex hereto and that the mandate of the Commission can then be regarded as fulfilled."

The meeting that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission convened with the parties in The Hague on 6 September 2007 to move the process forward was not successful because Ethiopia was still not prepared to accommodate the requirements that the Commission stipulated. While Ethiopia’s refusal to comply with the Commission’s delimitation and demarcation decisions is unfortunate, it in no way undermines the final and binding nature of the Commission’s conclusions.

When Ethiopia refused to come into compliance within the specified one-year period, the Secretary of the Boundary Commission dispatched to the parties 45 maps, on a scale of 1:25,000, containing the demarcation of the boundary by coordinates.

Eritrea considers that the mandate of the Boundary Commission has been fulfilled as of that time. In this spirit, Eritrea has and continues to press the United Nations Security Council to exercise its legal authority of enforcing the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission (letter dated 18 June 2008 from President Isaias Afwerki to the President of the Security Council attached (see

(Signed)
Professor Lea Brilmayer
Legal Adviser to the Office of the President
Asmara, Eritrea

Enclosure

Letter Dated 18 June 2008 from the President of Eritrea to the President of the Security Council

I have noted the contents of your letter dated 10 June 2008, which states that "the Security Council is considering the terms of a future United Nations engagement, including through a possible further United Nations presence in Ethiopia and Eritrea".

As has been clarified on a number of occasions (S/2008/287, S/2008/200, S/2008/68, S/2008/54, among others) the Temporary Security Zone that was established by the Algiers Agreement has fulfilled its purpose, namely, to serve as a temporary buffer zone until the border between the two countries could be demarcated. The Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission has completed its task by demarcating its final and binding award thereby effectively ending the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea and its oversight of the Temporary Security Zone. In the event, Eritrea strongly believes the key to regional peace and stability is the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from sovereign Eritrean territory.

Indeed, article 4.15 of the Algiers Agreement states: "The Parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding. Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party".

Needless to emphasize, the United Nations cannot have legal authority to legitimize occupation under the rubric of engagement. Going forward from this point requires exclusive focus on the provision cited above.

(Signed)
Isaias Afwerki