Saturday, 30 November 2013
News Report: Obamacare Begins With Maintenance Shutdown
Credit: Reuters
A crucial weekend for
the troubled website that is the backbone of President Barack Obama's
healthcare overhaul appears to be off to a shaky start, as the U.S. government
took the HealthCare.gov site offline for an unusually long maintenance period
into Saturday morning.
Just hours before the
Obama administration's self-imposed deadline to get the insurance shopping
website working for the "vast majority" of its users by Saturday, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it was taking
down the website for an 11-hour period that would end at 8 a.m. EST (1300 GMT)
on Saturday.
It was unclear whether
the extended shutdown of the website - about seven hours longer than on typical
day - represented a major setback to the Obama administration's high-stakes
scramble to fix the portal that it hopes eventually will enroll about 7 million
uninsured and under-insured Americans under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
At the very least, the
shutdown suggested that nine weeks after the website's disastrous launch on
Oct. 1 prevented most applicants from enrolling in coverage and ignited one of
the biggest crises of Obama's administration, U.S. officials are nervous over
whether Americans will see enough progress in the website to be satisfied.
For the administration
and its Democratic allies, the stakes are enormous.
The healthcare overhaul
is Obama's signature domestic achievement, a program designed to extend
coverage to millions of Americans and reduce healthcare costs. To work, the
program must enroll millions of young, healthy consumers whose participation in
the new insurance exchanges is key to keeping costs in check.
After weeks of
round-the-clock upgrades of software and hardware, Obama officials said they
were poised to successfully double its capacity by this weekend, to be able to
handle 50,000 insurance shoppers at one time.
But if the website does
not work for the "vast majority" of visitors this weekend as the
administration has promised, uninsured Americans from 36 states could face
problems getting coverage by an initial Dec. 23 deadline.
It also could create
ripples that extend to the 2014 elections when control of the U.S. House of
Representatives (now controlled by Republicans) and the Senate (now led by Democrats)
will be up for grabs.
Obama's fellow Democrats
who are up for re-election in Congress already have shown signs of distancing
themselves from the president and his healthcare program. If the website does
not show significant improvement soon, some Democrats - particularly the dozen
U.S. senators who are from states led by conservative Republicans and who are
up for re-election next year - might call for extending Obamacare's final March
31 enrollment deadline for 2014.
That would delay the
fines that are mandated by the law for those who do not have insurance by that
date, a scenario that insurers say would destabilize the market. It also would
fuel Republicans' arguments that Obamacare, and its website, are fatally flawed
and should be scrapped.
In broader political
terms, the website's immediate success has become vital to Obama's credibility,
which polls indicate has been tarnished by the site's problems as well as
Obama's admission that he overreached in promising that everyone who liked
their healthcare plan would be able to keep it under the new law.
Obama has been forced to
apologize for oversimplying how the law would affect certain Americans, and has
acknowledged being embarrassed and frustrated by the website's failures. Recent
polls have shown that Obama's approval ratings are at the lowest point of his
presidency.
"It is a lot harder
to reboot public trust than it is to reboot software," said David Brailer,
chief executive of the Health Evolution Partners private equity firm and a
former health official in George W. Bush's administration.
"But the good thing
about when you're down is that usually, you got nowhere to go but up,"
Obama said in an interview that aired on Friday on ABC.
Is It Fixed? Hard To
Tell:
Several technology
specialists told Reuters that it will be difficult to independently assess on
Saturday whether the HealthCare.gov site has met the administration's goals of
functioning for most users most of the time, including handling 50,000 users at
once.
"There won't be
anything you can tell from the outside," said Jonathan Wu, an information
technology expert and co-founder of the consumer financial website
ValuePenguin.
When the site opened for
enrollment on Oct. 1, many users found that they could not complete the simple
task of creating an account. Now, the website is functioning better but any
remaining problems lie much deeper within the site, Wu said in an interview.
Eleventh-hour checks
were not encouraging, said Matthew Hancock, an independent expert in software
design who said he could tell within hours of the site's launch that its
problems were the results of poor system design and bugs, rather than the heavy
traffic that the administration blamed initially.
"I have tested the
site every several days trying to buy a health insurance plan, but haven't been
able to," Hancock said.
"I think the issues
the site faces now are more complex to diagnose from the front end, whereas
before the site was immediately failing and returning error details," he
said.
Questions also remain
about the website's ability to direct payments to private insurance companies
when consumers enroll in their plans. Portions of the system handling those
functions are still being built, officials say.
"The real tests
are: Were my premium payment and subsidy accurately calculated? Am I getting
the coverage I signed up for? If my income situation changes, will the
reconciliation occur in a timely fashion?" said Rick Howard, a research
director at technology consultant Gartner.
A Date And A Number:
Heading into this
weekend, administration officials tasked with rescuing Obamacare showed signs
of confidence that the series of fixes by tech specialists would work.
The officials gave a
"virtual tour" of what they had branded the "tech surge" to
a group of White House reporters.
The White House also
invited a group of IT specialists to tour the website's "command
center," where an engineer on unpaid leave from Google Inc directs
disparate contractors and monitors their progress.
It was a convincing show
that the team had the crisis under control, said John Engates, chief technology
officer at Rackspace, a web hosting firm in San Antonio, who participated.
Engates, who had been
publicly critical of the launch, said he felt it was likely the website would
be able to handle 50,000 concurrent users on Saturday, although he did not know
for sure.
"Whenever you have
a date and a number, you need to be pretty sure that you can hit that date and
that number," Engates told Reuters.
"It's just another
loss of confidence if you don't make it."
Friday, 29 November 2013
Article: Eritrea-Ethiopia Virtual Demarcation Is Legal And Enforceable
By SophiaTesfamariam
It is
hypocritical of the US Administration and its allies, to preach about the rule
of law and human rights, while it has abused its international diplomatic and
military influence to undermine the rights of the Eritrean people to live in
peace within their own internationally recognized borders. It is also
hypocritical to raise issues such as “prolonged national service”, “right to
leave their country”, “excessive militarization” etc. etc. while it has
encouraged the 12-year long occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories.
Surely, the US and its allies cannot possibly believe that they are better
poised to know what the people of Eritrea want and need…as there is no track
record to prove it. There is instead a 100 long and bloody years history of
subjugation and terror, of gross violations of their human rights, a denial of
their rights to self-determination and independence, as they appeased successive
Ethiopian regimes.
For
today, let us re-visit the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue and specifically, the
demarcation decisions of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission which the US
and its allies on the Security Council have decided to “kill” or put on the
back burner, emboldening the minority regime in Ethiopia to continue with its
occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories. As we shall see below, the
“concerns” raised by the various states on the Security Council have been
rendered moot, but more importantly the excuses made for not accepting the
EEBC’s demarcation decisions, that there is no precedence, or that it is “legal
nonsense” have been found to be disingenuous.
When
the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) delivered its Final and Binding
Delimitation Decision on 13 April 2002, Kofi Annan and the Security Council
welcomed the Boundary Commission's ruling, and hailed it as a "final legal
settlement" of the Eritrea Ethiopia border dispute. Welcoming the decision
as "an important milestone in the peace process", Kofi Annan lauded
the parties for their "continued and consistent reaffirmation" that
the ruling was final and binding, in accordance with the Algiers Peace
Agreement of December 2000. In its Press Statement read by Sergey Lavrov
(Russian Federation), President of the Security Council, on the decision of the
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission on 16 April 2002 it said:
"…Members of the Security Council express their satisfaction
that a final legal settlement of the border issues between Ethiopia and Eritrea
has been completed in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed
by the parties in Algiers in December 2000.Members of the Security Council
welcome the decision by the Boundary Commission, announced in The Hague on 13
April 2002, which is final and binding. Members of the Security Council
underline their commitment to support the implementation of the Boundary
Commission's decision and to contribute to the completion of the peace
process…"
Eritrea
accepted the verdict and while Ethiopia accepted it at first, only to turn
around and reject it as being “illegal, unjust and irresponsible”. The EEBC had
“unequivocally” awarded Badme (the casus bellie for the Eritrea Ethiopia border
conflict) to Eritrea, and Ethiopia refused to accept that decision. That began
a five year long campaign to amend, revise, re-visit and revise the EEBC’s
decision. Ever since the independent Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission
rendered its final and binding decision on 13 April 2002, the minority regime
in Ethiopia and its handlers have been trying to amend, revise and revisit that
decision.
After
waiting for over 5 years, the EEBC, due to Ethiopia’s refusal to allow for the
expeditious demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border in accordance with the
Final and Binding EEBC decision, the Commission closed its offices and left the
area. The Commission in its November 2006 Statement said that it was “ obliged
to adopt another approach to effect the demarcation of the border” and complete
its mandate to demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia by placing coordinates on maps
“virtual demarcation”, as opposed to pillars on the ground. The EEBC, in its
Statement of 27 November 2006 explained its methodology:
“…Modern techniques of image processing and terrain modelling make
it possible, in conjunction with the use of high resolution aerial photography,
to demarcate the course of the boundary by identifying the location of turning
points (hereinafter called “boundary points”) by both grid and geographical
coordinates with a degree of accuracy that does not differ significantly from
pillar site assessment and emplacement undertaken in the field. The Commission
has therefore identified by these means the location of points for the
emplacement of pillars as a physical manifestation of the boundary on the
ground… Although these techniques have been available for some time, the
Commission has not resorted to them because the actual fixing of boundary
pillars, if at all possible, was the demarcation method of first choice.
However, it is only possible to demarcate a boundary by the fixing of boundary
pillars with the full cooperation of both the States concerned…”
On the
same day, the EEBC sent a letter to the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry. It was in
response to a letter sent by the regime to the EEBC and circulated at the
Security Council. In that letter the EEBC responded to Ethiopia’s tantrums by
stating the following:
“…This was not the first time that the Security Council has called
on Ethiopia to fulfil its obligations in respect of the Demarcation Decision.
Nor is Ethiopia’s failure to respond positively to such a call the first time
that it has disregarded the call of the Security Council. It is a matter of
regret that Ethiopia has so persistently maintained a position of
non-compliance with its obligations in relation to the Commission… There is
no basis for the suggestion that the Commission has been appeasing Eritrea. Nor
can such a suggestion, however unfounded, obscure the fact that Ethiopia has
itself been in breach of its obligations under the Algiers Agreement in several
important respects…The truth of the matter appears to be that Ethiopia is
dissatisfied with the substance of the Commission’s Delimitation Decision and
has been seeking, ever since April 2002, to find ways of changing it… I regret
that it has been necessary to address you in such direct terms but your letter
— and the publicity that you have given it — have left me with no alternative.
It would be unacceptable for an international tribunal to be exposed to the
kind of criticism which you have lodged without replying to it in necessary
detail…”
Ethiopia
and its handlers conducted an orchestrated diplomatic blitz to stop the EEBC
from moving forward with the new approach. As the American Embassy cables
mentioned below show, there was never any genuine effort by the US and its
partners to urge Ethiopia to abide by the rule of law. Instead, they promised
to support Ethiopia’s intransigence and prevent the UN Security Council from
taking any punitive actions against the belligerent regime. This undermines the
credibility, integrity, neutrality and efficacy of the UN Security Council and
undermines the confidence of member states who will rely on its judiciousness
and impartiality in resolving border disputes in the future.
On 30
November 2007 speaking to Voice of America’s (VoA) Peter Heinlein about the
“virtual demarcation” of the Eritrea Ethiopia border, Meles Zenawi said:
“…As far as the virtual demarcation of the boundary is concerned,
I have heard well-respected diplomats and lawyers describe it as 'legal
nonsense'…Our lawyers agree with such characterization. Until the boundary is
demarcated on the ground, it is not demarcated. As soon as it is demarcated,
there will be relocation of administrations, police and so forth. But not
before that. Only after actual demarcation on the ground. And we prefer to
engage the Eritrean side in pushing forwards toward demarcation...”
Interesting
that Meles Zenawi would insist on demarcation on the ground when it was his
regime that prevented the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) from
doing just that.
Meles
Zenawi presumed to know more about the law than the distinguished members of
the Boundary Commission and in a letter dated 27 November 2007, Ethiopia
asserted that the demarcation coordinates set out in the Commission’s Statement
of 27 November 2006 “are invalid because they are not the product of a
demarcation process recognized by international law”.
Again,
in its 18 January 2008 letter to the President of the Security Council Ethiopia
claimed that virtual demarcation had “no validity in international law” and
that the coordinates are invalid “because they are not the product of a
demarcation process recognized by international law.” The regime’s lawyers and
“respected diplomats” must know that while placing pillars is accepted
practice, not all international borders are demarcated with pillars. New
technologies bring new methods and approaches…As the EEBC said in its eloquent
statement of 2006, “the feasibility and acceptability of the use of coordinates
alone as a means of identifying international boundaries is clearly affirmed by
the manner in which the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea deals
with the limits of maritime claims by States.
Kathleen
Claussen in “Invisible borders: Mapping out Virtual Law” dismisses Ethiopia’s
arguments about precedence and legality of the approach used by the EEBC:
“…The actual process of carrying out all the calculations and
measurements necessary for virtual demarcation varies depending on the
technology employed. The most accurate and reliable method available today is
stereophotogrammetry…Stereophotogrammetry is commonly used for marking points
where it would be impossible to emplace monuments, such as on mountain tops.
Geographers use stereophotogrammetry to ascertain a point that parties agree to
on the basis of a particular set of stereo reference data. Thus, Ethiopia’s
claim that there is no precedent for this type of demarcation is incorrect to
the extent that stereophotogrammetry is used in these remote areas… With the
precision and permanency of these geographic coordinates, this system would far
out-last any monument and be less subject to abuse… many international lawyers
concede that the monumentation principle is not, in fact, required by law. It
is a purely technical operation of minor importance…”
The
regime in Ethiopia has been emboldened by the US led international community to
flout international law and the EEBC’s final and binding delimitation and
demarcation decisions. Judging from the list of apologists the Ethiopian Prime
Minister relied on for political and diplomatic advice and support in the past,
we will once again see that the “well respected” diplomats are almost all from
the United States and Europe. As for his lawyers, they are the same lawyers who
advised him that the EEBC decision was “illegal, unjust and irresponsible”, the
same decision that he was forced to grudgingly accept.
So who
were these “well respected diplomats” who were advising Ethiopia and preventing
the Security Council from taking punitive actions against the regime for it
occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories for the last 12 years?
For
that we will refer to the US Embassy cables as they are the most definitive-not
hearsay or innuendos-straight from the horse’s mouth as they say…
§ A/S
FRAZER DISCUSSES SUDAN AND SOMALIA WITH FCO, DFID- 27 November 2006
According
to this cable:
“…In meetings with FCO Minister for Africa Lord Triesman November
21 and Secretary of State for International Development Hilary Benn the next
day, AF A/S Frazer stressed the need to adopt a UNSCR on Somalia flexible
enough that frontline states could play a positive role. She also floated
the suggestion of a UK-Norway initiative to break the deadlock in the
Eritrea/Ethiopia boundary dispute…”
That is
her way of saying, let Ethiopia-a front line state- have a role in Somalia… she
also tries to bring to the table another “initiative”-a time buying gimmick to
appease the regime in Ethiopia. The cable goes on:
“…A/S Frazer expressed appreciation for Lord Triesman's earlier
offer of whatever support the UK might be able to provide to facilitate
resolution of the Eritrea/Ethiopia boundary dispute, including use of the
prestigious Lancaster House where historic agreements have been concluded in
the past. She said the USG has tried to revive the Boundary Commission
process, but Isaias would not engage. Triesman admitted he was not sure
who could get Isaias to respond positively, and Lloyd added "it's not clear
we're the right people," because Eritrea sees the UK as biased in favor of
Ethiopia. Triesman was open to Dr. Frazer's suggestion of a possible
co-chair arrangement involving the UK and Norway. Both sides agreed
that the Boundary Commission's intent to proceed with "virtual
demarcation" would do more harm than good. The British indicated
they were working indirectly to nudge the Commissioners away from that course
of action…”
§ ERITREA-ETHIOPIA
BORDER IMPASSE: DEMARCHE RESPONSE[2]-11 June
2007 -NORWAY
According
to this cable, US diplomats:
“…discussed the Eritrea-Ethiopia border with Norwegian Deputy
Permanent Representative Juul in the run-up to the November 27 deadline for
demarcation by coordinates as imposed by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
Commission (EEBC)… PolMinCouns and Poloff presented reftel demarche on June 5
to Norwegian Deputy PermRep Mona Juul, Military Advisor Arve Lauritzen and
Political Counselor Berit Enge. Juul reported on a meeting between Norwegian
Minister of State Raymond Johanson and Eritrean President Isaias in Asmara on
May 30, which she described as a "frank, open discussion," which
nevertheless revealed that "not much had changed" on Isaias'
part. Johanson and Isaias had spoken about "virtual
demarcation" of the border, but Isaias had insisted that there be
"stakes in the ground" before any dialogue with Ethiopia could
begin. Juul said that Johanson's arguments for an economic normalization
of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea had not resonated with
Isaias…PolMinsCouns asked if Isaias had given any indication of Eritrean
intentions if demarcation by coordinates were to take place upon the EEBC's
scheduled departure in November, stressing that a major U.S. concern was what
would happen after November. Juul said Isaias had downplayed any threat of
war and had blamed the escalation of tensions squarely on Ethiopia…”
§ UNSC—ENGAGING
INDONESIA ON ETHIOPIA-ERITREA AND UNMEE REPORT -7 November 2007-INDONESIA
“…Pol/C reviewed reftel points with Harry Purwanto, Director for
North American Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEPLU), November
8. Pol/C--noting ongoing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea--urged
Indonesia to avoid commenting publicly on the substantive merits of any
decision by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). He also stressed
the need for countries to avoid putting any pressure on either country to take
any specific action re the EEBC's decisions or decision-making process…Purwanto
expressed appreciation for the information and said he had so far not been
aware of the issue. He said he would review the matter with relevant
DEPLU officials using USG-provided points. Purwanto seriously doubted
whether Indonesian officials would make any public statements on the
Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue or on the work of the EEBC…”
§ SUBJECT:
ERITREA/ETHIOPIA: FRANCE CONCURS ON APPROACH FOR UNSC MEETING -9 November
2007
“…Africa Watcher conveyed reftel demarche to MFA AF DAS for East
Africa Helene Le Gal on November 8. Le Gal commented that France agreed
on the need to support U/SYG Pascoe’s efforts and to allow space for the
parties alone, as signatories of the Algiers Agreements, to decide the effect
of and whether to implement the EEBC’s virtual demarcation decision…Maintaining
that American and French views were similar, Le Gal expressed dissatisfaction
with the plan of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) for virtual
demarcation of the border by map coordinates at the end of November. Le
Gal’s core objection was that the EEBC, which she called a valuable independent
instrument, intended to disband after virtual demarcation. Without the
EEBC, there would be a need either to reinvent it by establishing a new
international body or some sort to monitor the crisis or else the Security
Council itself would need to play a more frontline role, which could further
escalate tensions. It was unlikely, however, that the French delegation
would voice criticisms of the EEBC plan when the UNSC meets to consider the
situation…”
SLOVAKIA REQUESTS CLARIFICATION ON UNMEE DEMARCHE -9 November
2009
“…Poloff delivered reftel demarche to Ambassador Vladimir Lomen at
the UNSC Coordination Unit at MFA. Lomen promised to share US concerns within
the MFA and with Slovakia's mission to the UN. Lomen opined that encouraging
UNSC members to avoid statements on the merits of the EEBC's demarcation
decision and to avoid putting any pressure on Ethiopia or Eritrea to take
specific steps to implement that decision is a departure from past US policy on
this issue. …Lomen said Slovak policy on this issue would likely be made in New
York, and encouraged Poloff to have USUN offer a more clear explanation of the
reasons for this request to Slovakia's mission to the UN…”
EEBC: ITALY IN AGREEMENT WITH U.S. ON APPROACH TOWARD NOVEMBER
30 DEADLINE -17 November 2007
“…Poloff delivered reftel demarche to MFA East Africa Office
Director Fabrizio Pignatelli November 15. Poloff sought Italian agreement
on a unified approach to avoid pressure on Ethiopia and Eritrea to implement
the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) “virtual demarcation” of the
border by map coordinates. Pignatelli agreed enthusiastically with our
points. He said Italy fully supports UN Under Secretary General Lynn
Pascoe’s attempts to mediate the conflict, saying it was our best chance for
lowering tensions and resolving the disputes between the parties…Pignatelli
said he thought the conflict now boiled down to a question of face saving for
both sides. Given Eritrea’s declaration in September that it would begin
to remove its military forces from the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) as soon as
demarcation begins, Pignatelli saw some room for hope, if enough trust could be
restored to allow simultaneous commencement of demarcation on the ground and
the removal of Eritrean troops from the TSZ. To supervise such a
coordinated, simultaneous action, Pignatelli thought it might be possible to
extend the mandate of the EEBC with the consent of both parties…”
RUSSIA CONCERNED ABOUT POSSIBILITY FOR VIOLENCE IN THE HORN OF
AFRICA-21 November 2007
“…MFA International Organizations Counselor Albert Sitnikov told
us on November 20 that while the GOR supported UNSC Presidential Statement 9169
urging both Ethiopia and Eritrea to accept and implement the EEBC’s delineation
decision “without preconditions,” the GOR was opposed to the EEBC’s idea of
“virtual demarcation” and believed it may lead to violence. According
to Sitnikov, Lavrov called virtual demarcation “legal nonsense.” The GOR
believed virtual demarcation falls outside of the Algiers Agreement and that it
was up to involved parties how to demarcate the border. He said Russia
would have to support Ethiopian withdrawal from the agreement were the EEBC to
insist upon virtual demarcation…Deputy Director for Africa Nikolai
Ratsiborinskiy told us the EEBC’s current proposal had paralyzed the
situation. He noted that Lavrov had stated publicly that a virtual
demarcation could destabilize the entire region, and the GOR believed signals
from Asmara and Addis Ababa had hinted at their readiness to resume
conflict…Commenting on the November 7 visit of Ethiopian FM Seyoum,
Ratsiborinskiy said Lavrov told Seyoum privately the GOR would support
Ethiopia’s opposition to virtual demarcation in the UNSC, but also warned
Seyoum about statements and actions that could destabilize the fragile
situation…GOR support for the UN Presidential Statement was carefully worded
to support “delineation,” not “demarcation.” If Ethiopia does not recognize the
EEBC’s virtual demarcation, the GOR has said it will be prepared to take its
side in a UNSC debate…”
The US
Embassy cables clearly show that, instead of upholding the rule of law and
urging Ethiopia to abide by its treaty obligations, the United State and its
allies were instead using their diplomatic clout to undermine the EEBC and its
decisions regarding the Eritrea Ethiopia border. That does not bode well for
peace, stability and security in our region, and it certainly does not give
states much confidence in the UN Security Council (UNSC) and its ability to
shoulder its moral and legal responsibilities. With so many new states
being created and border conflicts on the rise, the UNSC will find itself
irrelevant on issues relating to delimitation and demarcation of
borders-matters of peace and security-its raison d'etre...
So is
virtual demarcation “legal nonsense”?
No it
is not and it is also not something Eritrea secretly created in the mountains
of Sahel…it is a widely used method, and a preferred method as it is the most
accurate… The coordinate-only demarcation method is of equal validity to that
of erecting monuments or pillars.
As in
all other aspects of our lives that have been affected positively by advanced
technology and know-how, so has boundary-marking. Technology and
necessity have produced an alternative methodology. Simply discounting the new
technology, especially by states where these technologies emerged from, is
quite puzzling.
For
reasons that are still unclear to all that have been following developments in
the region, the Security Council, despite the fact that the EEBC has deposited
the documents with the UN, remains mum on the issue. The Security Council
endorsed the "virtual demarcation' of the Iraq-Kuwait border and enforced
its decision. Why is it then employing double standards today on the EEBC's
demarcation decisions? As we shall see below and has been attested to by
Independent observers, the composition of the EEBC is more "legal"
and impartial than the one created by the UN Secretary General in the case of
Iraq-Kuwait.
The
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established pursuant to the 12
December 2000 Algiers Peace Agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia and its
mandate was clearly spelled out in that Agreement. According to Article 4.15 of
the Algiers Agreement:
"…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…
The
parties handpicked the Commissioners after extensive vetting. Out of the 5
members of the EEBC, only one of the Commissioners was a UN appointee. The
parties appointed 2 Commissioners each. The four Commissioners appointed by the
parties were: Prince Bola Adesumbo Ajibola (appointed by Ethiopia), Professor
W. Michael Reisman (appointed by Eritrea), Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (appointed
by Eritrea) and Sir Arthur Watts, KCMG QC (appointed by Ethiopia). UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan appointed Sir Elihu Lauterpacht as the President. The UN
Cartographer served as the Secretary to the Commission.
On the
other hand, the UN Iraq Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission (UNIKBDC) was
not established by the two parties to the conflict as required by international
law and the UN Charter. It was established pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Resolution 687 adopted by the Security Council on 3 April 1991. Its mandate was
also not agreed upon independently by the two parties, it was determined by the
Secretary General as his 2 May 1991 Report to the Security Council will show.
In that Report, Secretary General Javier Perez De Cuellar wrote:
"…After consultation with the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait,
I will now establish a Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission to be
composed of one representative each of Iraq and Kuwait and three independent
experts who will be appointed by me, one of which will serve as Chairman. The
terms of reference of the Commission will be to demarcate in geographical
coordinates of latitude and longitude the international boundary set out in the
agreed Minutes between Kuwait and Iraq. The coordinates established by the
Commission will constitute the final demarcation of the international boundary
between Iraq and Kuwait. The Commission will take its decisions by majority.
Its decisions regarding the demarcation of the border will be final…"
The
Secretary General appointed Mr. Mochtar Kusuma-Atmadja, former Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Indonesia as Chairman, Mr. Ian Brook, then Technical
Director, Swedsurvey, National Land Survey of Sweden, and Mr. William
Robertson, General/Director General of the Department of Survey and Land
Information of New Zealand, as independent experts. Ambassador Riyadh Al-Qaysi
represented Iraq and Ambassador Tarek A.Razzouki represented Kuwait. Mr. Miklos
Pinter, Chief Cartographer of the United Nations Secretariat, was appointed
Secretary to the Commission. The UN Secretary General spelled out UNIKBDC's
mandate. The delimitation formula was the 1932 Exchange of letters between the Prime
Minister of Iraq and the Ruler of Kuwait.
As we
can see above, while the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission was set up in
accordance with general practice and parity, the UN Iraq Kuwait Boundary
Demarcation Commission was not. Whilst the EEBC's impartiality, independence
and clear and coherent mandate was hailed and accepted by Eritrea, Ethiopia and
the international community, including the Security Council, the same cannot be
said about the independence and neutrality of UNIKBDC, its constitution or its
politically motivated mandate.
Despite
Iraq's expressed reservations about the composition of the Commission, its
mandate and its legality, succumbing to international pressure (Operation
Desert Storm) it reluctantly accepted the terms and conditions set forth in
Resolution 687. Suffice it to mention an excerpt from a letter dated 23 April
1991 sent by Ahmed Hussein, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, to the Secretary
General to illustrate Iraq's frustration with the Security Council and
Resolution 687's legality. The Iraqi Minister wrote:
"...just as we accepted resolution 687 (!991) despite our
objections of and criticisms of its provisions, we will cooperate with you and
nominate a representative of our government to participate in the Demarcation
Commission, even if you take no account of the views and comments expressed
above. We do this because the circumstances forcing our acceptance
persists..."
The
Secretary General was fulfilling a request by the Security Council to establish
the Boundary Demarcation Commission. In responding to Iraq's reservations about
the proposed Commission and its mandate, the Secretary General was keen on
stressing the Commission's independence and methodology, in an attempt to
assure Iraq of the Commission's neutrality, in his 30 April 1991 letter to the
Iraqi Foreign Minister, Javier Perez De Cuellar wrote:
"…It is up to the Commission to examine and identify the
relevant documentation and to determine which technology or combination of can
best be used for the fulfillment of its mandate. In my view, it would prejudice
the work of the Commission and even hinder its independence if I were to go
beyond the level of detail concerning the working methods of the Boundary
Commission set out in my draft report…"
There
were many that questioned Resolution 687's neutrality and legality, but were
powerless to do anything about it. Not only was it in contravention of Article
33 of the UN Charter and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial
integrity, it also contradicted the Council's own Resolution 660 of 1990, which
called on Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences through negotiations. It
was cited as "the first in the annals of the international
organization" and it raised many concerns and questions amongst the impartial
members of the Security Council.
Article
33 of the UN charter is very clear as to what needs to be done when there is a
dispute between member states. The Security Council does not have the mandate
to amend, revise, revisit or change Agreements signed by two sovereign states.
Many
independent observers and legal analysts considered Resolution 687 an immoral
and politically motivated Resolution and one that was clearly ultra vires of
the Security Council's mandate under the UN Charter-even if it was acting under
Chapter VII. The Resolution was labeled "iniquitous" and legal
experts and analysts voiced their concerns and concurred that it constituted
"a dangerous legal precedent". Nonetheless, the Boundary Commission
was allowed to execute its mandate and the Security Council immediately
endorsed its demarcation decisions when delivered.
By its
Resolution 833 (1993) adopted on 27 May 1993, the Security Council:
"…Welcomes also the successful conclusion of the work of the
Commission. Reaffirms that the decisions of the Commission regarding the
demarcation of the boundary are final; Demands that Iraq and Kuwait in
accordance with international law and relevant Security Council resolutions
respect the inviolability of the international boundary, as demarcated by the Commission,
and the right to navigational access; Underlines and reaffirms its decision to
guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international
boundary…"
As the
EEBC noted in its Statement, “No doubt was expressed as to the legal
acceptability of a “demarcation” by means of a list of coordinates”. The
Security Council not only endorsed the UN Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation
decisions, it also guaranteed its inviolability. The Security Council went on
to enforce that decision and today Iraq and Kuwait have a secure and
internationally recognized boundary. Ditto for Israel and Jordan.
Politics
aside, what is important to note in this case is the fact that the terms of
reference in the Iraq-Kuwait border demarcation provided that the international
boundary be demarcated in geographical coordinates of latitude and longitude,
as well as physical representations on the ground. The coordinates for the land
boundary are physically demarcated by 106 monuments, approximately 2km apart,
and 28 intermediate markers.
If
virtual demarcation is "legal nonsense" or has no legal
applicability, why did the Security Council accept the UN Iraq-Kuwait Boundary
Demarcation Commission's decision and endorse the virtual demarcation of the
Iraq-Kuwait border and make efforts to enforce it?
If it
managed to come up with mechanisms to enforce the inviolability of the
Iraq-Kuwait international border, why can't it also enforce the inviolability
of the Eritrea Ethiopia border?
If the
Security Council can endorse a decision delivered by a legally questionable
body and enforce its decisions, why is it reluctant to endorse and enforce the
EEBC decision when by all accounts and when compared, the EEBC is not only more
independent and impartial but also one that both parties to the conflict chose
and established?
Eritrea
intends to take advantage of all technological advances to develop its war torn
economy, to increase food production and ensure food security, and to develop
its human and economic infrastructures etc. Eritrea understands that with
advances in technology, there will be many changes in the methods used in
various sectors including agriculture, education, communication, and a new
approach to demarcation is no different. If the minority regime Ethiopia wants
to remain in the dark ages, that is their choice, and the UN Security Council
can help educate the backward regime and bring it to the modern. It should not
be party to its ignobility and backwardness.
Surely,
if Eritrea, a developing nation understands and accepts these new and
innovative methods available for demarcating borders, and if the EEBC, a sound
legal body composed of experienced legal scholars, also accepts them, what is
preventing the UN Security Council and especially the United States and
European states on the Council from accepting the EEBC’s demarcation decisions?
Kathleen
Claussen writes:
“…The monumentation [pillars on the ground] approach might have
made sense when no other means were available; however, in the twenty-first
century, when the law has kept pace with technology in other areas of science,
border demarcation should do the same. Moreover, inconsistencies among boundary
commissions and the variety of state methodologies indicate a need for
harmonization in order to clarify and establish coherent legal norms in this
field. Virtual demarcation achieves that…The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
Commission has signaled a new approach for border-marking that, at the very
least, merits jurisprudential and institutional consideration and has the
potential to revolutionize boundary-marking and boundary-making…”
Ethiopia
threatened to pull out of the Algiers Agreements and the US and its allies
buckled…the fact is that boundaries remain even if treaties that created them,
like the Colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908 that served as the basis for
the delimitation decisions of the EEBC, are no longer in force.
Enforcing the
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission's demarcation decisions and calling on
Ethiopia to vacate from sovereign Eritrean territories will go a long way in
improving the lives of the people in both countries. The US led international
community cannot decry the plight of Eritrean economic refugees and asylum
seekers, and the "prolonged national service" in Eritrea, while
refusing to address the cause of their discontent-the occupation of sovereign
Eritrean territories and the economic and other sanctions placed on them.
The
rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle!
U-Report: ActionAid Commends Nigeria’s Decision On Tax Evasion
Report By ActionAid Nigeria Publicity Arm
ActionAid Nigeria has commended the
Nigeria federal government for admitting there is need to focus more on tax as
reliable revenue generation. The organisation also commended the federal
executive council on its decision to tackle tax evasion and incentives abuse by
businesses n the country.
The anti-poverty organisation, in
conjunction with her partners in the Nigeria Tax Justice and Governance
(NTJ&G) platform has for over two years been calling on government to look
more at tax as source of revenue for development interventions in the country.
In a statement issued by the
organisation, Tunde Aremu, ActionAid Nigeria’s Policy Advocacy and Campaigns
Manager, stated that “we agree with the federal executive council that there is
now a need to tackle the problem of tax evasion and tax avoidance. This is in
line with our argument that the amount of revenue the country loses as a result
of uncollected tax over the years is enough to address development needs of the
country.”
ActionAid Nigeria, which launched its
Tax Justice campaign in July this year, stated that “for several years,
avoidance of tax payment and illicit flow of fund from the country through the
use of tax havens and secrecy jurisdiction has been largely responsible to lack
of fund for the financing of development agenda in the country and invariably
deepening of poverty among the citizens”.
While ActionAid threw its weight
behind the government decision to tackle the challenge of tax evasion and tax
avoidance, it however asked the government to stop giving undeserved incentives
to rich corporations.
According to Aremu, “while we agree
with government that tax evasions by all businesses must stop, it is important
for government to note that the real revenue loss is as a result of the unwholesome
practices of tax avoidance by the multinationals and the granting of undeserved
incentives to big corporations by governments”
Aremu stated further that “while the
government’s argument’s in the past that incentives are given to attract
foreign investments, experience has shown that the incentives are the least of
the reasons for foreign investors going into any country.
“There are also evidences that apart
from the fact that companies that have been given tax breaks by the Nigeria
authorities have made profits in their first year of operations than they have
made in other business jurisdictions, many of them have abused such incentives
and have continued to refuse to meet their obligations associated with the
incentives”
The anti-poverty agency’s campaigns
manager called on the government that “instead of targeting small and medium
enterprises, the government should concentrate efforts on targeting big
multinationals and national corporations, which are the real culprits for the
nation’s loss of valuable revenue”.
Thursday, 28 November 2013
News Release: Anambra Governorship Poll And Use Of Politicians As INEC Staff
The administrative
lapses and alleged malicious conduct of the INEC adhoc official in-charge of
Idemmili North LGA, Mr. Chukwujekwu Nweke during the yet-to-be concluded
Anambra Governorship Poll are partly, if not substantially blamed on the
recruitment and use of career politicians both as substantive and adhoc staffs
during the elections. There are sufficient evidence showing that the
Independent National Electoral Commission has traditionalized the recruitment
and use of career politicians both as substantive and adhoc senior staffs.
The likes of Mr.
Lawrence Nwuruku and Mrs. Amina Bala Zakari, who are INEC special commissioners
deployed for Anambra governorship poll, are a clear case in point. From our
detailed investigation, Mr. Nwuruku is the former chairman of the People’s
Democratic Party and a former PDP nominated commissioner and minister. Mrs.
Amina Bala Zakari, 53, from Kazaure LGA of Jigawa State served as secretary
(commissioner) for health & human services, social development and
agriculture & rural development (acting secretary) in the Federal Capital
Territory administration under the then PDP-controlled regime of Malam Nasri
El-Rufai between 2004 and 2007. She was reportedly nominated to her current
position as INEC commissioner by Malam El-Rufai in 2010.
Today, while Mr. Nwuruku
still reportedly maintains his affection with the PDP, Mrs. Amina Bala Zakari
is said to have soft spot for All Progressives Congress (APC). This is because
of the roles in the said poll, of her mentor and nominator, Malam Nasri
El-Rufai, who is a well pronounced member of the APC. As INEC special
commissioners for Anambra State Governorship Poll, they have reportedly
continued to serve as major access points for their erstwhile (?) political
parties.
For instance, Mr. Tony
Nwoye’s vivid public reference to Mr. Lawrence Nwuruku in a number of his
public programs after the main poll is a case in point. It is also believed in
many quarters that what gave the APC impetus to import hundreds of fake voters
during the poll, which was scuttled by security agencies, was the presence of
one of its apologists as “a visiting special INEC commissioner for Anambra
governorship poll”. It is further submitted that, but for disorganization
of Malam El-Rufai’s movement in Awka, this “super link” would have paid
off.
The error of recruiting
and using career political activist lecturers as INEC’s senior adhoc staffs has
also become a recurring decimal. The duo of Mr. Chukwujekwu Nweke and Mr. Alex
Anene is one of such examples. While Mr. Nweke allegedly compromised the conduct
of the gubernatorial poll in Idemmili North on 16th of
November, 2013, Mr. Alex Anene, in connivance with compromised media outfits
sneaked into a private hotel in Awka and announced the concocted results of a
senatorial election and returned his perceived pay master as winner.
As Anambra State
governorship supplementary poll is few days away, we urge INEC to be mindful of
those special commissioners designated for the important poll. This means that
the Commission’s searchlight should be beamed round the clock on them, with
particular attention on Mrs. Amina Bala Zakari. If INEC has condemned
El-Rufai’s commando style entrance into the State in connection with the said
poll, it should go farther than that by looking inward to find out “who was in
the house for him and for what purposes”. The Commission should also put in
place measures to professionalize its top substantive and adhoc staff
management by appointing people from core and professional CSOs including
academia and civil service into its top staff management.
Signed:
Emeka Umeagbalasi, Chairman of the Board
08033601078, 08180103912
Comrade Justus Ijeoma, Head, Publicity Desk
08037114869
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
News Release: MEND Demands Release Of Asari Dokubo
![]() |
Asari Dokubo |
The Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) demands the immediate release of Mr
Asari Dokubo who has been detained since Tuesday, November 26, 2013 in the
Republic of Benin .
Even though Mr Asari
Dokubo, along with some Niger Delta myopic and corrupt Tribal Assemblies like
the Ijaw National Congress (INC), Ijaw Youth Congress (IYC), Ijaw Monitoring
Group ( IMG ), South-South Peoples Assembly (SSPA) and Elder Edwin K Clark gloated
or kept silent over Henry Okah’s setup, arrest and conviction, we will remember
the role Mr Asari Dokubo had played in the unfinished struggle before he was
bought off along with several others.
The Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) will not abandon Mr Asari Dokubo at this
time as we will not abandon Henry Okah, his brother Charles Okah and others
still incarcerated.
If diplomacy fails to prevail, we will not rule out any form of attacks on the Republic of Benin’s interests.
Jomo Gbomo
Article: How US Administration Undermined Eritrea-Ethiopia Peace Process
By Sophia Tesfamariam
The Eritrean Quislings League (EQL), a
disparate group of self-proclaimed “Intellectuals and Professionals”, national
service evaders, defectors, pedophiles, religious extremists who support groups
like the Boko Haram in Nigeria and fringe Christian groups in the Bible belt,
human traffickers and smugglers responsible for the tragic death of Eritreans
in the Sinai, the Sahara desert, the Red Sea and Mediterranean and bankrupt
mercenaries in their employ scream foul and jump in defense of the west,
especially the United States, all the while undermining Eritrea, its people and
government. Everyone that knows a thing or two about Eritrea and its
magnanimous people knows that:
· Eritrea does not fabricate, lie, pretend etc. to advance its political interests at home or abroad.
· Eritrea does not fabricate, lie, pretend etc. to advance its political interests at home or abroad.
· Eritrea does not harbor any
ill will against the United States or the American people and only seeks
justice and respect for the rights of her people.
· Eritrea does not make
accusations it cannot back up with facts and evidence-and seeks the same when
being accused.
So when Eritrea puts the
responsibility for the “stalemate” in the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue
squarely at Washington’s feet-it is not because it imagined it to be, but
because the facts actually do show that it is the US (with its allies in tow)
that has single handedly undermined the Algiers Agreements it witnessed and
guaranteed, attempted to amend, revise, re-visit the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary
Commissions’ (EEBC) final and binding delimitation and demarcation decisions of
13 April 2002 and November 2007 respectively, and provided the minority regime
in Ethiopia the diplomatic, economic, political, and military shield and
support as it continues to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories, including
Badme, the casus belli of the Eritrea Ethiopia border conflict of 1998-2000.
The orchestrated vilification and
defamation campaigns by the EQL and their handlers intensified when the EEBC,
which had the sole mandate to delimit and demarcate the Eritrea Ethiopia border
refused to allow the various gimmicks and ploys presented by Ethiopia and its
handlers in order to amend, revise, re-visit and annul the EEBC’s final and
binding decisions.
After publicly claiming to have
"won" in court and accepting the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission's
decision as final and binding and urging the international community to
pressure Eritrea for the speedy demarcation of the border, Ethiopia defiantly
held the demarcation activities hostage by demanding changes, amendments, and
revisions, with acquiescence and tacit approval of the United States and its
allies.
The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
Commission (“the Commission”) following its meeting in private session in The
Hague on 20 November 2006 to consider procedures to be followed in connection
with the demarcation of the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia issued a
Statement in which it painstakingly
documented Ethiopia’s obstructions to its mandate and work. The EEBC said “the
obstacles from the Ethiopian side took various forms”:
· prohibiting field-work within the territory under its
control, thus impeding the survey of ground control points for the aerial
photography and the secondary datum survey (April to July 2002);
· filing extensive comments on the Delimitation Decision,
amounting to an attempt to reopen elements of the substance of that Decision,
instead of limiting itself to the requested comments on the draft 1:25,000 maps
(January 2003);
· alleging that the Field Liaison Officers appointed by
Eritrea were intelligence officers and refusing to allow field work to continue
in Ethiopian territory, then failing to appoint ad hoc Field Liaison Officers
within the prescribed time limit following the Commission’s Order of 9 February
2003 so as to allow field work to resume without further delay (January to
February 2003);
· failing to appoint new Field Liaison Officers for the
remaining demarcation activities following the Commission’s Decision pursuant
to Article 15B of the Demarcation Directions (July 2003 to March 2006);
· failing to provide assurances for the security of all
demarcation personnel (August 2003 to the present); failing to comment on maps which
indicated the pillar locations in the Eastern Sector (September 2003);
· repeatedly refusing to authorize necessary flight
requests lodged by the Chief Surveyor; eventually limiting the Commission’s
field work to the Eastern Sector by statements that the ad hoc Field Liaison
Officers would only be permitted to operate in the Eastern Sector; complaining
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of what Ethiopia termed
“illegal, unjust and irresponsible decisions” of the Commission in respect of
Badme and parts of the Central Sector, and proposing that the Security Council
set up an alternative mechanism to demarcate the parts of the boundary it
contested (September 2003);
· denouncing in that same letter the Commission’s
Delimitation Decision by stating that it would only recognise the southern
boundary of the Temporary Security Zone (“TSZ”) as the international boundary;
· failing to provide assurances for the security of
the contractors selected for the emplacement and as-built survey of the
boundary pillars (September to October 2003);
· rejecting the Commission’s invitation to attend a
meeting on 5 November 2003, claiming that the notice was too short and that
there was no likelihood of anything being achieved (October 2003);
· refusing to permit any work to be carried out by the Commission’s
field staff in the Western and Central Sectors until the boundary in the
Eastern Sector had been demarcated and subject to Ethiopia’s approval of the
Commission’s method of demarcation (November 2003);
· failing to make prompt payment of its share of the
Commission’s expenses (February 2004 to February 2005);
· rejecting the Commission’s invitation to a meeting to be
held on 22 February 2005 on the ground that the meeting was premature, would be
unproductive and could have an adverse impact on the demarcation process, as a
result of which the Commission was obliged to cancel the meeting (February
2005);
· failing again to meet its financial obligations (May
2006 to the present); introducing qualifications to its previously unqualified
acceptance of the final and binding quality of the Delimitation Decision (17
May 2006);
· failing to respond to the Commission’s request for
assurances of freedom of movement and security for its staff travelling to the
region to reopen the Commission’s Field Offices (July to August 2006);
· and failing to respond to the Commission’s invitation to
a rescheduled meeting on 24 August 2006…”
Ethiopia which depends on the US and
its allies to feed tis people, manage its economic, social and military sectors
and subsidize 60% of its budget has been emboldened by the shield and support
it receives.
Suffice it to highlight the following
US Embassy cables that clearly show the extent of US interference and influence
in appeasing the minority regime in Ethiopia as it violated international law,
the EEBC’s final and binding decisions and the over two dozen UN Security Council
resolutions that called on it to abide by its moral and legal treaty
obligations.
1. ETHIOPIA: MELES DISCUSSES BORDER ISSUE WITH DAS YAMAMOTO-1
December 2005
“…Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles told
visiting DAS Don Yamamoto and Charge Huddleston November 29, that the time is
not yet ripe to move forward on the boundary dispute with Eritrea . The Prime
Minister said he would not send a team to attend a meeting called by the EEBC,
but was not opposed to a future meeting. Meles maintained that resolution of
the border issue was dependent on Eritrean President Isaias accepting a
dialogue on normalizing relations...”
Vicki Huddleston wrote:
“…Meles' stated position remains
unchanged. Progress on the border can proceed only if Meles is assured of a dialogue
with Eritrea on normalizing relations and Isaias receives equal assurance of
demarcation of the border. Potential elements for moving both parties proposed
by the EEBC discussed are "open borders", allowing free movement of
people without restrictions after demarcation; and giving full authority to the
EEBC to demarcate the border, including areas where there are "anomalies
and impracticalities." Ultimately, when both sides view the necessity for
peaceful bilateral discussions, resolution of the border will become a greater
priority…”
2. UN REQUESTS USG ASSISTANCE TO MONITOR AND RESOLVE
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CRISIS-
10/28/2005
· “…Legwaila stated that following Ethiopia's
demobilization of 150,000 troops before 2003, PM Meles had told him that
Ethiopia's strategy was to isolate Eritrea and wait for it to implode
economically. According to Legwaila, Meles's five-point peace proposal of
November 2004 therefore represented a shift in policy, and reflected an attempt
to engage Eritrea constructively in talks. Legwaila explained that Article 416
of the cease-fire agreement called for the UN to deal with the consequences of
demarcation (e.g., in providing funds to resettle those in border areas that
would be transferred among parties). Whereas the UN was originally envisioned
as providing humanitarian or technical assistance, Ethiopia now sought to
invoke the article to have the UN play a larger political role, Legwaila said.
Eritrea, however, has explicitly rejected contacts with both the SRSG and with
UN Special Envoy for Ethiopia and Eritrea Lloyd Axworthy…”
· “…Upon the announcement of the EEBC's decision in April
2002, Ethiopia's foreign minister hosted a celebration and issued a statement
hailing the decision as a victory for both parties; however, Ethiopia had not
realized that Badame had been awarded to Eritrea. The reason for this is the
the EEBC did not identify Badame so it took sometime for the experts to
determine to whom Badame had been given. Legwaila observed that delimitation of
the border (i.e., determining where it lies) was complete, whereas demarcation
(i.e., placing physical markers) was stalemated. Delimitation of the border had
been conducted professionally and impartially, Legwaila said, through an
Asmara-based chief surveyor armed with GPS equipment and assistance from New
Zealand experts, and with aerial mapping conducted by a Swedish company.
Demarcation would reflect the boundaries determined by delimiation -- there
would be very little change, e.g. Badame would remain in Eritrea…”
· “…Ethiopia's general objection to demarcation lies
partially in the August 2003 demarcation directives, Legwaila explained, which
instruct surveyors to confirm the EEBC's delimitation of the border.
Specifically, an instruction for surveyors to confirm a line between
"point 9 and point 6" would serve to have them reaffirm the EEBC's
decision that places Badme on the Eritrean side. Ethiopia cannot accept Badme
as Eritrean territory, Legwaila explained, as doing so would compel Ethiopia to
recognize that it was the aggressor when entering Badme during 1998
hostilities…”
3. A/S FRAZER AND UNMEE SRSG DISCUSS NEXT STEPS ON
ETHIOPIA-ERITREA BORDER-8 February 2006
· “…On January 19-20, AF Assistant Secretary Jendayi
Frazer, AF Special Assistant Kendra Gaither, and AF Military Advisor COL Kevin
Kenny, accompanied by Charge, DATT, and deputy pol/econ counselor, visited the
following sites on the Ethiopia-Eritrea border: -- Adigrat, Sector Center
headquarters for the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE),
manned by UNMEE's Indian battalion (INDBATT); -- Zelambessa, in UNMEE's Sector
Center; and -- the disputed town of Badme, currently under Ethiopian control
but awarded to Eritrea in the April 2002 decision of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary
Commission (EEBC). The USG delegation met only with UNMEE officials at Adigrat
and Zelambessa. On January 20, the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF)
airlifted the delegation to Badme. A young NCO assisted with Amharic
interpretation as the group moved throughout Badme, speaking at random with
male and female residents of Badme, ranging from young schoolchildren to the
elderly, in what was clearly an unexpected visit. The local administrator of
Badme said that Badme had 5,000 residents. The delegation also met with UNMEE
military observers (MILOBs) at UNMEE's Badme team site….”
· “…She said she had a better understanding of the
challenges Meles faced in implementing the EEBC decision, citing the
"strong impression of Ethiopian identity in Badme." She said that
residents of Badme were well-informed and opinionated, spoke with "the
passion of a people invaded," and had criticized the EEBC decision as
unjust, unfair, and unbalanced. Badme villagers, including a one-legged man who
said he was prepared to sacrifice his remaining leg, claimed that they would
rather go to war than live under Eritrean administration. Elders, who spoke
Amharic rather than Tigrinya, asserted that Eritrean President Isaias had
banned a traditional song whose lyrics identified a nearby river as the
boundary…”
· “…Meles had told A/S Frazer that he accepted the
EEBC decision, and that the GOE's caveat that it accepted the decision (only)
"in principle" came as a suggestion offered by the UK. For Meles, the
problem was the implementation of the EEBC's decision, for which he seeks
dialogue with Eritrea, she added. SRSG Legwaila said that Meles dropping the
caveat would be a positive development, which would then allow the
international community to push Eritrea. Legwaila noted that "in
principle" did not appear in the GOE's January 16 memorandum on the border
situation submitted to the UN Security Council. Legwaila agreed not to
publicize Meles' flexibility on "in principle," however…”
Jendayi E. Frazer’s comments are very
telling of her ill intentions and desire to appease Meles Zenawi. This is what
the cable says:
· “…Meles had told A/S Frazer that he accepted the EEBC
decision, and that the GOE's caveat that it accepted the decision (only)
"in principle" came as a suggestion offered by the UK. For Meles, the
problem was the implementation of the EEBC's decision, for which he seeks
dialogue with Eritrea, she added. SRSG Legwaila said that Meles dropping the
caveat would be a positive development, which would then allow the
international community to push Eritrea. Legwaila noted that "in
principle" did not appear in the GOE's January 16 memorandum on the border
situation submitted to the UN Security Council. Legwaila agreed not to
publicize Meles' flexibility on "in principle," however. Amb. Frazer
said that even if Meles were to drop the caveat, the GSE may not necessarily
welcome it. She explained that she had informed EPFDJ head of political
affairs Yemane Ghebreab, who was visiting Washington and then Paris, of her
trip to the border, and had told him that the next steps needed were: a meeting
of the Witnesses (including the U.S., AU, and EU) to the Algiers Accord, a
meeting of the EEBC, and then the beginning of demarcation. Yemane responded
that only the EEBC, not the Witnesses, had the mandate and legal authority to
demarcate the border; that Ethiopia must accept the decision "as is";
and that the USG delegation had visited "occupied territory." Amb.
Frazer said she had reminded Yemane that Badme was sovereign Ethiopian
territory until demarcation…”
Vicki Huddleston, US Charge
D’Affaires considers Ethiopia ’s occupation as an “advantage” for Ethiopia . In
her comments she writes:
“…Progress on demarcation, however,
is another matter. It is clear from our visit to Badme that local Ethiopian
authorities are making no preparations to transfer Badme to Eritrea , and that
local sentiment strongly opposes the EEBC decision. While it is important for
the United States to build on the momentum generated by A/S Frazer's visit, the
parties may have their own strategic interests for maintaining the status quo.
As SRSG Legwaila observed in a January 19 briefing to the USG delegation
(septel), prior to its visit to the border, if the border is not demarcated,
then "advantage Ethiopia ," as Ethiopia currently occupies all the
contested areas…”
4.ETHIOPIA: PM MELES ON SOMALIA- ERITREA BORDER AND CJTF-HOA- 15
June 2006
Meles Zenawi told Vicki Huddleston,
US Charge D’Affairs and CJTF-HOA Commander Rear Admiral Rick Hunt on 13 June
2006 that Ethiopia would attend the June 15 EEBC meeting in the Hague, but
believed the “process was a dead end” and would soon break down because
Eritrean Isaias had not yet committed to peace.
“…Meles said that Ethiopia 's bottom
line was that there had to be discussions on problem areas of the border. The
EEBC, he claimed, was eating away at that bottom line a little bit at a time.
The PM recalled that the EEBC had said that the boundary had already been
demarcated -- a position Ethiopia could not accept. "If we go ahead with
demarcation without any commitment to dialogue, we will have given away
everything that we have been working for over the last several years." He
added that Ethiopia could not sign on to some consultant's view of anomalies in
the EEBC line…”
5. MOVING FORWARD ON BORDER IMPASSE TO AVOID CONFLICT
-09/20/2007
· “…Meles faces tough opposition with the powerful
Central Committee, particularly with the hard-core Tigray leaders who wield
authority within the committee. Meles has always indicated in very private
meetings that he is willing to compromise on Badme if it would bring
sustainable peace, but it would cost him his prime ministership. Until there
are signs of compromise from Eritrea towards an Ethiopian solution
(normalization of relations in conjunction with demarcation), Meles is stuck in
the current impasse…”
· “…Despite the fact that neither side appears ready
to resolve their problems, Post believes as a result of the continued
seriousness of the border impasse, actions must be taken to avoid war.
Bilateral relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea are deeply interwoven,
adversely affecting the demarcation process. Resolution of the bilateral
problems must be addressed as part of the resolution of the demarcation
impasse. Demarcation of the border will not sustain peace and will exacerbate
divisions unless a comprehensive package dealing with the fundamental
differences of the two countries are also addressed. Ethiopia,s position of
bilateral (normalization talks) discussions and Eritrea,s expansion of the
battlefield to include arms sales in Somalia to undermine Ethiopian security
have made the demarcation process complex. Post views the current situation as
serious and recommends following actions be taken to avoid conflict and
re-engage parties…”
· “…Both Witnesses and UNSC declare firm commitment to a
demarcation process and recognizes the EEBC process and its decision to
demarcate by map coordinates. However, the Witnesses and UNSC must not/not take
any action to enforce such a decision and must clearly and unequivocally
declare that both parties ultimately must resolve their differences directly
and demarcate the border…”
6. MELES ON ERITREA, THE ONLF, AND THE OGADEN -30 August 2007 (Yamamoto)
· “…In an August 27 meeting with the Ambassador, Prime
Minister Meles said that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) has no
legal basis to demarcate the Ethio-Eritrean border by geographic coordinates.
He argued that while Eritrean President Isaias may remove the UN Mission in
Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) from Eritrea, Meles does not expect either war or
an improvement in the situation…”
· “…In light of his long personal relationship with
Isaias, seeking Meles' insights on tactics to use in pressuring Isaias and the
GSE could be fruitful…”
7. ETHIOPIA PRIME MINISTER URGES AMBASSADORS FROM UN SECURITY
COUNCIL STATES TO REMAIN NEUTRAL ON THE BORDER-23 January 2008
“…Prime Minister Meles called in the
local Ambassadors from UN Security Council member states on January 21 to urge
them to advise their respective representatives in New York to remain neutral
during discussions by the UNSC on the Ethiopia-Eritrea border and extension of
the mandate for the UN Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE). Meles
emphasized that Ethiopia opposed any UN endorsement of the decision by the
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) of November 2006, finalizing the
border through map coordinates or "virtual demarcation…”
8. TALKING POINTS FOR ETHIOPIA-ERITREA CONSULTATIONS-25 January
2008
OBJECTIVES: USUN should seek to: (1)
extend UNMEE's mandate for six months; (2) continue the Temporary Security Zone
(TSZ); (3) avoid discussion of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary
Commission's demarcation decision by map coordinates and any pressure for the
parties to implement it; (4) support the SYG's efforts to engage the
parties; and (5) support efforts to lift restrictions on UNMEE, especially the
current fuel crisis.
9.ETHIOPIA FIRM ON LEAVING ALGIERS PROCESS IF UN SUPPORTS VIRTUAL
DEMARCATION-28 January 2008
“…Seyoum stated that his letter
argues against "virtual demarcation." Further, the letter argued that
the EEBC cannot demarcate the border by coordinates without the agreement of
the parties. The Foreign Minister added that the EEBC is not a legal body; it
is a creation of the parties to help with the delimitation and demarcation
process of the border…”
10. ETHIOPIA: ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER AND PRIME MINISTER MELES
DISCUSS KENYA, SUDAN, SOMALIA, AND ERITREA-6 February 2008
“…Meles added that the EEBC's
"virtual demarcation" decision of November 2006 was not in accordance
with the Algiers process and should not be supported or affirmed by the U.N.
Meles has told the international community in the past that the border is
symptomatic of deeper bilateral problems between Ethiopia and Eritrea and that
the way forward is through direct dialogue between Eritrea and Ethiopia on the
fundamental differences that divide the countries and which gave rise to the
border conflict before demarcation can be peacefully implemented. Without this
step, there can be no lasting peace between the two countries…”
11. DEMARCHE REQUEST ON ETHIOPIA-ERITREA: FUTURE OF UN
PRESENCE, POSSIBLE TARGETED SANCTIONS ON ERITREA-1 March 2008
· “…Department [US State Department]requests action
addressees in Security Council capitals to approach host governments, in
cooperation with other Security Council members as useful, to discuss the
future of UNMEE and how the Security Council should address the challenge posed
to its authority by Eritrea. Department requests USUN to do the same with
appropriate UN Missions in New York….”
· “…Potential options include: -Imposing a travel ban on
key Eritrean government officials. -Placing an assets freeze on these same
officials and/or other Eritrean assets/resources. -Imposing trade, investment,
or other restrictions related to Eritrean resources, including mining.
-Imposing an arms embargo on Eritrea…”
12.ETHIOPIAN FRUSTRATION WITH THE UNSC OVER THE BORDER-13 May 2008
Judging from the cable written after
Meles Zenawi’s meeting with Ambassadors, Donald Yamamoto knew exactly what the
regime in Ethiopia meant by “dialogue” and said so in his cable. Yamamoto
wrote:
“…Both Meles and Isaias agreed to
abide by whatever decision the EEBC made. While we cautioned both parties to
consider an appeals process into the agreements, both refused. Meles
has been pushing dialogue as a means to change the EEBC's final demarcation
decision. We and the Witnesses fully support dialogue, but only in the
context of normalizing relations and discussing the consequences of
demarcation, not adjustment of the EEBC's decision. Ultimately, any adjustment
of the decision must be made by the parties themselves as it will be up to the
parties to implement the decision…”
As for the new proposal that Meles
Zenawi was offering, this is what Yamamoto had to say:
“…It would be useful if the UNSC
reiterates its support for the Algiers Accord and Agreement on Cessation of
Hostilities, and emphasizes the parties' responsibilities and commitments
therein. We strongly recommend that Ethiopia not propose a new
"regime" or set of agreements to be negotiated to determine how to
settle the border and the problems between Ethiopia and Eritrea . This would
prove messy, would raise questions on how we proceed with resolution of the
border, and would mean the end of the Algiers process…”
13. SCENESETTER FOR VISIT OF AMB. RICE TO ETHIOPIA-7 May 2009
“…Meles appears content to allow the
status quo with Eritrea continue with no resolution of the border impasse, and
he would not welcome any new attempt by the UNSC to engage on this issue. For
Meles, the Algiers Agreements and the EEBC decision are "dead,"
having expired when President Isaias ejected UNMEE from Eritrea in 2008. He is
disappointed that the UNSC did not take action against Asmara over its
unprecedented expulsion of the UN peacekeeping force. Meles has
repeatedly told U.S. officials that the issue can be revisited when there is a
new government in Asmara, possibly under a new mechanism to demarcate the
border. He believes that he "can wait Isaias out," and that sooner or
later, the Eritrean people will rise up and depose Isaias…Meles believes that
the UNSC has not adequately punished Isaias over his actions regarding the
Eritrea-Djibouti border issue. Both Meles and the AU are supportive of UNSCR
1862, but both are opposed to any attempt by the UNSC to link resolution of the
ER-DJ border issue to the ET-ER border impasse…”
14. ETHIOPIAN CHARGE EAGER TO SANCTION ERITREA; AGREES TO
CONSIDER NEW BORDER DISPUTE STRATEGY-17 August 2009
In a 13 August 2009 meeting with
Tessema, the Ethiopian Charge, Susan E. Rice suggested that Ethiopia come up
with another demarcation plan and she also “proposed that a third party could
offer some legitimacy to the demarcation project”. According to the 17 August
2009 cable, Susan E. Rice met with the Ethiopians to work on the sanctions
resolution against Eritrea . In addition to her discussions about the stand
alone sanctions against Eritrea :
“…Ambassador Rice lamented the lack
of progress over the last nine years on the Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute
while pressing Ethiopia to regain the "moral high ground" by
presenting a new demarcation plan, stating that some Security Council members
may wish to reference the dispute in a new sanctions resolution. Ambassador
Rice said that by making progress on the border issue, Ethiopia would
underscore its commitment to peaceful neighborly relations, placing the onus on
Eritrea to take the next step. Tessema urged Ambassador Rice to avoid drawing a
parallel between sanctioning Eritrea and resolving the border dispute, stating
that Ethiopia has always been ready to engage, but Eritrea has refused
dialogue. Tessema explained that without participation from Eritrea, complete
border demarcation is impossible due to ambiguities created by the Border
Commission's 2000 decision that must be jointly addressed. Ambassador Rice
explained that Ethiopia 's strategy of engaging Eritrea in dialogue is now
dated due to its entrenched isolationist position. She emphasized that
Ethiopia should instead create a new demarcation plan to address the border
anomalies that does not require engagement with Eritrea…”
15. A/S FRAZER DISCUSSES SUDAN AND SOMALIA WITH FCO, DFID -27
November 2006
“…A/S Frazer expressed appreciation
for Lord Triesman's earlier offer of whatever support the UK might be able to
provide to facilitate resolution of the Eritrea/Ethiopia boundary dispute,
including use of the prestigious Lancaster House where historic agreements have
been concluded in the past. She said the USG has tried to revive the Boundary
Commission process, but Isaias would not engage. Triesman admitted he was not
sure who could get Isaias to respond LONDON 00008106 003 OF 003 positively, and
Lloyd added "it's not clear we're the right people," because Eritrea
sees the UK as biased in favor of Ethiopia . Triesman was open to Dr. Frazer's
suggestion of a possible co-chair arrangement involving the UK and Norway . Both
sides agreed that the Boundary Commission's intent to proceed with "virtual
demarcation" would do more harm than good. The British indicated they were
working indirectly to nudge the Commissioners away from that course of action…”
16. ETHIOPIA-ERITREA: SRSG ENNIFAR ON THE FUTURE OF UNMEE, BORDER
UPDATE-10 April 2008
“…In Eritrea's view, demarcation was
no longer an issue because the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission's (EEBC)
demarcation decision by geographic coordinates had settled the boundary issue
once and for all. (C) Stephanides [Joseph Stephanides is UNMEE Addis Ababa Head
of Office] opined that Eritrean President Isaias had determined to remain firm
on his hard-line stance to wait until the next administration in Washington to
"deal with the Democrats." He said Isaias would remain inflexible and
may even backtrack, but that Isaias would have to show his cards in July when
the UN would have to decide on UNMEE's future. (Note: Stephanides, in a
separate meeting with PolOff on April 8, criticized the SYG's report noting
that paragraph 49 undermined the possibility of establishing a mission on the
Ethiopian side of the border because it states that, "...such a mission
could be perceived by one party as freezing the status quo and serving the
interests of the other..." He also noted that paragraph 51 would anger the
Ethiopians because it called into question Ethiopia 's commitment to the EEBC
decision and that the report came dangerously close to an endorsement by the
SYG of the EEBC's demarcation by geographic coordinates. Paragraph 51 notes
that, " Ethiopia 's position that the demarcation coordinates determined
by the (EEBC) are invalid...raises questions about its commitment to accept the
final and binding status..." He emphasized that any endorsement of the
"virtual demarcation" by the UN would drive the Ethiopians to leave
the Algiers Agreement.)…”
The regime in Ethiopia and its
sponsors continue to peddle Ethiopia’s precondition, “dialogue”, to prolong the
“no war, no peace” situation as Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrea continues. But
the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission eloquently stated in its 16 Report to
the UN Security Council
“…Ethiopia is not prepared to allow
demarcation to continue in the manner laid down in the Demarcation Directions
and in accordance with the timeline set by the Commission. It now insists on
prior “dialogue” but has rejected the opportunity for such “dialogue” within
the framework of the demarcation process provided by the Commission’s proposal
to meet with the Parties on 22 February. This is the latest in a series of obstructive
actions taken since the summer of 2002 and belies the frequently professed
acceptance by Ethiopia of the Delimitation Decision…”
12 December 2013 will mark the 13th Anniversary
since the siging of the Algiers Agreements between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The UN
Security Council ought to shoulder its moral and legal obligations and call on
the regime in Ethiopia to vacate from sovereign Eritrean territories and
restore Eritrea’s sovereignty.
The rule of law must prevail over the
law of the jungle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)