[Speech delivered at the Public Meeting on the issues surrounding the Algiers Agreement and the mandate of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission, at Hague, as well as historical and legal analysis affecting the delimiting of boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The meeting was organized by concerned Ethiopians from Boston and vicinity. 9 March, 2002.]

---

 I. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

A. Brief Historical Background

It is a tragedy to observe the government of the United States involved in international deceit and fraud against an ancient country that has fallen on difficult times. It is even more tragic to observe such a leading nation associating with brutal and violent governments that have been singled out repeatedly by international human rights organizations and government agencies for violating the human rights of their citizens for the last ten consecutive years. [See Human Rights Watch Report, 2002; United States Department of State Country Report, 2002] At this point, what is of great concern for Ethiopians everywhere is the unconscionable and illegal interference of the government of the United States and its European allies in the affairs of Ethiopia, a sovereign and friendly nation.

 The United States Government is involved directly or indirectly in creating a situation favorable to Eritrea to gain the Ethiopian Afar coastal territory thereby making Ethiopia the largest and most populous nation in the world to be landlocked by a six hundred miles strip of land about forty miles wide. As I have pointed out in my previous essays, it is not that difficult to realize that the Sovereign State of Ethiopia, if landlocked, is going to be dependent for its survival on the whims and caprices of its historic enemies Egypt and the Arab nations. What advantage the United States and its European coconspirators derive from such unjust and illegal dismemberment and subjugation of Ethiopia is nothing more than the action of racist bullies with no particular economic or political gain, but for the psychological satisfaction of destroying a proud and ancient black civilization. As I shall show here below, this shameful scheme to dismember Ethiopia was started sometime after the violent dictator, Mengistu Hailemariam, who is now in Zimbabwe, established his brutal military regime in late 1970s. [It was again the government of the United States, in collaboration with Canada, that arranged for Mengistu to escape to Zimbabwe and avoid prosecution for the crime of genocide he committed during his seventeen years of violent rule.]

 In fact, Ethiopia�s problem with the United States government started during the Nixon/Ford Administration in the 1970s. Henry Kissinger, who has no respect for Third World peoples to begin with, as Secretary of State in the Nixon/Ford Administration, stopped all military weapon shipment that was already paid for to the new Ethiopian military government at the first sign of trouble. The pseudo-Marxist brutal government of Mengistu Hailemariam further irreparably damaged Ethiopia�s relationship with the West with his full embrace of the Soviet Union, and with his complete change of the political and economic structure of the country. The Carter Administration had no choice but keep what had already been in the making during Nixon/Ford Administration after the brutal Mengistu and his fellow military conspirators murdered sixty former government officials of Emperor Haile Selassie I in 1975. Further, adding insult to an injury, as part of the deal with the Soviet Union, Ethiopia closed down the United States Kagnew Military Station in Asmara. No doubt the current pragmatic and non-normative foreign policy of the United States owes much of its dogma to Kissinger who changed the outlook of the government of the United States to adopt a more aggressive and non-normative, and often times amoral and brutal foreign policy.   

 

For the new Carter Administration (1978-1982), pulling back diplomatic relationship with the government of Mengistu Hailemariam was the most honorable thing to do at the time. Understandably, the United States reoriented its presence in the Horn by becoming the new major weapon supplier to Somalia. In brief that was the main and only reason that soured the United States. The Carter Administration soon after was immersed with Iran�s new Leader Ayatollah Koumeni, and the taking of hostages of the American diplomatic staff at the United States Embassy in Tehran by Iranian government backed students. Because of those political setbacks, in the 1980s the Carter Administration was replaced by a new Reagan administration that won the election by projecting a new anti-Soviet image of confrontation and strength.

 Against such politically charged atmosphere, it seems that lower level technocrats at the State Department were rewriting the foreign policy of the United States towards Ethiopia. Senior officials were preoccupied with far more serious problems of the Cold War to pay much attention to the type of work being undertaken by Cohen and company. These lower echelon bureaucratic power ladder climbers did come up with utterly disingenuous scheme that is now giving us great grief.  It seems what they were aiming at was to create a legal justification for the creation of an independent coastal �State� that would remain under the influence of the United States or its European allies no matter what happens in the rest of the region. To achieve such goals the dying Eritrean Liberation Front was revived with fresh assistance from the West and the Arab nations. Furthermore, in order to insure the independence of Eritrea the West suddenly accepted the old Marxist idea of �self-determination� abandoning the Wilsonian approach embodied in the Charter of the United Nations Article I (2). A new theory of statehood based on another Marxist concept of �hegemony� was also introduced in order to compromise and ultimately deny Ethiopia its legitimate claims of territories within �Eritrea,� and Afar coastal areas if the issue of territorial integrity or sovereignty is raised at some later point.

 The creation of �coastal states� for the purpose of promoting the interest of powerful western nations is not something new. It has been used by former colonial powers such as Britain that created Kuwait out of Iraq, and is now effectively engaged in looting the equivalent of billions of dollars as investment by Kuwait and its Sheiks. France has also used the same scheme by creating Djibouti out of Ethiopia more for strategic presence rather than for looting of wealth; there is none in Djibouti. This scheme of bottling up potentially powerful nations and rendering them economically and militarily dependant on the West through surrogate dummy states like Kuwait and Djibouti, has now reached the 21^st Century in the activities of the new �out of control� power, the United States.

The Security Council is charged by the Charter of the United Nations to preserve the peace of the World. However, it has repeatedly resorted to violence rather than negotiation and equitable settlement of conflicts in Africa, Asia and even in Europe. In case of Ethiopia it is to the benefit of Britain, and France that Ethiopia remains landlocked because their satellite or Commonwealth dependant nations will benefit from the great wealth of Ethiopia through transit charges, port service charges, and all kinds of exploitative schemes. The other Permanent Member of the Security Council, will not object to the type of abuse waged against Ethiopia because it has its own national interest to protect such as favorable trade arrangement, less scrutiny of its human right violations against its own citizens et cetera. Our only hope is to bring our case to the citizens of Britain, France, and the United States, where we will be able to relate to the conscience of millions of citizens of those countries. 

B. The State Department and Herman Cohen

A number of Ethiopians believe that one of the individuals who were the architects of the dismemberment of Ethiopia and of our current problem is Herman Cohen, who was a career government employee and later an official in the State Department of the United States Government until 1993. This is an individual who spent most of his thirty-year government service in minor positions, and only towards the end of his career in 1989 he came into a position of some significance as Assistant Secretary of State for Bureau of African Affairs, a position, in my judgment, where he made decisions that affected the course of the history of the Ethiopian people, and brought about one of the bloodiest wars in African history. However, behind the scene unbeknown to us, there were far more destructive and immoral conspirators at the State Department who were working to remedy the loss of an important strategic United States presence in Ethiopia during the height of the Cold War by creating a coastal state, or helping an ineffective liberation movement (that could not go anywhere for thirty years) to gain independence to be used as a satellite state. Cohen wrote a particularly revealing book of his activities and those of others whose actions resulted in a disastrous war where upward of a hundred thousand Eritreans and Ethiopians died. [See Cohen, Herman, Intervening in Africa: Superpower Peacemaking in a Troubled Continent, Studies in Diplomacy, St. Martine�s Press, Inc. 2000] 

 

Especially John Byrely, an assistant legal advisor in the State Department, wrote a truly appalling legal opinion that claimed that Ethiopia historically never exercised �hegemony� over Eritrea. [See Cohen, 17ff] To begin with, the problem with such type of writing is the fact that it is an inside work that no one from the outside can critique at the time. It is to be recalled that in 1945 the Department of State legal adviser prepared a white paper for discussion that had questioned Ethiopia�s territorial claim on the ex-colony of Italy, Eritrea. However, the Roosevelt Government of the United States correctly and wisely expounded officially the view that Ethiopia has legitimate territorial rights over the Christian highland of Eritrea, and a right to the Afar coastal territories as its legitimate outlet to the Red Sea.

 Let me point out the obvious to those who are still following that form of idiotic reasoning and advise of John Byrely and associates at the State Department, there was no Eritrea before 1890, and even then it was a designation by Italy of its colonial possession ceded to it by treaties by the Ethiopian Emperor Menilik II. On the other hand, Ethiopia was a political body even before the people who colonized the �New World� had any state structure, but were scattered all over Europe as primitive tribal warring unities. The United States government that only recently came out of a brutal political and social system of racism and slavery could not truly be considered a friend of Ethiopians who represented throughout history the pride and greatness of an absolutely self-generated black civilization. It is not that hard to realize the existence of an undertone of racist resentment towards the only black civilization that gave Europeans a good run for their money, working itself to the surface during the tumultuous period of the Carter and Reagan Administrations.

 Ethiopia as a nation comprised of the areas that is now called �Eritrea.� If the issue is on the definition of what is meant by �hegemony� that is used to measure the status of Ethiopia as the parent state that incorporated the area that was later colonized by Italy, then such stringent test would also disqualify a number of States around the World, including the United States, from being considered as �parent� states because they would be lacking the type of  �hegemony� entertained by the assistant legal advisor of the State Department.

 Let us put certain facts on the table that clearly show prima facie that Ethiopia had political, economic, cultural, and social control on the colonized territories during the time Italy forced itself on that part of Ethiopia that later become to be known as �Eritrea.� If Ethiopia did not have a recognizable Sovereignty and territorial right over the areas Italy was occupying by force, why would Italy sign all those treaties dealing with boundaries and traditionally sanctioned access of tribal movements? Consider the following:

1) Article IV of the 1889 Ucchalli Treaty that states about the Convent of Debra Bizen with all its property �restna gulet� �shall remain in the possession of the Ethiopian Government� with some restriction on military use. The word �remain� is ascriptive or attributive rather than creative because the right of ownership of the Ethiopian Emperor was a preexisting condition.

2) In Article II of the 1900 Frontier Delimitation Agreement, it was made absolutely clear that �the Italian Government binds itself not to cede or sell to any other Power the territory  [designated areas in the present day Eritrea] ...left by his Majesty Menilik II, King of Kings of Ethiopia, to Italy.� Such limitation on �ownership� would render such agreement to a much-lowered status of an agreement of �usufruct� or �tenancy� rather than ownership under absolute sovereignty.

3) Consider also the now famous 1908 Convention Articles III and IV, where Italy recognized �reciprocally the ancient rights and prerogatives...without regard to their political dependence,� of the people who have been subjects of the Ethiopian Empire.

4) Even the Turkish presence in the tiny enclave of the Port of Massawa was always contested by successive Ethiopian Emperors.

 We may add to the above treaties the Agreements between Emperor Menilik and the King of Italy or their duly appointed representatives on a series of loans and grants given to Emperor Menilik, which synchronizes with the signing of a series of boundary agreements. This suggests that the money in question was meant as payment for territory ceded by the Ethiopian Monarch to the Italians. In other words, we have conclusive evidence that Italy had accepted the sovereign right of Menilik to dispose of his territory to Italy.

1) See Loan Agreement of 1st October 1889, done in Naples, for a loan of four million Lire, and later another Loan Agreement for two million Lire, 26 October 1889.  For such financial agreements, see Parry, Clive, and Ed. The consolidated Treaty Series, London: Oceana Publications Inc, Vol. 172, 1969.

2) See Additional Act to the Convention of 16th May 1908 for the Delimitation of the Frontier between the Italian possession in Somalia and the provinces of the Ethiopian Empire, by which agreement the King of Italy put the sum of three million Lire �at the disposition of His Majesty Menelek II, King of Kings of Ethiopia.�  Although this Additional Act only mentioned the delimitation dealing with Italy�s possession of Somalia, the real reason for receiving such large amount of money from the Italian Government was the signing of the Convention allowing Italy to keep Eritrea; despite the fact Italy was defeated at the battle of Adowa. On the same day i.e., 16th May 1908, Menilik had entered into another agreement with Italy setting the Frontier between �the Italian Colony of Eritrea and Ethiopia.� For the agreements, see Parry, Clive, and Ed. The consolidated Treaty Series, London: Oceana Publications Inc, Vol. 207, 1969.

The Italian government was not in the habit of paying millions of Lira, the equivalent of upwards of a hundred million US Dollars in Today�s money, just out of the goodness of its heart. It was paying hard cash because it got something of value in return. All of what is cited above established prima fascia the fact that the grantor of all ceded land is the Emperor of Ethiopia and no one else. You do not find treaties signed by local Hamassen, Serie, Kunama leaders in any of the occupied territories with the Italians because none has the authority or the right of claim as a sovereign of any such local territory; they were all subjects of the Emporer or the King of Ethiopia to whom they paid taxes or tributes just like the Amharas or the Oromos et cetera. You do not give away something you do not own in the first place. That is why Italy found it necessary through deceit, intimidation, or bribe to have the Ethiopian Emperor, the rightful sovereign of all the territories Italy occupied by force to sign formal agreements ceding territories to the Italian government. Italy did not sign any agreement with Egypt or the Sudan or anybody else on maters dealing with territories it occupied, which it named Eritrea in 1890.

 It is mind boggling to read the account of Cohen in his book [Cohen, 38] that an individual responsible to give unbiased and well informed advice could write a new theory of state control based on the concept of a particularly �Marxist� concept of �hegemony� in order to provide a distorted political history of Ethiopia with the sole aim to reverse a forty-year old foreign policy of the United States towards Ethiopia. The fact that a single minor official could have such impact on the lives of over 65 million Ethiopians is mind bending on its own. Cohen as Chairman of the Policy Coordinating Committee for Africa (PCC), an interdepartmental task force, was given poor legal advise or had access to a poor legal advice dealing with Ethiopia�s statehood and role in history. When we consider the few strands from the closely guarded file on Ethiopia, a picture of deliberate distortion of history, and an abandonment of earlier policy of the Government of the United States government emerges.  

 

This is what would happen when you delegate important foreign countries� national issues to lower level bureaucrats with limited exposure and understanding of history, of long-term strategy, and of seasoned state-craftsmanship. People seem to overlook the fact that such low-level bureaucrats are usually viciously fighting their own personal fights to climb up the bureaucratic power ladder, and as such must be taken as the least reliable or trustworthy group to handle such profound decisions on international relations.  Of late, Cohen had modified his hawkish views on Eritrea, and seems to have adopted a new position vis-�-vis Ethiopia that seems to have irked considerably both dictatorial leaders, Meles Zenawi and Issaias Afwerki. In fact, after the ceasefire in 2000 stopped the victorious Ethiopian Army from running over the government of Issaias Afwerki, Cohen is one of a handful of Americans who openly stated that Ethiopia might have some new leverage to insure that it has retained its access to the Red Sea. Both governments or their supporters viciously attacked Cohen for his trouble. Although, I am still upset with the turn of history against Ethiopia that was triggered by Cohen and associates at the State Department, I must admit that I am not as hostile as I once was toward Cohen now that he seems to have realized the mistake of his past decisions. He seems genuinely concerned about the future of Ethiopia.

 

C. What is hegemony?

In 1990 or in early 1991 some one from the circle of close associates of Meles Zenawi asked me a question out of the blue about my understanding of �hegemony,� which question on reflection might have some thing to do with the legal brief of the assistant legal advisor�s idea that was being crafted at the State Department to help Eritrea to her independence. At that time, it so happened I was voraciously consuming my new found hero Gramsci, whose work I still admire, and my innocent response was a typical Marxist response of half history half political theory based on the creative genius of Gramsci who gave the world the concept of hegemony as a description of a particular type of exercise of power.

  The State Department Legal Advisor is stretching his imagination far beyond his professional capacity when he indulged in history and political thought, in a preset format, in order to reach a particular goal. Thus, to use a concept that is Marxist and not part of the lexicon of international law or custom is absolutely unacceptable by any standard. I challenge anyone to show me a decision of any commission or court where standards of �hegemony� were used to determine the sovereign capacity of a state or of its territorial extent. It also violates the coherence of other valuable norms dearly cherished over the century by the American public�concepts of justice and due process. 

  D. Addressing the People of the United States on the True Character of Ethiopia�s Enemies

Just because a handful of bureaucrats completely failed us, it does not mean that the people of the United States have also soured on us. In fact, I see concern and an effort to understand our side of the story because an increasing number of Americans are now realizing that Meles Zenawi and his government are not looking after the interest of Ethiopia and Ethiopians.  I have always made a distinction between the government of the United States, which I find most of the time intolerably ignorant and insufferably arrogant, and the people of the United States most of whom I know are honorable, willing to consider the other side of an argument, helpful, and fair. I am taking my chances with the people of the United States. The Eritrean lobby had a free hand for the last twenty or more years, and has succeeded in painting Ethiopians as warmongers, violent, and anti social people. They have even succeeded to have their leader become a lifetime member of the NAACP.  Eritreans, though fewer in numbers have disproportionate influence in Congress and in the Executive branches of the United States Government.

  As I grew up, I used to hear my mother often narrate how my Grandfather, Mela�eke Tsehai Tekleabib, was taken from his home along with distant cousins from the vicinity of Boru to Haike by Eritrean askaris and was executed by a firing squad made up of mostly of Eritrean askaries.  At the time my mother was barely ten years old. As the only daughter among seven sons, she was adored by her father. I later learned from other family members that my mother spent considerable time and money trying to establish the identity of the Italian officers and their Eritrean askaries who murdered her father and cousins. One thing that was seared in my mind from my teenage years was the way my mother used to react to elderly strangers who looked travel-weary. She hoped for years after she was married and had several children that our Grandfather would walk in any time. [The word �askaris� is a name used to designate soldiers recruited from subjugated or colonized population. It also was used to refer to �bandas,� another technical term used to refer to Eritrean soldiers in the service of Italians.]

  The NAACP must be fully informed about the history of Eritrean askaris during the Italian insurrection into Ethiopia in 1935-1941. We must expose the type of atrocities Eritrean askaris committed against black people. Graziani�s atrocities in Addis Ababa and elsewhere in Ethiopia was carried out mostly by Eritrean askaries by the order of their Italian masters. We must remember that there were no less than one hundred thousand Eritrean askaries serving in the Italian Army that invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The Eritreans are remembered by elderly Ethiopians as very violent and brutal administrators in their treatment of fellow black people in Ethiopia even in their limited role in the civilian administration of peaceful Ethiopian communities. No one should forget the brutal Dej. Teklu Mengesha and his band of Eritrean askaris who helped hunt down Ras Desta and participated in the execution of several Ethiopian patriots whose only crime was fighting back for their freedom. Dej. Teklu is a relation of Meles Zenawi, they belong to the same family line that notoriously served the Italians against Ethiopians fighting for our freedom during the 1935-41 patriotic resistance movement. How could any organization black or of any color extend such honor to a leader who is proud of his askari ancestors and who flaunt to the world through speech and written articles his pride of a people being an Italian colonial subject? 

  In our own time, in 1991 the EPLF committed numerous atrocities against soldiers who have peacefully laid down their arms and surrendered. Even though the estimate varies from people to people some believe no less than one hundred thousand Ethiopian soldiers were executed after they surrendered. The actions of the EPLF were absolutely in violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, or the rules of engagement with enemy soldiers. Civilian members of the Ethiopian government and their families were abused, some killed, and others dehumanized beyond description by EPLF and some Eritrean civilians. There is no question that Eritreans caught up in the frenzy of the moment lashed out displaying the worst human behavior of hate and violence against innocent Ethiopians.   

  The Ethiopian officers and their soldiers behaved, as good soldiers should. They were willing to accommodate the EPLF, even when they (Ethiopian soldiers) had the power to level Asmara to dust and take the population hostage in order to insure their safety and put in place some international truce that would guarantee their safety and passage.  By contrast the Eritrean army destroyed homes, schools, churches, and public facilities within a limited time it occupied Zalambesa and villages in Irob. When I reflect on our past relationship with the so called �Eritreans� I am so disgusted with their greed, atrocities, deceit, et cetera that I start doubting my great Hamassen, Serie et cetera friends from my youth were really from that part of Ethiopia.

  II. SOME NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

 I have written and spoken about international law, the United Nations, the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission et cetera extensively. I am sure you have some access to the Internet that you may check my essays. Moreover, there are some recurring questions I am asked by concerned Ethiopians that I will try to clarify here. Some of the reasons for such confusion cannot be helped because it is in the nature of the discipline itself. I have stated many times that international law is not positivistic and similar to municipal law as some Eritrean writers seem to think. There is profound normative foundation for any law or system of law, but more so in case of international law. It is not simply a question of mechanical application of a set of rules to a set of facts and coming up with a resolution or a judgment. One can see in the judgments and opinions of the Permanent Court of Justice and later the International Court of Justice much deeper effort not only to resolve a controversy at hand but also to understand the source of the problem, future development or trend, and a judgment based on reason and equity.

  I too used to argue in favor of positivism on the idea that it is scientific; therefore, far superior to normative (natural law) conception of international law. I have studied at least 160 cases from both International Courts that profoundly changed my understanding of international law. There is very little that is positivistic about international law. For example, it is not as clear-cut as dealing with a question of what statue or case to look into in order to resolve a breach of contract case. The issues raised sometimes may require judges to consider in depth the context of a controversy, its history, and its significance, as well as its future developments. For example, in the Nuclear Test Case you can easily see how the judges struggled with an opinion that was singularly crucial and futuristic.

  A. The Algiers Peace Agreement

�Solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.�-- OAU - Cairo Resolution AHG/RES 16(1) In other words the OAU declaration is what is called in international recent practice �uti possidetis,� the new boundary demarcation principle specifically designed to accommodate the mess colonial powers left behind when they were forced to change their ways after the Second World War.  It is an artificial concept that simply perpetuated neo-colonialism and the continued domination and exploitation by Europeans of non-Europeans. What I see is a tragic situation where foolish Third World leaders are being used to promote the interest of Westerners at the coast of their own kind. 

  By June 2000 the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities pretty much has articulated the idea of resolving the border dispute according to colonial treaties.  All what the Algiers Peace Agreement of 12 December did was formalizing it by making it part of the operational part of the agreement. The Algiers Peace Agreement of 12 December 2000 is full of legal and political landmines that one cannot walk anywhere in safety. It is absolutely incredible how an Ethiopian government official could sign such one-sided and deceitful document.  I have no word to describe all the �leaders� and �professionals� involved in such international fraud perpetrated on 65 million Ethiopians. The Agreement�s sole purpose is to legitimize the false claims of Eritrea on the Ethiopian Afar coastal territory. It is possible that there might be more to the controversy than what appears to be a boundary problem. The United States might be setting up this whole thing, and to swoop down a little later and start drilling for oil, gas, et cetera.

  What ever the motive of these characters might be, the simple fact is that Meles Zenawi has no right to sign away the patrimony and legitimate rights of the people of Ethiopia. He does not represent the interest of Ethiopians. He is a dictator. He is a criminal who has committed numerous crimes including murder, and treason. His actions clearly establish collusion with Eritrea�s leader rendering the whole exercise of entering into an agreement to be fraudulent and illegal.  The international community is responsible also for all future loss of life and conflict because no one is going to walk away free from this mess.

  B.  Ex Aequo Et Bono

The Algiers Peace Agreement of 12 December 2000 has some very focused provisions specifically designed to help Eritrea. One such provision is Article 4.2 that limits the Boundary Commission to decide the case based on three invalid treaties. [Italy by its act of aggression and occupation of Ethiopia in 1935-41 has completely breached any existing treaty with Ethiopia. Furthermore, in 1947, Italy signed a Peace treaty renouncing all of its interest in its colonial possessions. It is obvious to everybody that there is no valid treaty that could be disposetive of the issues raised by hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians on the boundary dispute with Eritrea.] The Agreement further excludes the possibility of decision ex aequo et bono. I am not so much worried about that excluded principle because it is meaningless due to the fact that the desired goal can be reached through the application of general principle of equity applicable in customary international law if the Commissioners at Hague are bright and honest enough to see the type of deceitful web they have become a part of. 

  �Article 4.2: The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law. The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono.

�Article 4.15: 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.�       

 �Article 5.13: In considering claims, the Commission shall apply relevant rules of international law. The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono.�

  The Algiers Agreement goes out of it way to point out that any boundary dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea will not be resolved ex aequo et bono. Blacks Law Dictionary  defines the term to mean �according to what is right and good� For example, Paragraph 2 of Article 38 of the Statute International Court of Justice provides that paragraph 1 of that Article "shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto."   What that means is that �by consent of the States parties, the Court may proceed to settle a dispute without strict regard for the existing rules of international law, but in the light of the justice and merits of the case. In the absence of the consent of the contesting States, the Court cannot follow this course, but must apply the law, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 38. The decision of a case ex aequo et bono must be distinguished from: (a) the application of the general principles of law; and (b) the application of equitable principles. In both the latter instances (a) and (b), the Court is of necessity bound to keep within the limits of the existing law, whereas in the case of an exercise of its ex aequo et bono power with the consent of the parties, the Court may disregard the strict requirements of the law, and may even set them aside. The distinction has frequently been mentioned by the Court itself in its decisions (e.g., North Sea Continental Shelf, Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)). Nevertheless, the exercise of the ex aequo et bono power with such consent is subject to certain limits. Firstly, the Court remains under a duty to act judicially, and, secondly, the Court would, in the absence of special circumstances, be careful not to infringe the standards of justice or other accepted norms of equity and reasonableness prevailing in the international community.� [www.icj-cij.org]

The principle of ex aequo et bono is meant precisely to take care of situations like the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea where you have treaties that are invalid, or half fulfilled, or where the situation on the ground has changed so much it would make any decision based on treaties alone absurd. �A good illustration of this option is the ICC case n� 6503 of 1990, where the arbitral tribunal have pointed out that a strict application of the contract and the lex contractus (the Suiss Law) would have ended up in a �deeply unfair and shocking outcome.�  Therefore, on the �power of amiable compositeur� and �ex aequo et bono� basis (according to the arbitration agreement), the arbitral tribunal decided that the �gap of the contract should be filled�." 2nd ICC Africa Regional Meeting, Accra, Ghana, 25-26 October 2001 Working together for investment policies and actions in Africa Roland Amoussou-Gu�nou, �The Impact Strategy for Arbitration as a driver for investment and development�

  C. Membership in the United Nations

I am very much disappointed about the activities that are being carried out in the name of the United Nations. The idea of having a community of nations helping and supporting each other in common brotherhood was very appealing to me. I supported the United Nations in papers and discussions. Because of recent developments with regard to Ethiopia and its dismemberment, and now being choked to death, I have completely changed my mind about the United Nations and Ethiopia�s membership in that organization. I do not see the point in continuing to be a member of an organization that is part of a conspiracy to destroy an ancient civilization and a proud people. What did we get out of our membership that we would not have gotten if we were not members?

We are wasting our money, time, and human resources for some questionable relationship. I  believe we need to think about such possibility seriously. Do not be alarmed with my suggestion, remember that the United Nations is only fifty years old, and we are considerably older than that. We survived without such an entity. May be it is a good time to focus our attention on non-European nations.

  III. BOUNDARY COMMISSION � HAGUE

  The Boundary Commission at Hague is deciding supposedly a case involving the demarcation of boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In point of fact, what the Commission is doing goes far beyond what one would call boundary demarcation. Its decision will deprive millions of people their citizenship, their land, and their lives. It involves a breach on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a founding member of the United Nations itself. It is absolutely the wrong forum for the type of international principles it is invited/hired to decide on directly or indirectly.   There is no precedent in the fifty-year history of the United Nations that such deceitful and fraudulent procedure had ever been put in place. Even for the United Nations that is a record. If the Commissioners have any sense of dignity they all ought to resign from the Commission rather than be used as an instrument of deceit and fraud by governments. History is unforgiving. I am sure when the dust settles down, these jurists will be written up as the worst international jurists who had ever sat on such a commission.

  IV.  VISION OF ETHIOPIA

 It is not enough to condemn some of our past leaders for their numerous mistakes. We need to have a vision of our own what Ethiopia would be like for us and our children. We must be realistic and base our vision on what is uniquely ours, and what is beneficial to our growth and development. Ultimately, the decision is for all Ethiopians to make. We, as members of the Ethiopian  Community, could only have our say as individuals in a forum open to all. Thus, here is my individual vision of Ethiopia that I would like to share with you all.

 The Ethiopia of my dreams is a prosperous, democratic, compassionate, strong, and peaceful nation. Political power belongs to the people of Ethiopia as a unite, and that power is exercised by individual Ethiopians. There is no room for ethnic, language, religion, or race based political organizations. Each Ethiopian has equal rights and shared duties. Political organizations could only be organized on the basis of ideology and economic programs open to all without regard to ethnic identity, race, religion, gender, or social status. Our relationship is based on fundamental principles equally applicable to all throughout Ethiopia. There is no room for privileged enclaves within Ethiopia. We all share in the bounty of Ethiopia. We all share in the adversities and difficulties facing a nation struggling to develop its economy, legal system, and institutionalized democratic principles. There are no stepsons or stepdaughters for Ethiopia. We are valued equally.

 In the Ethiopia of my dreams, there is no position of privilege for turncoats, Mehal Sefaries, and carpetbaggers. Those who serve Ethiopia, those who fought for Ethiopia, those who sacrificed their youth fighting for the good of society are the people who would be accorded the privilege and the responsibility as government officials, professionals, and leaders to be part of the Executive, the Legislative, and Judiciary. Merit before sycophantic intrigue and personal relationship would count as the only standard of appointment to government positions.

 The New Ethiopia honors its soldiers, its heroes, its freedom fighters who respected and served Ethiopia and its children. The New Ethiopia takes care of the mothers, fathers, wives, and children of those who died in battlefields, who are detained or incarcerated as prisoners of war in foreign countries, serving their people. There is no greater sacrifice than the sacrifice of heroes who fall in battlefields, or suffer in prison camps of the enemies of Ethiopia.

 Thus, the new Ethiopians are not afraid to face the truth in their past or recent history. The new Ethiopians do not worship any one, instead they respect and honor their fellow Ethiopians because each individual has human dignity worthy of respect.

  V. CRITICAL OBSERVATION OF THE LAST THREE  MONTHS

 You honored me by inviting me to share with you my outrage, my disappointment, and my concern for my fellow Ethiopians and our beloved Ethiopia. Believe me when I say this is a singular honor. Thus, fully appreciating your trust, I am going to be very honest with you too. In the last six months I had the privilege of addressing thousands of Ethiopians in conference halls, and tens of thousands more through the Internet. What I experienced during those conferences even more confirmed my belief that Ethiopians are truly a great people, but facing a temporary setback.

 My sisters and brothers, these are not empty words. I lived in foreign land for a long time that gave me a chance to compare and contrast our society and others. We may be poor, technologically behind most communities around the world, but our humanity and decency is intact. Our social strength is obvious, and our spirituality even more powerful. We are survivors, and in all probability we will end up carrying the human spirit into the future better than anybody else in the world. 

 A. Mehale Sefaries and others

Having said that, let me point out to you some of the negative undercurrent that is undermining this great upsurge and wave of the new Ethiopian nationalism. The issue to me personally is never that of gaining political power, but an extremely crucial time of service in defense of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ethiopia. The issue of who is going to acquire political power is to be determined by the people of Ethiopia not by anybody else, least of all by the Mehale Sefaris lurking behind the shadow of Ethiopian Churches mostly in Washington DC area with conspirators around the United States. Here we are fighting for our national survival, but right under our nose, with no sense of shame, we see old hands trying to use our effort to promote an exclusive political power base for their anticipated ascendance to the Throne. It is only to avoid headlong division that I am not naming names.

 Another equally insidious development is the rush of at least two groups to get credit for the signing of the Petition to the United Nations almost scratching their eyes out. One such group has veered off on its own with a couple of tag-ons to start public demonstration, and high-profile meetings with officials of international organizations and foreign governments, thereby undermining the full impact of our effort to save Ethiopia from destruction. Rather than working towards greater involvement of more groups and individuals in the new Ethiopian nationalism, I observed some groups and individuals trying to promote their individual political ambition or make money from such struggle. I am sad to report to you that you have no leaders out there. It is time that you create your own leader right here among those who struggle along with you. I suggest that your future leader is sitting right next to you. 

 B. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Although I witnessed at one point great possibilities in the involvement of our Church fathers in a recent Vigil, that too was thorn apart by the personal ambitions of few individuals who will not stop at anything to get political power. I am for separation of state and religion. I do not believe that under normal circumstances that we should involve our spiritual fathers in earthly activities of politics and agitation. However, we are faced with extraordinary event that requires extraordinary effort on our part  in order to have a good handle of our problems. Thus, more than ever this is the time we need our religious leaders to stand close to us in our struggle for survival as a people and a nation.

 We must make a clean break with Patriarch Paulos, he neither deserves to be our spiritual father nor head of our Church. He repeatedly failed to act as the spiritual father of his Congregation. The Patriarch has been acting as a political agent and instrument of the dictatorial government of Meles Zenawi and associates. His latest sophomoric staged meeting with the �Patriarch� of the Eritrean Church is a good example of his participation in the grand scheme of Meles Zenawi to create confusion and division among Ethiopians. Even if some of our Church leaders may be accused of close association with the previous military government of Mengistu Hailemariam, for the sake of our common future, we need to influence all of our Church leaders where ever they maybe so that they will come together as one Ethiopian Orthodox Church and help us in our struggle against forces that are trying to dismember and destroy us.

 C.  Exemplary Organizations

We all should acknowledge how we were inspired by the patriotic zeal of  H.E. Ato Belai Abbai who worked very hard to bring us all together in order to fight against those who are trying to dismember Ethiopia. One ought to learn a great lesson also from the Group that organized the 12 January 2002 open forum on the problem of the boundary delimitation between Ethiopia and �Eritrea� that truly started this wave of a new Ethiopian nationalism. How many of you know who are the members or the leaders of the Tigrean International Solidarity for Democracy and Justice? Observe how hard they tried to work with other groups even to the point of completely foregoing any credit or acknowledgment for their exemplary deeds. Let me make it absolutely clear that neither of us at this panel is a member of that group. How many of you know the people who made it possible for us to exchange views through the Internet, those for example who are carrying my writing? These phenomenally successful sites average over four thousand hits coming from all over the world every single day for months on end. For Ethiopians living under the nightmarish government of Meles Zenawi and associates, these Internet sites are the only access they have for true information and exchange of ideas with concerned fellow Ethiopians elsewhere in the World. These people are your heroes and my heroes who remain unrecognized, not applauded et cetera, but with tremendous service to us all.

 D. Individual Commitment and Pledge   

Let us pledge here today a testament to Ethiopia that we serve without seeking glory, applause, or political power. Let us pledge our honor that we will defend the new wave of Ethiopian nationalism from getting highjacked by mehal sefaries, a handful of intellectuals, or exclusive political groups to be used as a political power base. Let us pledge that we are in the struggle for Ethiopia�s territorial integrity and Sovereignty and not for the acquisition of political power. Let us pledge further that we acknowledge and respect the people of Ethiopia as the only legitimate source of all political power.

  

VI. THE ARISTOCRACY, MENILIK II, AND ETHIOPIA

 Ethiopia was perceived by Menilik (historians followed suit) as a Christian island in a sea of Islamic nations.  We have now a vision more in tune with the diversity of our community. Moreover, even before Christianity, Ethiopia was a singular, well organized, and dominant regional power. Since over 85% of the Nile water that finally reached the Mediterranean Sea originated from the highlands of Ethiopia, Egypt has always tried to control  or destroy Ethiopia in order to ensure that nothing happens to the free flow of the bounty of the Blue Nile, the life blood of Egypt and the Sudan. One manner of control Egypt exercised over Ethiopia was through the appointment of Abunas, the head of the Orthodox Ethiopian Church.

 The most significant historical modern period for both Ethiopia and the people of the region is the reign of Emperor Menilik II. Menilik  pursued two important politically significant programs: 1) the expansion of the Ethiopian territory by annexing and assimilating  hither to independent or semi-independent people in the South, and 2) a heightened international relations with European governments and states. We hold that Emperor Menilik�s expansion was not a European type colonial subjugation of people, but assimilatory, and a process of nation building. There are fundamental differences between colonialism and Menilik�s expansionism. Liberation movements such as the  Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), et cetera who are claiming that their constituencies are colonies of the Ethiopian Empire are misapplying or misusing the fact of assimilation as proof of colonial occupation. 

 Under the influence of the Mehale Sefaries, Ethiopian politics entered a chaotic unpredictable state leading to social breakup and the rise of bureaucratic corruption and societal moral decay.  This monumental transfer of the power base, and as a result the very heroic and chivalrous traditional base of the society that was manifestly in its aristocratic refinement was gone. We inherited instead mediocrity, poverty, small time tyranny et cetera, from the end of the 17th Century down to our own time. Thus, the shift from kingmakers composed of vassal-peers of the Emperor and the aristocracy who used to choose the next emperor, to conspiratorial household retainers and the Mehale Sefaries, lowered the quality and the legitimacy of such Emperors who came to power through conspiratorial groups. Mengistu, and now Meles are all a product of the conspiratorial secretive Mehale Sefaries of lowered expectations and questionable legitimacy. 

 There is no doubt that Ethiopian ancient and medieval history is rich in monumental events and achievements, and has contributed greatly to the history of Africa and the world in general. Such Ethiopian history without a shadow of doubt shows the intimate relationship of the land and people that comprise of the present Eritrea with the people and Empire of Ethiopia. It is extremely important to remember that the 19th Century history of Ethiopia represents only a small fragment of the long history of a nation and a people whose political, cultural, and economic lives have been forged and molded over thousands of years. 

 Much of the dispute among Ethiopians (�Eritreans,� Oromos, Sidamas, Somalis et cetera) at the present time revolves around the issue  of the type of relationships that might have existed throughout history between the Ethiopian central government (power) and the diverse ethnic groups that constituted Ethiopia. Those who want to pursue independence have asserted that the relationship that existed between the Ethiopian Central Government and such groups of people was loose and did not involve more than the payment of tribute, and that the Ethiopian Central Government has nothing to do with the political, social, or cultural lives of most of the groups of people who were paying tribute. On the other hand individuals who want to keep the integrity of modern Ethiopia see in the same history an Ethiopian central government very intimately involved with the political, social, and cultural lives of the diverse people that constitute Ethiopia. They see Ethiopia as a mosaic of cultures, languages et cetera but with one single modern Ethiopian identity.

 Our suggestion of a new beginning for all Ethiopian people is not some form of whitewashing a bloody often cruel history of the suffering of innocent and peaceful people as a group mostly in the Southern parts of Ethiopia. [Henry Darley, (1926) Slaves and Ivory: A Record of Adventure and Exploration in the Unknown Sudan, and Among the Abyssinian Slave‑Raiders, Northbrook IL: Metro Books, Inc., 1972.] This book describes a horrifying scene where �Abyssinian� slavers totally destroyed a small peaceful village in the South near the Kenyan boarder, but in general most Ethiopians suffered under oppressive social structures and despotic leaders through out Ethiopia.

 Some of the unsavory activities of the aristocracy and the nobles of Ethiopia is surfacing in a radio program from Washington DC. The program is educational and reveling how far Ethiopians were betrayed by some members of the ruling class during the five years of patriotic resistance war waged against the Italian colonial army and administrative structure. The recent revelation was on the role played by the Kasha brothers trying to undermine Ethiopian patriots from pursuing their heroic battle for freedom. Such reveled truth is redeeming, and not destructive. As a people it makes us realize who are our enemies, and makes us depend on each other rather than on hereditary leadership.      

 

CONCLUSION