The Dismemberment of Ethiopia: The U.N. and Boutros-Boutros Ghali

By Tecola Hagos December 24, 2001 PART ONE I

GENERAL THESIS The main goal of this article is to bring people together. It is aimed to dispel any myth about liberation fronts, self-determination, the United Nations, and international law. Although I am concentrating on the people of Ethiopia, people of the region (�Horn of Africa�) in general have suffered much, and are the poorest and most abused people in the world. By writing this article, I am not trying to add one more misery to a people, who are in a life-death struggle with horrible dictatorial regimes that have murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and abused them for ages. In no way this article could be constructed to be against any group of people whether they identified themselves as Afar, Amhara, Hamassen, Oromo, Somali, Tigre, Wolaita et cetera, or Orthodox Christian, Moslem or anything else. Neither am I using the great potential of the fertile Southern region of Ethiopia as bait to catch the people of Northern Ethiopia in a fanciful franchise, nor am I promoting the political and economic dominance of one group of people over others. Instead, I see a great future if we all pull together, and not be used by leaders with myopic vision and become tools of disintegration into poor and pathetic mini-nations.

I believe we all have complementary economic potential, and great individual worth that could be turned around in a short period to the great benefit for all of us.I have tried to point out in this article principles that have been distorted, historical relationships that have been denied, longstanding communal life that have been disturbed all due to the selfish ambition of so called liberation front leaders. I have taken up the case of �Eritrea� as my central theme to discus several international and domestic problems facing the people of Ethiopia (Eritrea), and the Horn people in general. In order to combat oppressive governments, poverty, ignorance, cultural determinism et cetera, we need not seek solutions from outside. The best remedy is within our reach. The last fifty years of participation in international organizations, inter-state diplomacy, and billions of dollars spent on development schemes did not improve our lot at all. The grim reality is that we are a lot worse off than our parents.Most issues raised in this article deal with several interconnected concepts in international law. I believe that both the genealogy (history) and development of international law strongly affirm the fact that norms (natural law), rationality,

[1] and to some extent pragmatism (domestic policy based) and realism (judge made rules) play far greater roles in the �making� of international law than processes that could be categorized as positivist.

[2] I hold the following points with emphasis:

(A) The principle of self-determination has been misapplied, or distorted by liberation movements; I hold strongly that the principle of �self-determination up to and including secession� is not open ended, automatic, nor free for all.

(B) Admission to Membership of new �states� to the United Nations in a number of instances have been in violation of some of the provisions of the United Nations Charter and some principles derived from judgments and opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

(C) Some decisions of the United Nations are not sustainable under customary international law.

(D) The Secretary General, Buotros Buotros-Ghali, in the case of Eritrean independence and admission to the UN, has acted beyond his capacity or mandate; thus, the whole process is void.

(E) The ICJ and the United Nations are not the only sources of international law (norms and principles).

(F) With Ethiopia landlocked, the long-term strategy for the Horn is terribly flawed. The Eritrean government after Issaias Afwerki is going to be controlled by Muslim fanatics, and such groups in concert with other coastal nations would turn the Red Sea into an Arab inland sea severely undermining freedom of the open sea and the busy shipping line through the Suez Canal; and

(G) The current US imposed boundary demarcation between Ethiopia and Eritrea (hearing is in progress at the Hague at this very moment) is counter productive and would lead to more conflict, and must be abandoned: an armistice or cessation of hostilities only must be maintained for now until a more representative and enlightened leadership is in place both in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

(H) Ethiopia has a historic and equitable right under international law and practices to all coastal territories including the Dahlak Islands and all the Afar territory bordering Djibouti. And no international organization, or third party state with some self-serving scheme has any right or power to curb or deny these rights unilaterally by force or otherwise. It is also my contention that international peace, prosperity, and harmonious co-existence of nations and peoples of the world have been seriously hampered or impeded by the United States (NATO allies), and by the former USSR (Eastern Block) for over fifty years. In the Security Council from 1946 to1998 the USSR had vetoed draft resolutions 116 times, while the West had vetoed an aggregate of 120 times (US � 72, UK � 30, France - 18).

[3] Most of the vetoed draft resolutions dealt with serious matters dealing with the security, welfare, and safeguarding of the rights of millions of people. And a number of vetoes dealt with the question of admission of new nations to Membership in the United Nations. And all along, hundreds of billions of dollars was squandered on bureaucrats, frivolous deployment of peace-keeping forces, and useless development schemes. Mind you all, if such is the reflection of the human condition at its best, imagine the alternative where there is no balance of power, or the threat of �assured mutual destruction.�My focus on Ethiopia-Eritrea is not a demonstration that the rest of the Horn region and people are not important, but is an effort to limit the discussion.

I will examine also the role played by Buotros Ghali and the United Nations (Super Powers) in the distortion of international norms and principles. I have digressed also into jurisprudential (philosophical) questions on international law. Such approach, I hope, would have allowed me to frame complex issues properly, and would have helped me to draw the parameter of my discussion to a manageable size. I strongly hold the view that international law or relations delaminated from concepts of justice and fairness is simply a reaffirmation of men�s greed and the worship of the powerful with no recourse to communal peace and harmony.II. SELF-DETERMINATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE I believe that several well established principles and norms of international law and custom shape and limit the scope of the principle of self-determination and secession. And like wise, the activities of states are restricted by their obligations in matters of communal interest. These conflicting international principles are put to the test, now more than ever, with the proliferation of new �states� mostly in Europe and to a limited number else where in the world. In the last few years, the mushrooming of �new states� has resulted in disastrous conflicts with hundreds of thousands of people murdered or killed, and millions forced to leave their homes. The political demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) resulted in fragmentation and in the creation of several new mini-states. In a number of instances, especially in terms of the autonomy, development, and prosperity of individual citizens, those new states do not seem to have changed from their previous condition.Putting in mind the great suffering and destruction that occurred during such tumultuous time, it should be a lesson to the world community that coming out of a bad system of government is not necessarily followed by a better system.

The euphoric rush to recognize those mushrooming states and admitting them as members of the United Nations has severely undermined important norms of international law. Specially, considering the rejection of a couple of applications for admission to the United Nations [Somaliland, Katanga, Tibet, Tamil Elam et cetera] for ten years or more, one is left with a belief that the process, indeed, is capricious, inconsistent, and even racist. Other than that, in general, the admission of fragments of nations in the United Nations as new members has become a process of rubber-stamping without the rigorous examination expected of such a body. And more importantly, such fragmentation into new states did not result in the creation of nations with democratic governments. In fact, one can make a tenable argument that the total misery and suffering of people in such nations has increased as a result of such fragmentation. However, one must be careful from judging the fragmentation that took place in Ethiopia with types of fragmentation that occurred elsewhere. It should not come to us as some thing surprising that Ethiopia suffered similar fragmentation as the USSR, Yugoslavia et cetera. However, the situation that led to the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia must be differentiated from the types of events that took place in the USSR and Yugoslavia. In the Ethiopian case the fragmentation that took place was a result of centuries of antagonistic relationship that existed between Ethiopia, a �Christian Island,� and an ocean of Islamic and Arab nations. The secession of Eritrea is a result of a long period of concerted conspiratorial effort of historic enemies of Ethiopia, neighboring African nations (Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Sudan), Arab nations (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria), and Pakistan.The Independence of Eritrea and its admission as a member of the United Nations represents one of the abuses of international relations of our Century. It represents the absolute failure of the international system (the United Nations) established since the collapse of the League of Nations leading to the Second World War. Eritrea�s independence represents to a number of Ethiopians the miscarriage of justice and fairness. Even more alarming, it signaled the idea that international law is nothing more than what belligerent leaders say it is. And above all, it represents the betrayal of the people of Ethiopia by individuals like Meles Zenawi and political organizations such as the TPLF.When one reads the political programs of different liberation movements and fronts such as the EPLF, OLF, TPLF et cetera, it becomes obvious that the principle of self-determination is the most misunderstood, abused, deformed, and corrupted concept in international law and relations. It is specially so in the hands of liberation fronts and movements in Africa and Asia. However, for any one interested in honest scholarship it does not require much acrobatic reading to realize that the concept could be clarified with modest effort. The principle of self-determination is not an open ended and loose concept. It is a very limited and democratic goal oriented concept, and that goal does not include the establishment of belligerent or rogue states; moreover, it does not give any right for individuals or groups to define and limit the rights of citizens preemptively. The concept of self-determination not only had a forked start but also a diverging dual development--one incorporating a Marxist-Leninist thinking and experience,

[4] and the other reflecting the concern of Western nations around events surrounding the First World War along with the creation of the League of Nations.

[5] One development is no less legitimate than the other even though the version incorporated in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter seems to be that of the West. However, there seems to be a total misreading of the original ideas coming out of the two camps by liberation organizations in Africa and else where in the World. To a certain extent, any specificity on the subject may be seen to be arbitrary since it is tenable to suggest that all forms of evolution of states manifest a degree of self-determination. The concept of self-determination has two sets of problems: one dealing with semantics and the second with issues of syntactical (contextual) applications. What is being �determined� in the process of �self-determination� could either be the individual�s autonomy, or in a two-step process the group�s interest and constitutive parts, to which the individual is a member. The latter is what is meant in the political and economic sense; however, in the cultural and social sense the preeminence of the individual is the defining item in the concept of self-determination. Self-determination is distinct from the act of secession.

[6] It does not automatically follow that if there is self-determination there will also be secession. There is no right to secede in international law, only that it does not prohibit it either.

However, in order to secede the consent of the parent state is absolutely necessary.

[7] It is not also clear whether secession could be limited to individuals with a territory or irrespective of any territory but with a claim whereby territory later could be ceded to. At any rate, what is paramount is that the right to self-determination is a separate and distinct right from secession. And a parent state has every right to counter secession by all means at its disposal.The Marxist approach is mostly considered to be the first coherent debate and articulation of the concept of self-determination compared to the willy-nilly evolution of the nation-state since the Treaty of Westphalia, and later in the United Nations system. At the 1896 London International Congress conference, the issue of self-determination was discussed and a resolution was passed.

[8] Early on when Norway decided to regain its own national independence from Sweden, that controversy lead to raising the issue of national independence and what to do with oppressive governments in the context of the modern world.

[9] The debate that ensued thereon was another dimension that involved leading Marxist theoreticians in antagonistic debate. In addition to Lenin (Stalin), Rosa Luxemburg

[10] and Karl Kautsky

[11] were the two most noted intellectuals whose writing was often cited and debated on the concept of self-determination. Lenin supported the views of Kautsky which view seems to suggest the idea of some form of a transcendental process that goes beyond mere tribalism, ethnicity, or nationality. Stalin under the direction of Lenin wrote his first Article �Marxism and the National Question� in 1913, which article was more of an academic bland nature, but later Stalin as Commissar of Nationalities irked Lenin when he wrote much more pointed and belligerent, even violent, articles after he became Commissar of nationalities 1917-1924. Lenin in his 1922 article �The Question of Nationalities or Autonomization,� criticized Stalin�s activities of crushing communist parties of regions under the guise of suppressing �bourgeois nationalism.�As stated above, the initial discussion on the issue of proletariat self-determination was introduced by Marxist intellectuals in connection with Poland national socialist�s effort for self-determination.

[12] There were divisions of opinion on the issue.

[13] Lenin perceived then existing struggles in historic empires as the main struggle between the new social order of capitalism (bourgeoisie) and the feudal traditional structure thereby trying to promote a capitalist nation-state. He distinguished such capitalist struggle from the interest of the proletariat who subordinated such demand for self-determination to the overall class struggle.

[14] This means that issue of the rights of nationalities and self-determination as part of the Marxist theoretical praxis (discussion) started out as an unsettled issue and in heated debate before the 1st International of 1896. The secession aspect of self-determination is meant to insure that self-determination results in removing all �inequality, all privileges, and all exclusiveness.�

[15] In other words, there is nothing mystical about self-determination; it is simply a feature of a stage in economic development where the interest of the proletariat is the only overriding interest to be taken into account, not ethnicity nor the nationalism of the bourgeoisie. This is the subtle difference between the general blanket self-determination that is invoked by anyone who is ambitious to acquire political power, compared to those whose profound interest in self-determination is based on Marxist thinking and whose goal is the empowerment of the proletariat as a class and not because of ethnicity or nationality as a defining identity.Thus, in Marxist/Leninist thought, there is no room to justify self-determination neither on the basis of some psychological profiling of a population nor on the basis of a simplistic aggregation of mass interest through a referendum or plebiscite for the simple purpose of satisfying the demands of the nationalist bourgeoisie. What is determinative in Lenin�s view of the principle of self-determination is the possibility or the certainty of the establishment of a proletariat or socialist state. This Marxist-Leninist principle of self-determination is not meant for the creation of dictatorships by elites or capitalists (national bourgeoisie). As stated above Lenin�s concept of self-determination is not a blanket that covers most anybody as seems to be the case with the Wilsonian idea of self-determination. The second development of self-determination is an aspect of the process of the creation of nation-states of the 17th and 18th Centuries. In fact, some scholars suggest that the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648

[16] is the source for the modern nation-states based on concepts of national sovereignty, non-interference, and territorial integrity. The more plausible and reasonable sources would be the American Revolution (Declaration of Independence) and the French Revolution of the 18th Century rather than the earlier attempts of nation building. The industrialization of European countries such as Britain, France, Holland et cetera in the 19th Century brought about the great upsurge of colonial expansion and the subsequent internal conflict within communities with heightened struggle between the traditional power structure of the land based aristocracy and the capital (money) based bourgeoisie, which planted the seed for future colonial liberation struggles down to our own time. However, for the purpose of our concern on modernist question of self-determination, we need not go so far back in time. The establishment of the League of Nations in 1920 and its collapse twenty years latter brought into focus the issue of self-determination in its modern context. The involvement of the United States in the First World War, and president Wilson�s famous �fourteen points� [8 January 1918] may be considered as sources. As a counter measure to Lenin�s challenge on the rights of self-determination of �nations� to independence, in 1918 President Wilson, in a rather hurried manner, proposed his famous �fourteen points.� The first five points dealt with general principles of a new international order, the next eight points dealt with the redrawing of new ethnic nationality based boundaries for the Balkans newly created states, and for dismantling and reconstituting new states out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire and its conquered people along lines of nationalities with historic ethnic identities. The fourteenth point dealt with the establishment of institutions. However, Wilson did not use the word �self-determination� anywhere in his �fourteen points.� Nevertheless, the process of reorganization of the Balkans, Eastern Europe et cetera may be considered as the key event in the development of the principle of self-determination as reflected later within the United Nations system especially in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations.As a matter of classical international law principle, the territorial integrity of states is of paramount importance.

[17] In fact, only �states� were the subject of international law before 1945. With the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 the concept of self-determination was formally introduced in the lexicon of international law by Article 1 (2)

[18] even though no one seemed to be willing to give a formal definition of what exactly was meant by such words at the time. And often times, the most important phrase in this Article i.e., the phrase �equal rights� is pushed out of sight, and liberation leaders in pursuit of their version of �self-determination� trample upon the legitimate rights of others and at times succeed to create a subdivision far worse than the parent society.Self-determination is further subdivided as internal and external self-determination. Internal self-determination refers to the type of struggle waged by a group within a state against a parent state, for its political, economic, and cultural autonomy and independence.

[19] In cases of external self-determination, the struggle is carried out by local liberation movements against an occupying or colonial power.

[20] Even though in either situation there is a similar element of a struggle against an oppressive agent, the treatment of the situation under international law i.e., self-determination is quite dissimilar. One of the most important factual determination to be made is whether a particular territory is/was a colony. This brings us to one of the most heatedly debated controversial issues on the definition of a colony. The assertion of the EPLF and its supporters that Ethiopia (Abyssinia as they like to call Ethiopia) did not colonize an �Eritrea� for the simple fact that an �Eritrea� entity never existed in history before 1890 designation by Italy of its newly ceded [to] territory from Ethiopia. The region was a part of Ethiopia, and a portion thereof was claimed by the Italians in the 1880s after the death of Yohannes IV. It is also why the Italians sought formal treaty with an Ethiopian Emperor in order to occupy that part of Ethiopian territory. For that matter, the Italians did not ask Egypt or anybody else to sign a treaty about that part of Ethiopian territory. Subsequent to that occupation, Italy abrogated several treaties entered with Ethiopia. And as result of such breach and international wrong committed by Italy against Ethiopia, it must be acknowledged that the right of Ethiopia to its old territory in general is fully restored in perpetuity. This may come as a surprise to most liberation movement leaders and their followers that there is no �recognition of a unilateral right to secede based on a majority vote of the population of a sub-division or territory, whether or not that population constitutes one or more �peoples� in the ordinary sense of the word. In international law, self-determination for peoples or groups within an independent state is achieved by participation in the political system of the state, on the basis of respect for its territorial integrity.�

[21] In other words dissenters need to work within an existing state to effect change that would enhance their political, economic, and human rights. This means declarations of self-determination to secede by all kinds of political movements or fronts are not a defensible position under international law and practice.Because of the fact that international law is very much in favor of keeping the territorial integrity of existing states, it is the main reason why we see some liberation movements and their academic publicists distorting history,

[22] manufacturing �history� and events,

[23] and forcing or indoctrinating people to adopt new identities

[24] in order to claim and construct a fictitious colonial relationship with a parent state. Prior to 1945 there was no customary or formalistic international practice of self-determination in any form. It is the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 that introduced a narrow exception to that �peremptory norm� or principle and practice in international law. The Charter in Chapters XI and XII created classes of colonial territories and dependant territories entitled to independence.

[25] There is no mention in any of the Articles of those Chapters the concept of self-determination. However, Article 1 of the Charter did use the term �self-determination� as part of the general purpose of the Organization. It is Resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

[26] of the General Assembly that clearly articulated the right to independence of peoples from colonial rule and the principle of self-determination. Even then the Resolution did not support unilateral rights of secession by liberation fronts in either external (colonial) or internal conflicts.At any rate, in cases of internal self-determination, it seems that without the consent of a parent state it is impossible to have a formal recognition and acceptance into the United Nations of any political entity that seceded unilaterally by force. We are going to great length here in order to point out to leaders of movements with an eye to secede from the parent state of Ethiopia that the process is not an easy matter. The case of Eritrea is not a precedent setting situation; at best it is an unfinished process that needs a makeover. Eritrea could not have succeeded in its bid for membership in the United Nations without the consent and assistance of Meles Zenawi led Ethiopian government. Period. Even the totally inappropriate publication under the banner of the United Nations titled �The United Nations and the independence of Eritrea� with an introduction by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the report of the Secretary General stated in paragraph 84: �It is therefore, particularly gratifying that Ethiopia was one of the very first countries to recognize Eritrea�s independence, opening the way to its membership in the international community.�

[27]A case in point, as an illustration of the current international law and practice in regard to the reluctance of the world community to recognize acts of secession through self-determination, is that of the belligerent government of Somalia-Hargesa, as well as several others,

[28] that has been waiting on the side for several years hoping for recognition and admission to the United Nations. �Since 1945 no state which has been created by unilateral secession has been admitted to the United Nations against the declared wishes of the government of the predecessor state.�

[29] Somaliland is stuck in its predicament as a victim of the continued perverse manipulation of the Permanent Members of the Security Council. Admission or not, the government of Somaliland is far more stable than a number of nations that are members of the United Nations. It is to be recalled that the EPLF, as well as the TPLF, had branded itself as a Marxist-Leninist inclined liberation movement. It is also reported that Issayass Afeworki was trained in China. As things have unfolded since 1991, it is absolutely meaningless to speak about the progressive nature of the only political party in Eritrea, or to peg our hope on a future people-empowering government policy of Eritrea. There is, simply put, in Eritrea a dictatorship of one person. The same tragedy of dictatorship is firmly entrenched in Ethiopia too in the person of Meles Zenawi. The people under both dictatorial governments must pull together. There is no reason for people to be victims and pawns of power hungry dictators. In general the people of the Horn are inter-related, with shared history and culture, and common destiny. There is no need for fragmentation into non-viable entities. For example, Eritrea has several more ethnic groups than the five to nine the government acknowledges. Close to half the population permanently resides outside of Eritrea.The United Nations report in connection with the referendum of 1993 gives us a picture of a people (over 30 % by a very conservative estimate) who are eking a living among other peoples of the world as far away as Australia.

[30]. Why should people suffer the insecurity and indignity of a 2nd class citizenship when one can have a decent and dignified life in ones own land among ones own kind. Nor one should lead a parasitic existence as a matter of existential strategy among strangers when one could easily, in unity with other members of the Ethiopian people, could turn around in short order this seemingly insurmountable problem of underdevelopment. Ethiopia is a vast nation, with great potential, and it is Africa�s �water tower� with thirteen mighty international rivers, a rare and absolutely necessary natural resource. There is enough room and resource for all if people choose to live and work together. It is with good reason and justice in mind that one can criticize the secession of Eritrea that resulted in bottling up over seventy million people hindering them from their historic right of access to the sea and coastal territories. If one recognizes self-preservation as an element of self-determination, then the question is whether the lives of seventy million Ethiopians less important compared to three to four million �Eritreans� of whom over 40% permanently live outside of Eritrea. If the World community is willing to accept the principle of the right to survive as an independent state, it should also acknowledge that such recognition of the right to self-determination is not meant to be at the cost of the historic and rightful territorial integrity of a nation. The millions of Ethiopians also have every right to promote and preserve their right of self-determination. And the right of survival is a perpetual right that is not lost if not exercised or claimed. Here is one reason why third party involvement is not the right method to solve conflicting interests. The United Nations was also a victim in the machination that was cunningly orchestrated by Egypt and other Arab nations through the Secretary General to undermine the integrity and long-term viability of Ethiopia. I will examine in Part Three how Buotros Ghali exceeded his authority and function by examining the report he published under the United Nations seal/banner: �The United Nations and the independence of Eritrea.�The right approach is for the two parties to bring their case to a mutually agreed upon panel of experts to hammer out the legal, historical, cultural issues and prepare a white (working) paper for the parties to review, and by mutual consent to submit a request to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. However, at this point in time neither Meles Zenawi nor Issaias Afwerki are legitimate leaders, and do not represent the interest of the people of either country. At least a fully represented referendum on the controversial issues of Afar region and coastal territory may be necessary if the present leaders insist in their mistaken course of action.