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

By Tecola Hagos December 24, 2001

PART TWO
III. THE CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY ETHIOPIA: THE ROLE OF ARAB STATES

Starting with the rise of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, the Islamic nations of the Middle East have tried to destroy Ethiopia several times. One such challenge that nearly succeeded in such effort was the Ottoman Turks sponsored Ahmed Gragn�s devastating overthrow of the Christian Ethiopian Kingdom of Libna Dengel.[31] It is not clear whether or not Ahmed Gragn saw himself as subject of the Ottoman Turks. I believe he did. The name Ahmed Gragn was a corruption of his real name �Imam Ahmed bin Ibrahim Al Ghazi,� and might suggest that Ahmed Gragn might have originated from Gaza of a Palestinian extraction; furthermore, he was not left-handed either as his Amharized name indicated. [32] Ahmed Gragn was provided with weapons, military personnel et cetera by the Ottoman Turks.[33] The Turks had failed repeatedly in the past in their effort to occupy the lowlands of Ethiopia up to that period. In fact, Ethiopia never suffered in her entire existence of thousands of years a devastation on the scale Ahmed Gragn caused in his twelve years of rampage, looting and burning of churches, random killing of tens of thousands of Christian men, women, and children. On the other hand, despite the belligerency of some of the Ethiopian emperors and kings, one can say that Ethiopian soldiers usually were engaged in defense of the nation against attacks by armies of foreigners including armies of Moslem nations, or chasing out marauders such as nomadic Bejas mostly from the Sudan attacking settled Christian villages, Monasteries, Churches et cetera in the Northern part of Ethiopia (Eritrea).[34]

In the recent past, soon after Gamal Abdel Nasser took power in 1952, he concentrated his effort to control the Nile Basin, first he aimed to create some super state made up of Ethiopia (Eritrea), Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, with Egypt in control.[35] The real target was Ethiopia and the Blue Nile. The Arab governments in North Africa and the Middle East have played a crucial and destructive role in the weakening, sabotaging, and finally in the dismantling of Ethiopia.[36] Egypt has a long standing hostility towards Ethiopia from the time of the Pharaohs.[37] The source of the problem is the water of the Blue Nile or �Tikur Abaye� in Ethiopic/Amharic meaning the �big black father� that is the life blood of Egypt and the Sudan as well. Without water and silt taken from Ethiopia by the Blue Nile, Egypt and the Sudan would not have sustained any significant population. For example, in 1875 an ex-Confederate General in the service of the Egyptian Khedive, Ismail (Pasha), wrote in his memoir that the center of Egypt�s fear and interest was the control of the Blue Nile. �The khedive himself, when taxed with the intention of absorbing or annexing Abyssinia in whole or in part, referred to this, when he said that, as nature already was sending him down the best part of Abyssinia, he had no desire for the residue.�[38]

What is remarkable and often overlooked is the fact that Ethiopia never attempted to divert the waters of the Blue Nile or any other water body that flows into the Nile despite repeated provocation by Egypt. Ethiopia had sought only peaceful coexistence with neighboring countries. If Ethiopia goes to war, it was always for the right reasons: defending itself, and its people from foreign aggression. As we shall observe in the following paragraphs, Egyptian antagonism towards Ethiopia never ceased, nor diminished in its intensity during the last fifty years. If at all, it has become more perverse and open.

In the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, the most blatant and open attack against Ethiopia was spearheaded by Egypt starting with Ali Mohammed, followed by Ismail Pasha, then Gamal Abdel Nasser and on to the present leader Mubarak. Buotros Ghali, a nominally Coptic Christian, in the best tradition of his family�s service to Moslem leaders of Egypt, has excelled them all because he succeeded in dismembering Ethiopia, weakening its sovereignty, checkmating its development prospect, and insuring the exclusive use of the great bounty of the Blue Nile for Egypt. Gamal Nasser, a megalomaniacal leader, who came into power through a coupe d�etat, through his government controlled Radio Cairo launched the most perverse attack on Haile Selassie�s government trying to instigate the Moslem population of Ethiopia who were living a far more integrated life within Ethiopia than was the case in Egypt with Egyptian Coptic Christians let alone other Christians living in Egypt.[39] Furthermore, WoldeAb Wolde Mariam, the ex-President of the Eritrean Labour Unions, was given a special radio program as part of Radio Cairo to broadcast into Eritrea his vehemently anti-Ethiopia diatribe. Incidentally, WldeAb is from Axum, Tygrie, with a violent hatred of Shoan Amharas that drove him to extreme views. People who claimed far superior indigenous family root to �Eritrea� finally pushed him out of power in the skirmish within the liberation movement. The family of Boutros Ghali, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, were well known for their anti-Ethiopian activities starting from the time of Fuad I with sustained denigrating pieces in newspaper and pamphlets. In particular the control of Asseb and thus the entire Red Sea was one other great motivating factor for Egypt. For Ethiopia having an outlet is not just a political strategy but defines its very existence.[40]

The activities of those Arab nations were not limited to providing airtime for self-styled broadcasters. For Example, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt provided training, weapons, and money to the nascent Eritrean liberation movement, especially after the office of Eritrean Liberation Front, ELF was opened in Cairo in the 1960s. The Arab world interfered in the internal affairs of Ethiopia despite the fact that the Arab world has not been able to solve both its economic and political problems for years. All of the activities of these Arab nations and Pakistan included violated numerous principles of international law, resolutions, conventions, and treaties of the United Nations. In fact, some of these violations would even be considered as violations of �peremptory norms of international law.� Judge Schwebel summarized the principle and norm of international law that ��it is not lawful for a foreign State or movement to intervene in that struggle with force or to provide arms, supplies and other logistical support in the prosecution of armed rebellion.�[41]

Agreements were entered between Britain and Egypt, Egypt and the Sudan allocating the waters of the Nile - the Blue Nile - without regard to the rights of Ethioppia the only source country whose water is being apportioned by third parties.[42] It is to be recalled that 85 % (during the dry seasons) and over 95% (during the rainy seasons) of the water of the Nile that finally reaches the Mediterranean Sea originates from the highlands of Ethiopia. In addition, millions of tons of rich fertile Ethiopian soil is yearly delivered by the Blue Nile to Egypt and the Sudan. There is no question that this bounty of Ethiopia is the center of the problem of all this posturing, and century old effort on the part of Egypt to destroy Ethiopia. This is a clear case of a dog biting the hand that feeds it. Judge Schucking in his dissenting opinion in the Wimbledon Case stated that a treaty signed by two nations that affects the legitimate rights of third parties is invalid in regard to such third parties. Judge Schuking was simply affirming a norm of international law, and his dissention was on other grounds.[43]

What is tragic in all of this is the fact that a number of Ethiopian and Eritrean Moslems did not fully grasp the great morality, sociability, and tolerance of Christian Ethiopians. By contrast, if you consider the utter bigotry and intolerance of Arab leaders and to a great extent ordinary Arabs have for Christians and non-Arabs in their communities, and in neighboring nations, one is left with great dismay and disgust. For example, no Church is to be found in Saudi Arabia, a country of utterly anachronistic political, social, and cultural system, and often with primitive and barbaric practice of penal law.[44] One must not forget the fact that the Arabs were the major (maybe even the only) slavers in that part of the world who benefited from enslaving Africans in huge numbers bringing in death and destruction to millions of Africans for centuries all the way down to our time. [The irony of all that dehumanization resulted, centuries later, in established aristocratic dynasties made up of descendants of children of African Slaves in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait et cetera.]

Even in Egypt, a country presumed to have a more �enlightened� government and population, Coptic Christians are abused, their daughters kidnapped and raped, their sons subdued, disfranchised, economically controlled, and politically oppressed.[45] No one will find in Egypt a comparable quality and depth of freedom of religion as one finds in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Christians in Egypt or even Egyptian Coptes in Egypt do not have a fraction of the freedom enjoyed by Moslems in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Moslems in Ethiopia build Mosques anywhere they please some times they even build Mosques right next to Churches, unheard of event anywhere in the Arab world--just try to build a church next to a Mosque any where in Cairo or Alexandria, Mecca or Medhina, and see what happens. By contrast, Ethiopian Moslems practice their religion openly anywhere in Ethiopia without restriction either from the Ethiopian government or the community. Such is the bounty of a mother country that has been a target for destruction by these Arab nations. It is not a favor to Christian Ethiopians that Moslem Ethiopians should defend Ethiopia against Arab nations, but it is in their own best interest and national duty to do so in order to maintain such a tolerant, bountiful, and great nation prosper and be self sufficient.

No one molests, abuses, kidnaps, or enslaves any Moslem any where in Ethiopia. Other than abusing their own women, turning them into either some form of subhuman reproductive machine or subservient silent victims, most of these Arab nations practice a modern form of slavery on people from other parts of the world who are lured to work in the Middle East. And all other Arab nations such as, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria et cetera are all closed systems with oppressive systems of governments, and specially obnoxious to non-Moslems. The types of religious oppression and ethnic bigotry that exist in these Arab nations may be the worst in the world. Most human rights declarations, resolutions, covenants, and conventions are routinely discarded and violated in such Arab countries. The reports of international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch et cetera are replete with horror stories of religious persecution, oppression, abuse, and human rights violations. Even governments such as that of the United States could not turn a blind eye to the human rights violations and religious persecution of Christians going on in Arab countries. [46]

Ethiopia is like a precious jewel that one ought to defend and protect. For Ethiopian Moslems there is no better society where they can live with their human dignity intact and share in the political, cultural, and economic life of a nation as an integral and important part thereof. Ethiopian Moslems have always lived with relatively better economic strength compared to Christian Ethiopians. Ethiopian Moslems must not think in terms of religious solidarity with Arabs against their own fellow citizens (Ethiopians), when in reality they will also be treated no better than a �slave� in Arab nations because of their color. One must remember that Arabs in general were the first organized slavers and slave owners of African people in history. Millions of Africans suffered in the hands of Arab slavers outside of Africa. Ethiopians were also victims of Arab slavery to this day.[47]

This is where (The League of Arab States) Issaias Afwerki is trying to take the people of �Eritrea� of whom at least 50% are Orthodox Christians sharing the same religious tradition as their brothers and sisters in the rest of Ethiopia. He already has his foot in the door; Eritrea is listed as �Other Countries of Interest/Importance.� Should not Ethiopia be worried, as it always has done through out its thousands of years of history, about the welfare of its Christian family members of the people of Akale Guzi, Hamassen, Serie and else where in �Eritrea�? Of course, it must. After all both Issaias and Meles are passing mirages, what endures is Ethiopia. One must take into account the fact that Issaias is a �kenisha� meaning a protestant, and Meles is an atheist; neither seem to appreciate the great contribution of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to the national unity, sovereignty, and freedom of the people of Ethiopia.

Haile Selassie, Mengistu, and now Meles failed to promote the enviable record of the religious tolerance that exists in Ethiopia. Leaders of Ethiopia�s successive governments were too timid and did not effectively counter the propaganda war waged against the people of Ethiopia and their nation. Those leaders were more interested in brutalizing and violating the rights of Ethiopian citizens more than facing up to real enemies that were openly undermining Ethiopia and attempting to destabilize its governments. Just in the last few months, the government of Saudi Arabia has cracked down on Christians form different countries including some Ethiopians, who live and work in Saudi Arabia, for worshiping in their own private homes. The action of the Saudi government violated numerous human rights conventions, covenants, and resolutions of the United Nations, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nothing has been done by the government of Meles Zenawi about such intolerable action of the government of Saudi Arabia.

Ethiopia is faced with religious movements or movements based on Islamic religion in the Ogden, Bali, Arisi, Afar, and Eritrea bankrolled by oil money from neighboring Arab nations that have become very destructive. In most instances these movements are inadequate, their vision shallow, and their goals anachronistic. Why would anyone from Ethiopia want to join a group of nations whose human rights record is dismal, and whose government structure is dictatorship of the worst kind, and whose national economic wealth is treated as a private estate? Just recently, the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States at an interview with MSN Reporter in connection with the September 11th, catastrophe, when asked about corruption in the Kingdom, (he) answered bluntly and with his usual I-know-it-all arrogance, �So What? We did not invent corruption.� Such are the leaders of the Arab world. All I wrote about in this section is not due to hate or animosity I harbored against Arabs and Egyptians, but to remind all concerned to be aware of the type of neighbors we have and to be on our guard against our historic enemies and those who wish us ill, and in fact, who have caused us a lot of problems. It is the duty of all responsible governments to inform fully their respective citizens all serious dangers. The government of Meles Zenawi is, in fact, engaged in actively suppressing information on the issue of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Western nations in recent times seem to see Ethiopia as a disposable entity. Ethiopia lost considerable prestige and influence with the military takeover of the 1974. The fact that the military dictatorship forged close relationship with the Soviet Union made the situation even worse. Other than the open lust of Italy to colonize Ethiopia, England, France, even Tsarist Russia, all had entertained some colonial fantasy. So-called �friends� of Ethiopia such as England and the United States are wolves disguised as sheep. In both nations racism is still well and alive; it now manifests itself more vividly in their dealings with far off countries such as Ethiopia. Since the Second World War, both the United States and England consistently have abused the hospitality, good will, hope, and friendship of Ethiopia. And now these two countries in collaboration with Arab nations are trying to destroy an ancient and proud people by forcing on them some unjust and illegal demarcation of boundaries that will bottle up over seventy million people and promote violence and conflict in the region for a long time. What the governments of the two nations are doing is particularly insidious considering the fact that England is an island with thousands of miles of coast, and the United States even has incorporated in one of its national songs the fact that it boasts not one coastal territory but two: �from sea to shining sea.�

IV. ADMISSION PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Is there an established process or formal procedure for admission as member to the United Nations? Does the act of admission preempt all other out standing issues dealing with national boundaries and/or international obligations of the recognized state? Conspiracy against the interest of a parent state by its officials in representing the interest and consent of that parent state in regard to its seceding part vitiate any subsequent act of recognition or admission?

Once the United Nations was open to business in 1946, the first problem that confronted the new organization was the question of membership. The membership of the first fifty one nations that attended the San Francisco conference was grandfatherd into the Charter by Article 3.[48] There was no special requirement or procedure to be followed in regard to the membership of those fifty one nations even though at least two of those members were not real states.[49] Ethiopia is one of the fifty-one founding members of the United Nations. Its representatives at the United Nations Conference on International Organization presented Ethiopia�s views on the Trusteeship Council and on the question of whether Italy�s attack on Ethiopia in 1935 could be covered by the designation of the Second World War.

For all other nations that want membership thereafter, the international standard and procedure for admission to the United Nations are spelled out in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. In 1947 the General Assembly sought advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the issue whether the General Assembly was allowed to withhold membership even though a State applying for membership may have met the requirements of Article 4 Paragraph 1 of the Charter. In fact, that was the first case the General Assembly requested for an advisory opinion from the International Court. The Court in its majority advisory opinion of 28 May 1948 stated that the admission of a State may not be withheld based on factors outside of the requirements set out in Article 4 Paragraph 1.[50] And later in that year, the General Assembly requested again another advisory opinion on the issue of whether the General Assembly may admit new members in a situation where the Security Council did not make a recommendation, and on the related issue of whether the absence of a recommendation may be considered as �unfavorable� recommendation for the purpose of Article 4 Paragraph 2. The court decided that the General Assembly might not admit new members without the recommendation of the Security Council.[51]

However, the Court did not consider one important issue whether the General Assembly can reject the recommendation of the Security Council for admission of a new State under Article 4 paragraph 2. Although the implication of its opinion makes it obvious that the General Assembly may in fact reject a recommendation, it did not state clearly its views clearly on that issue. Without such a possibility of rejection the General Assembly�s role in the admission process becomes meaningless; it may as well be a routine rubber-stamping body. It may be worthwhile to reconsider the dissenting opinion of Judge Alvarez in the Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations case.[52]

The General Assembly in a number of resolutions fine tuned the admission process through its Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly,[53] but left a number of issues unresolved. For example, whether the veto power of the Permanent Members of the Security Council is appropriate on issues dealing with admission to the United Nations, or whether the General Assembly can delay admission indefinitely or for a period after having received a recommendation from the Security Council. In addition, we may look into opinio juris of States since 1947 to study how the issue of admission is resolved by states. But that would not have helped us resolve such problems of admission since some of the problems have to do with the Cold War competition between the two Super Powers, and the drama played out by their supporters and satellite new States or governments. There were a number of incidents where admission to the United Nations, or to be seated in the General Assembly brought about very bitter contention between interest groups.[54]

And jurists have provided their insights on that important issue on question of admission to the United Nations in books and articles.[55] However, it is not enough just to state the international principles and practices that are applicable on issues concerning the admission of states to the United Nations. We must relate our understanding of these international principles and practices to real situations. In order to answer such questions fully, we must carefully study the event leading to the establishment of a new government (TGE) and a new State (Eritrea). In case of Ethiopia, in 1991, two provisional governments, one in Ethiopia and another in Eritrea, were created after an extended belligerency by several liberation movements in the country. The legitimacy of either government is questionable. The whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate how porous and petty the whole regime of international relations has become compared to the ideal enshrined in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations. Individual competition for power and dominance is at the root of all international conflicts.

Meles Zenawi, as President of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, in a letter to the United Nations stated that the �the people of Eritrea have the right to determine their own future by themselves and accepted that the future status of Eritrea should be decided by the Eritrean people in a referendum...� [56] The letter has several assertions that are errors on several grounds. To begin with, Meles is confusing two separate processes: self-determination, and secession; the right to self-determination does not include automatic secession. Nowhere in that letter the interest of Ethiopia or Ethiopians is raised. Even more important is the fact that Meles�s government is neither legitimate nor permanent. It is a transitional de facto dictatorship. Meles or any one else has no legal, political, equitable, or historical right to bind the Ethiopian people to any international agreement or commitment that could have a long term damaging effect on Ethiopia and its people. The OAU�s curt response[57] not to participate in a high-wire act of endorsement of a unilateral referendum to be conducted in Eritrea at the request of Eritrea, in order to shorten a rather uncertain time consuming process involved in the United Nations� membership game, as suggested by the Secretary General of the United Nations, is remarkable and absolutely correct. Buotros Ghali once again displayed his lack of understanding of his role as Secretary-General by stating in the Report that the African States, who refused to go along with Ghali�s scheme, were simply protecting their individual interest.[58] Thereby he insinuated that those African leaders lacked integrity and international concern. The comment is highly impertinent and arrogant. Although from the report and the general behavior of the Buotros Ghali, one is left with an impression that the role of the United Nations seems to be that of an active �liberator,� the fact of the matter is that the United Nations was there only as an observer. I shall explain further how such modest authorization of the General Assembly was transformed into a mission to destroy Ethiopia by Buotros Ghali.

It is obvious that the referendum carried out by Issaias Afwerki�s government in 1993 was defective. It is to be recalled a year earlier on April 7, 1992, Issaias Afwerki had issued the Eritrean Referendum Proclamation, which in essence was a blunt warning to the general population how �Eritreans� were supposed to vote. During the one-year period before the referendum was conducted, there was absolute suppression of speech and assembly that might promote any other point of view other than that of the official government voice of independence. None of the items i.e., about open hearing and discussion, mentioned in Buotroes Ghali�s suggestion to the General Assembly to send United Nations observers, never took place. Moreover, the referendum itself was defective since it did not address or make provisions to the legitimate interest of Ethiopians that predates the so-called Italian colonization of Eritrea or its independence. The ballot is framed in such a manner that there was no other choice except to vote for the desired goal of the EPLF. If we consider a) the actual wording on the ballot of the referendum, and b) the ethnic structure of Eritrea, one can observe how seriously the whole referendum process was compromised. The ballot reads �DO YOU APPROVE ERITREA TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN STATE.� In fact, the Tigrigna and Arabic version is even more suggestive for voting in the affirmative. Under the existing circumstance, how else would anyone vote except �yes� with that form of a single question? At any rate, the formula on the ballot was not democratic because it did not provide other reasonable choices for Eritreans to choose from such as a choice to remain with Ethiopia either in a federal structure or union.

To base an important decision on the fact of an illegal event, such as an occupation or a colonial past that lasted only for 60 years as opposed to centuries of historically verifiable political and existential fact of a unite called Ethiopia (where the area that is now accepted as one unite called Eritrea was a part), is both violative of international law and a setback to the development of 20th Century political structures. Eritrea has similar ethnic population as Ethiopia. Since the colonial boundary drawn by a treaty, entered under duress, or to promote the personal ambition of an Emperor, simply divided ethnic groups, the first and most reasonable approach would have been first to make such divided ethnic groups whole. And after such restructuring, it would have been proper to ask each ethnic group to decide on their future with multiple choices by such a referendum.

After the referendum was concluded, the government of Meles Zenawi wrote another letter to the United Nations.[59] Furthermore, Meles Zenawi gave interviews to Ethiopian and international media expressing his support of the independence of Eritrea and its Membership in the United Nations. His activities were not that of a leader of a parent state that has just lost a constituent part, but that of an active participant, may be even a criminal conspirator, in the process of the secession itself. To say the least, his actions were bizarre.

After the referendum was completed on April 25, 1993, and on the recommendation of the Security Council on 26 May 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit Eritrea to membership in the United Nations (at its 104th plenary meeting of 28 May 1993).[60] The Eritrean Government submitted a request for admission to the United Nations in 1993.[61] In that letter, the Eritrean government did not make any reference to international boundaries or concrete claim of any physical landmass that allegedly constituted Eritrea. Does such unilateral declaration in a letter or document for admission create in third parties a binding obligation to respect such boundaries if such third parties recognized the State of Eritrea? Or does the admission to the United Nations create such obligation on the members of the United Nations? It does not!

There could be some confusion between the recognition of a State and the admission of a State to an international organization, such as the United Nations. Denial of admission into an international organization does not of itself negate the status of a political entity as a nation or a state, or its status as a subject of international law and practices. However, the reverse is not true, since some international organizations, such as the United Nations, could allow only states to become members of such organizations; however, the United Nations and few other international organizations have provisions for non-member state entities to participate in such organizations as observers.

The record of the admission process to the United Nations of the last fifty years shows a very flawed process. In the Eritrean case, for example, the Security Council did not use any investigative record as to whether the Eritrean government is fit to observe the obligations of membership. The recommendation is illegal because there is nothing to show that the recommendation was a result of deliberation in order to ascertain whether the Eritrean Government was capable of observing the obligations or requirements of membership. It was not deliberated and was a simple act of rubber-stamping contrary to the spirit and the written words of Article 4, which calls for deliberation to make sure that �in the judgment of the Organization� the Eritrean government can fulfill its membership obligation. The ICJ in its advisory opinion has clearly stated that ��the Rules of Procedure [Article 125] of the General Assembly provide for consideration of the merits of an application and of the decision to be made upon it�� [62]

Moreover, I do realize that Article 4 of the Charter has inherent structural defect. The Security Council seems to have inordinate power on the admission of new members. Especially the five Permanent members of the council have power that had been used in an abusive manner in stalling or preventing new admissions to the United Nations, and nothing can prevent them from using their power arbitrarily in the future. The Charter does not provide any form of appeal procedure, or mechanism for review of unfavorable or no recommendation from the Security Council, for new nations aspiring to join the United Nations. The Permanent Members of the Security Council for their own esoteric and highly individualistic purposes used other members as their pawns on a cheese board of political and economic games. This is one other defect in the United Nations system that requires close attention and immediate remedy.

In the case of Issaias Afwerki�s government request for admission to Membership of the United Nations, the Security Council should have inquired into the activities of the government of Issaias Afwerki, the history of abuse and brutality in the infighting of the EPLF and other �liberation� organizations in the area. For example, the unnecessary violence that was inflicted on the Ethiopian military even when there was no need for such attack in 1991 by the EPLF that lead up to the destruction and imprisonment of tens of thousands of soldiers was a violation of the laws of war. There were several indications, and factual matters that should have been signposts for the Security Council and the General Assembly that the issue of membership should have been shelved for few more years until things settled down, and serious attempt for reconciliation is also attempted or worked out.

The admission of Monaco into the United Nations is a telling example of the United Nations not being in touch with reality. Monaco was admitted to membership of the United Nations in the same Resolution as Eritrea.[63] Who in his right mind would think of Monaco, a country no bigger than a postage stamp (size:1.95 sq. kilometer; pop: 32,000), the casino capital for Europeans and international jetsetters, be considered on equal footing with legitimate nations like Brazil, China, India, Ethiopia, et cetera with hundreds of millions of people and millions of square miles; and is empowered to cast one vote just like any other individual country. A few years back it was tiny nations in the Gulf, in reality no better than �oil wells with flags� (Arab Emirates, Dubai, Kuwait et cetera) that were admitted to membership, and later tiny island resort beaches and riverbanks swelled the membership of the United Nations. Now we have Monaco no better than a large casino as a member of the United Nations. Now, what entity is going to be a member of the United Nations next�a brothel?

By opening membership to tiny fragments of nations with limited population, the United Nations has created an inflationary voting process, where the value of a vote is dependent on which camp you are with. Even more harmful and destabilizing of the World is that it introduced a bad example and opened a floodgate that every Tom, Dick, and Harry would attempt to come through flying flags of independence from every nook and cranny and claim membership in the United Nations. I am bitterly critical of what the United Nations has become into: an inapt and inflated bureaucracy, spending billions of dollars on frivolous projects, a clubhouse for dictators and tyrants, and a refuge for criminals. In the name of the United Nations, sanctions were imposed, wars were fought, the �voice� of the world was carried out, and millions died as a consequence�a far cry from the hopes of the people who fought Fascists and Nazis and who had great vision for the world when they established the organization over fifty years ago. As things stand, with partisan officials, and bullying superpowers, I doubt that the United Nations would survive much longer such types of forces that undermine its purpose and aspirations.

Endnotes: (very limited)

31. See in general, Tekle Tsadq Mekuria, The Pillage by Ahmed Gran, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1967; Trimingham, J.S. Islam In Ethiopia, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1962.

32. Getatchew Haile, Bahre Hasab, Avon MN: Bahre Hasab, 2000, 237- 245. It is truly a tragedy how much destruction was caused by Ahmed Gragn to Ethiopia. I think Ethiopia is still suffering from that devastation, and has not yet fully recovered.

33. Tekle Tsadq Mekuria, The Pillage , 459-60.

34. See an overview of the different forces of history (dynamics of groups) at work in the Ethiopian state evolution between the nomadic Bejas and Northern settled Christian Ethiopians (Akale Guzi, Hamassen, Serie) in Levine, Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society, Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

35. See Addis Tribune (Addis Ababa) �Egypt and the Hydro-Politics of the Blue Nile River, Part II,� August, 1999. <allafrica.com/stories/printable/1999908130062.html>

36. Most Ethiopians I talked to believe that the Arab countries are our most formidable enemies. It is public knowledge that especially the ELF was fully backed by Arab nations as a Moslem movement against Ethiopia.

37. Queen Hatshepsut.

38 W. W. Loring, A Confederate Soldier in Egypt, New York: Dodd, Mead& Company, 1884, Appendix I. (emphasis added) This book is a valuable source about the behavior of racist officers from the belly of the Beast, from the deep South of the United States, in the service of the Khedives of Egypt in their futile expedition into Northern Ethiopia (now Eritrea). There were at least seven American (United States) mercenaries in the pay of the Egyptian khadives with the Egyptian expeditions into Ethiopia.

There are several studies on the Blue Nile Basin both by Ethiopians and foreigners. For a short but profound assessment of the politics surrounding the Blue Nile, read: Daniel Kendie, �Egypt and the Hydro-Politics of the Blue Nile River,� Academic Forum,&lhttps:////www.hsu.edu/ faculty/afo/1999-00/kendie.htm>

39. The International Coptic Federation , Concerned Women for America, The U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch have reported repeatedly that Egypt is a gross violator of freedom of religion; and Coptic Christians have been oppressed, harassed, at times attacked, and Coptic girls on several occasions kidnapped and never returned to their families.

40. Negussay Ayele, �Asseb as Symbol for the Restoration of Ethiopia�s Natural Sea Coast,� 2000. This a very well thought out article, on both the psychology of a people being boxed-in and the dynamics of opening-up to the World.

41. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits 1986 I.C.J. Reports p 351. [The majority�s opinion on that point is summed up by Judge Schwebel in his dissenting opinion; the majority�s lengthy view is several pages long, pages 14ff.]

42. Daniel Kendie, �Egypt and the Hydro-Politics of the Blue Nile River,� Academic Forum,&lhttps:////www.hsu.edu/ faculty/afo/1999-00/kendie.htm> 4-6. Treaties entered by Egypt, the Sudan, and Britain with regard to the allocation of waters of the Nile, control of feeder rivers and springs, lakes et cetera has no validity in binding Ethiopia to any agreed protocol or provision under any concept of international law dealing with international rivers. First of all in order to be bound to any international agreement one has to be a party to such agreement. Ethiopia is not a party to such agreement. One problem is Menelik II, whom I liken to Meles Zenawi as the most destructive Emperor and the source of all of our political problems with the outside world, once again has signed off some of Ethiopia�s rights on the waters of the Blue Nile, Lake Tana,, and the Sobat in an agreement with Britain in 1902.

43. Wimbledon Case, 1923 PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 1, 47.

44. See U.S. Department of State Annual Report, International Religious Freedom Report for 1999, 2000, 2001 on Saudi Arabia.

45. See the report and press release of International Christian Concern, Washington DC, that monitors the day-to-day persecution, arrest, torture, and dehumanization of Christians in Saudi Arabia. Those Christians living in Saudi Arabia have absolutely no Church to go to, for no Church is allowed in Saudi Arabia. And here we have Moslems complaining because they were not allowed to build a Mosque (there are already thousands) over a Church. What a hypocrisy!

46. See, for example, the official U.S. Department of State Annual Report, International Religious Freedom Report for 1999, 2000, 2001 on Arab nations. The report shows persecution of Christians, suppression of other religions, and official intolerance of minorities in every Near Middle Eastern Arab nations.

47. The case that comes to mind is the case of Yeshiwork Desta Zewdu, who was condemned to death by a Bahrain Court for murdering her �mistress,� after a long period of horrendous abuse that drove the poor young woman insane. Murray, E.P., � Slavery Continues in New Century: Ethiopian Female Slaves in the Middle East,� The Washington Times, 5 July 2001, A19.

48. Chapter II of the Charter of the United Nations deals with membership. �Article 3. The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with 110.� Ethiopia is one of the fifty-one original founding members of the United Nations.

49. Belarus and Ukraine were not States, but part of the USSR in 1945.

50. Condition of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1948.

51. Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, 4, 9. The underling problem was the beginning of the cold war, and both the West and the Soviet Union were trying to control the membership of the United Nations.

52. Competence of Assembly I.C.J. Reports 1950, 4.

53. United Nations (General Assembly) Special Committee on Admission of New Members, New York: United Nations, 1953; United Nations (Security Council) Special Report to the General Assembly on the Admission of new Members, Lake Success: United Nations, 1946; - Admission of New Members, A/108. 15 Oct. 1946 Lake Success: United Nations, 1946.

54. Eban, Abba Solomon, Israel, the case for Admission to the United Nations, an address delivered before the Ad Hoc Political Committee of the United States, May 5, 1949, New York: Israel Office of information, 1949. Committee Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations, The Seating of Red China in the United Nations: is it an Important Question? An Expert Analysis, New Delhi: Committee Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations, 1967.

55. Crawford, James, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, 1981; Whitehurst, Clinton H., The Forgotten Concepts of Sovereignty, Independence, and Nationhood as Criterias for UN Membership, Clemson, SC: Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 1998.

56. Letter from President Meles Zenawi to Javier Perez de Cuellar, Secretary-General of the United Nations, dated 13 December 1991, in The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996, 154.

57. The OAU�s initial response not to participate in the overture that was being suggested by Buotros Ghali was similar in essence to an earlier rejection by the United Nations General Assembly of the White minority settler�s effort lead by Ian Smith to create a new state of Rhodesia; the World body had expressed its reservation on the issue of a referendum to be conducted by a discreet group (White minority group) where the base conflict to be resolved involved the interest of the excluded group (Black African majority).

58. The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996, 21.

59. Statement of 4 May 1993 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, among other things holds that � the Transitional Government of Ethiopia wishes to make it known to the international community that Ethiopia accepts and recognizes Eritrea as a sovereign state.� In The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996, 214.

60. A/RES/47/230, 28 May 1993. In The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996. 217.

61. The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996, 215.

62. Competence of Assembly I.C.J. Reports 1950, 9. (emphasis added)

63. In The United Nations and the Independence of Eritrea, 1996. 218.