TO INSURE PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND HISTORY  RECOUP [ETHIOPIA]

Tecola W. Hagos

It is very unusual to start an essay with a conclusion. I may have breached �style� by choosing to go directly to the core point of my essay. Several encouraging, as well as disappointing, events have happened during the time I started writing this essay to date. One singularly tragic event is the Tsunami that took the lives of so many people in South East Asia and India. It also brought out the best of our humanity in our effort to help each other in times of such great tragedy. It may look ironic that my essay would have so much fire in it during a time that we are being exposed to such human struggle for survival and cooperation.

I read with great satisfaction about the apology by Former Ethiopian President Negaso Gidada and former TPLF leader Gebru Asrate, one of the Twelve Dissenters, for participating in the 2000 Algiers Agreement fiasco, and their denouncing of Meles Zenawi and his five-point initiative addressing a demonstration of almost two hundred thousand Ethiopians in Addis Ababa is highly admirable. Those two Ethiopians demonstrated great leadership,  courage, and patriotic zeal in the face of great danger. These are extremely positive developments that all Ethiopians should embrace and welcome. That is the great dilemma in life: the ever contradiction that life itself is. With my respect and apology to all who have suffered and who want nothing more than peace to recover from such horrendous experience, I jump in to the fry of things, nevertheless.

I. To Insure Peace, Prepare for War:  Perspective and Conclusion

I once wrote that �an eye for an eye� approach was the tendency in my reaction to people who attacked me. However, I realize now that would only end up blinding every one, to paraphrase Gandhi. Even worse, I remembered a moral story told to me by a friend billed as a joke. The story was about a man and his friend. The story goes that the man had a chance to meet with God who promised to fulfill any wish the man wants on condition that the man�s friend would be given twice as much. The Man thought for a little while and told God he was ready to make his wish. God asked the man to state out his wish clearly. The man pointing to one of his eyes stated to God, �It is my wish that You take out one of my eyes, and thus blind me in one eye.� The moral of the story was that by having his one eye blinded he was asking God to blind his friend in both eyes. I am asking all of us: are we all in a campaign of blinding our Ethiopian brothers and sisters in both eyes?

Personal insult of an individual because one finds the ideas of such an individual to be repugnant to our values or ideas is inappropriate and will not advance the scholarship or reason for defending Menilik II or any other views on patriotism, economic development, social engineering et cetera. I think this particular skirmish about Menilik is getting out of control, and totally having a life of its own. It seems the whole issue is being high jacked and being diverted into a squabble of the worst kind losing its intended purpose to enlighten and enlarge our understanding of the circumstances and historical reality leading to the conflict with �Eritrea.� It is with such intention that I am continuing to correct the misrepresentation of my ideas in such antagonistic articles, and the misinterpretations of historical events posted in a particularly insidious website. I have no desire to engage myself in any dialogue on a one to one basis with any hired gun.

Ethiopia is far more important than any one Ethiopian emperor, treasonous or not.  The survival of Ethiopia is far more important than either Emperor Yohannes IV or Emperor Menilik II. Our country is being destroyed, and these generations of Ethiopians are now faced with the tremendous task of defending our country. Let us set aside our personal skirmish, and concentrate on the task at hand. As far as I am concerned, for the sake of our unity, for the sake of Ethiopia, I am ready to swallow the poisonous falsehood of Menilik�s �greatness� and �patriotism� promoted by the Mehale Sefaris and their recent collaborator, even though I know that such action will morally kill me.

The conflict with "Eritrea" is not a simple matter that can be solved easily by the pronouncement of an illegally constituted and corrupt Boundary Commission. Though it has been over a month, the United States has not made any statement in support of Meles Zenawi�s five-point double-talk to accept the decision of the Boundary Commission. The departing Secretary of State Colin Powell made it absolutely clear that the problem is complex to the point of being �vexing.� He said, �And in many of these places, as I have dived into them in considerable depth, the solutions are not instantaneous American �shake and bake� solutions. They're going to take decades to solve some of these problems: Haiti and Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Sudan, and the others that I've mentioned -- Somalia, take a look into Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, these are vexing problems.� [23 December 2004, interview at a Monitor luncheon, transcript by the State Department.] The recent promotion of the idea of �renting� Assab is nothing more than the voice of the United States behind respected Ethiopians. Such an idea is no less treasonous than that of the activities of Meles Zenawi in signing the 2000 Algiers Agreement and his recent double-talk.

The solution is within our grasp; first and foremost, we must remove Meles Zenawi from office. The establishment of an Ethiopian patriotic national government is a must. In this regard, even a military coupe is a step in the right direction. The most important relationship to be reworked and redirected is the one with �Eritrea.� The focus ought to be on the Ethiopian Afar Coastal Territories and the territorial waters of the Red Sea. I am not undermining the legitimate rights of the people of Irob, Kunama, Afar et cetera not to be subjected to forced removal and loss of Ethiopian citizenship. No nation on Earth, no matter how big it feels it is, has such a right to forcing people into accepting agreements or decisions reached by treasonous and corrupt group of people. We should focus on how to strengthen our Ethiopian society in order to counter any attack from neighboring nations. The way to insure peace is by having a powerful defense, and above all by having full sovereignty on the Ethiopian Afar Coastal Territories and Ethiopian Territorial Waters on the Red Sea. Meles Zenawi has repeatedly mislabeled this serious issue of �sovereignty� as if it was an economic problem thereby undermining the significance of having a natural geographical and demographical extension of Ethiopia into the Red Sea. The issue of the Afar Coastal Territories is not a mere economic issue. It is the very soul of Ethiopia�s survival and its indivisible historic right to its own Coastal and Territorial Waters on the Red Sea. 

The arrogance of Europeans and their kinds elsewhere in their demand that Ethiopia cedes its territories and abandons its citizens is unbelievable. Would these nations now acting as �doves� bearing olive branches of peace, yield a square inch of their coastal territories or a cubic foot of their territorial waters? They seem to have forgotten the atrocities they committed during the colonial era to the middle of the Twentieth Century. They are the sole cause of the problems that the world is faced with now. That fact is best illustrated in their activities in the internal affairs of Ethiopia of the last fifty years. Have they forgotten the millions of human beings they have murdered, bombed, and massacred even after the horrible lesson of the Second World War. Why should we accept their pronouncement now since they have no moral credibility in judging our ways or us. Because of the vastness of their destruction of people around the world, they should neither be respected nor obeyed by anyone. We should not be afraid of such immoral groups of people whose brutality and savagery is beyond description. Let us remember the absolute fact that we all die at some point. The worst death is to die little by little losing our history, our identity, and our human dignity. That is precisely what has been designed for us by our historic enemies in the region and their European allies.

The little dance Meles Zenawi is having with Sudan on one hand and Yemen on the other would be an ill-fated short-lived relationship. Both nations are part of a conspiratorial group of countries in the region that have aimed to destroy Ethiopia since the Ottoman Turks time. It is no different than the mesmerizing swaying of a cobra before it devours its victim�a victim transfixed by such soothing movement. The volatile political situation in Sudan is not something on which the kind of solid friendship can be built that Ethiopia needs at this moment. We ought to ready ourselves for a prolonged war and conflict rather than engage ourselves in a fruitless effort to convince our enemies about our right to survive as a nation. This is a question of survival to Ethiopians not some academic issue for leisurely discussion, thus every means to insure our survival is legitimate. I have not heard of any �people� being successful in their survival by argument, begging, or pointing to high moral standards. Even India�s independence was achieved by the use or real threat of force not just by Gandhi�s non-violence; the same is true about the destruction of Apartheid in South Africa or the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. This is not the time to talk of some shabby sell-out �peace� and �trade agreement� but a time to mobilize and create solidarity for protracted war.

As to Meles Zenawi and his collaborators, who have betrayed the trust of the people of Ethiopia, arresting them and bringing them to justice is the first step toward healing the political and economic suffering of Ethiopia. Meles Zenawi is not ten feet tall. He is hardly five feet tall, and can be challenged effectively. Our first mission is to throw him out of office and take charge of the situation. It is very probable that the leadership at Asmara will attack Ethiopia if their partner in the greatest crime committed against the people of Ethiopia is threatened or arrested for treason and other state crimes. The secret is not to panic or change course if such attack occurs. No matter what happens, the first and only mission of all Ethiopians must be focused on getting rid of the present regime of Meles Zenawi. Only then, we can be able to address effectively the conflict with �Eritrea� and reassert our sovereignty in all of the Afar Coastal Territories and the Territorial Waters on the Red Sea, and rescue our Afar brothers and sisters from colonial occupation by forces ever conspiring to destroy Ethiopia. Only then, we will be able to work toward peace. �Yeman bet tefto yeman lilema�� We must be ready to ignite a fire that will engulf the whole region if it comes down to a question that threatens or destroys our survival as a nation and a people. Courage my brothers and sisters, courage!  

II. Misrepresentation and Misinterpretations

Because of the numerous misrepresentations of my views, outright lies, distortion of historical facts, and misinterpretation of international law in a recent article posted in a website, I shall address and correct some of the most outrageous allegations and statements. I will simply ignore the vulgarity and insult in that article and in the chat responses thereof. I urge people to do the same, for I have received several messages of concern about how the standard of discourse is deteriorating and that I should not respond in kind. Moreover, we need not be discouraged because an individual persisted to write in a certain unappetizing manner. There are very intelligent and good mannered Ethiopians who are able to make the important distinction between educated criticism and tera rickash sidib. 

The learned criticism by Mitiku Adisu, on my four-segment article, posted in this Website a couple of weeks ago, is both educational and a standard of excellence for the type of engagement and dialogue that we all ought to emulate when ever we criticize others. My aim in writing all of my essays including this one is to help us understand our tumultuous history that had come down to us with tremendous distortions and cover-ups, and our relationships with each other and the outside world. I have never claimed that I am the only depositor of truth in any of my writings or in any of my oral presentations. Just a few days ago, I received a note from a generous Ethiopian sage correcting certain factual errors that I made in my four-segment article, especially errors on the events leading to the death of Abeto Wossensegede and King Sahle Selassie. The correction was gentle and non-corrosive.

Even though I had extracted my version of such events leading to the death of Abeto Wossensegede and King Sahle Selassie from historical books, it did not save me from making mistakes. Day by day, I am aware of the complexity of our history, such that we must not be dogmatic or fanatical about any portion of it by relaying completely on writings by historians or politicians without making effort to check and counter check our research with as many sources including oral tradition. [For your information, the corrected version holds that Wossenseged was killed during a hunting expedition by his �slave� servant by accident when the gun the servant was holding misfired contrary to my writing that Wossenseged was assassinated. It was Sahle Selassie who was assassinated by his �slave� servant who was paid by the ancestors of Ras Mesfin Seleshi in a plot due to some marriage feud with King Sahle Selassie. Ethiopian history continues to fascinate and intrigue us all.]

I have stated clearly that all Ethiopian historic figures are responsible in some way or other to the state of our present condition. However, that does not mean that they are all equally at fault in some of the events that lead to our current crisis. The very fact that the Algiers Agreement of 2000 cited only the �treaty� and �conventions� signed by Menilik II should have been sufficient indicator to us by whose mistaken policy we are burdened with in our present crisis. The people of Ethiopia had a role in all that too. Nevertheless, it is a grave mistake to read my essays as an advocacy for the supremacy of one ethnic group. I wrote about Ethiopian Emperors as individuals and not as representatives of an ethnic group or a tribe. I wrote also about particular interest groups that have been detrimental to our recent history from the time of Menilik II. I wrote the following in Part Four: Section: Miscellaneous/Conclusion of my article:

�In 1894, the anarchist Emile Henry declared with moral certitude while facing the guillotine, �There are no innocents!� I too, facing a different sort of guillotine�the guillotine of critical thinking�assert that there are no innocent parties in the long history of Ethiopia. The history of the people and leaders of Ethiopia resembles, more than anything else, a chaotic African market. Ethiopia�s history is maddeningly diverse, and narrates to us about constant battles and desperate events often. It is a history of people being dehumanized, relentlessly oppressed, and violently treated; it is a history of leaders ever eager to do most anything to acquire and remain in power. On the other hand, it is also a history of battles and wars fought by courageous people against foreign aggressors. Moreover, it is a history of the meanness, cruelty, and at times of great nobility of character of ordinary Ethiopians. Maybe such a history is the norm rather than the exception the world over. It was with reservation that I wrote in previous essays about the virtues of some of Ethiopia�s emperors in comparison to others. I never intended to color any Ethiopian emperor with absolute glowing colors. The search and exposition of historical truth must be seen as a liberating force and not as a subversive one.

�Whether I am writing about slavery or treason, the proper acknowledgement of what actually happened in our past is enlightening and liberating from a life encumbered and heavily weighed down with centuries of lies and distortions. We do not have to fight, tooth and nail, to convince each other as to which Ethiopian Emperor committed the most atrocities or the most treason. My essays are expositions of a corrective kind of what I believed was a distortion of history by an entrenched and highly polarizing group of people with their elites and supporters. I envision a far better Ethiopia that we could all claim as our own than the vision of those self-promoting groups. It is such a glorious vision for Ethiopia that prompted all of my essays. The vision of a glorious Ethiopia is some thing to behold and aspire for as a realizable future reality.� [Part Four: Section: Miscellaneous/Conclusion]

If I were a cynical person, I would conclude that the fact that I generated extreme response in a handful of individuals tells me that I have touched a raw never in some, either on issue of my dare or on the merit of my writing.  In a sophomoric effort to make me look like I was promoting the supremacy of one �ethnic� group, I was scorned as a person who was trying to be more Tygrean than the Tygreans themselves. What more can I say on this subject except that I am the very antithesis of Ethnicism; I have repeatedly stated the fact of my Ethiopianness by birth, describing where I grew up, the people who influenced me, et cetera et cetera and my thoughts on Ethnicism and tribalism. If at all, I may be accused of identifying myself as a Wolloie. I believe in my Ethiopian identity. [See Tecola Hagos Responds: Part One: Beyond Ethnicism: Molding the New Ethiopia, VI. Questions on my Ethnic Background]

I believe that no one has any right whatsoever to question my dedication to Ethiopia, or my Ethiopian identity. After all, I represent by mere biology of birthright more than three/fourth of the population of Ethiopia. I came from families who help create the very Ethiopia we are fighting to preserve. It is to the great credit of ancestors and Great Grandparents who traversed North to South, East to West with other patriotic and courageous Ethiopians to help create Ethiopia. With a timeline that is within the knowledge of our vast family members, I can assert without any hesitation that we served as soldiers with Emperors Amde Tsion and Sertse Dingle in campaigns from Hamassein to Borona [Lake Turkana (Rudolf)], and of recent times with the Great Alula Abanega in his many campaigns against the Italians and the Egyptians, and Emperor Yohannes IV at Metema, with Emperor Menilik II at Chelekot and Adowa, with Emperor Haile Selassie I at Michew, and as resistance fighters during the five years Italian occupation from Wolkiet Tsegede to Dessie and further south in Shoa. I am the quintessential Ethiopian, a descendant of the great people of Amhara (Gondar, Lasta, Shoa [Efrata (Menz), Debreberhan (Tegulet)], Tygrei [Adowa, Agame, Axum], and Oromo, Wollo [Mamedo and Woreseh]. The following being my latest statement on questions of ethnic politics:

�I have read articles and criticisms labeling me as a �Tygrean intellectual� in an effort to alienate me from the people of Ethiopia and to undermine my work. I am not in any form a narrow ethnic based demagogue, and have never identified myself or defined my work in such tailored and narrow fashion. I simply do not have the mind-set of a parochial person. I write and paint sincerely believing that my effort and life is meaningful and significant and that I could help the people of Ethiopia. Furthermore, the people of Ethiopia have overcome tremendous difficulties as a great people with a tremendous past.  They are in the process of shaping a bright future for all of us so we can go back home with pride without fear of persecution.�  [Part Four: Section: Miscellaneous/Conclusion]

Here, I am offering this particular summing up of my four-segment essay by way of clarifying ambiguities and tying up of loose ends. I find it most unbecoming for anyone to call Yohannes IV or Tewodros II a �pretender� because such effort is aimed to enhance the stature of Menilik II at the cost of the two courageous leaders. Yohannes IV is no �pretender� for he has as much legitimacy as the next Ethiopian Emperor. It is even more objectionable for the term �pretender� to be used because other than its surface meaning, it also connotes character flaws, such that it impinges on the great sacrifice paid by Yohannes IV defending the Ethiopian people and the Christian faith. No matter how much I might have criticized Tewodros II for his cruelty, no one can doubt his courage and love of independence, neither do I. Tewodros II was no �pretender� either. 

Let me remind my readers that my criticism of Menilik II was triggered in connection with the independence of �Eritrea� and the boundary crises that resulted in war in 1998. There was an on going and relentless campaign to put the entire blame on the TPLF leadership and the Tygrean people without any contextual understanding of the conflict with �Eritrea.� There was a total blackout on the detrimental role played by Menilik II on how Italy came to be involved in the political and economic life of Ethiopia. Because of the illegitimate reason why the 1900 Convention, 1902 Treaty, and 1908 Convention were agreed to by Menilik II, his acceptance of millions of lire, and his treasonous activities against Yohannes IV and Ethiopians, which should not be glossed over, I tried to correct the errors or intentional misrepresentations of our history. I realize that there are profound differences between different individuals and myself in our reading of the same events that concern Menilik II. The proper way to deal with such difference of opinion is to argue the issues and present documentary evidence, and not engage in personal insults of the worst kind against my person. One can have disagreement and sober discussion about such issues without having to throw a tantrum in public making a fool of oneself. I wrote expressing my concern with clarity as follows:

�I hope a couple of my good friends will also temper their fanaticism and fantasy about an Emperor, who at this moment in our history, is without much redeeming value to us. I do not want to think that in their case, this could be a question of the acorn not falling far from the tree and not a matter of a lack of cognition. I hope that they realize the fight going on is for the soul of a new Ethiopia, an Ethiopia that is all inclusive, not fragmented by ethnicity, nor stratified by incestuous hierarchy; most importantly, an Ethiopia free from manipulators in any power structure, thus an Ethiopia free from violence, betrayal, cruelty, famine and hate.� [Part Four: Section: Miscellaneous/Conclusion]

The recent attack on my articles goes beyond any reasonable criticism, and has deteriorated into gutter-mud-throwing litany of insults of my person, not worth reading or responding.  In a way, it is tragic that personal animosity could overwhelm rationality, forget good manners. In a nutshell, the entire history of a lost generation is summed up in this recent interlude in that the very victims of a particularly obnoxious political structure are up in arms defending such system and individual leaders such as Menilik who had caused us great suffering and left us a legacy of insurmountable problems, such as the present border conflict with �Eritrea,� a state born out of such legacy. I did not start writing criticizing Menilik just out of nowhere for spite. I have several reasons that prompted me to commit myself to writing articles that some found objectionable. I want to shake you all up from your moral slumber because I am appalled at the deteriorating moral and ethical standards of Ethiopians. I am absolutely disgusted how we are sinking all our meager resources on Addis Ababa and a couple of other urban centers. I am very disappointed how selfishly we have undermined the development of rural Ethiopia. I am aghast at the lack of respect we have to our fellow Ethiopians. It is with such legitimate reason that I wrote all of my articles. If people want to worship Menilik II, or build a temple in his name, erect another statue in gold et cetera I have no concern in as far as such people do not require me to participate in such folly.

At my age and experience, I can tolerate all kinds of assaults and insults, but nothing had prepared me to the type of vulgarity coming from the mouth (pen) of a self-appointed defender of Menilik. This journey had taken me far and wide living among strangers, and all that time what I have done in my essays was to find some way that could take me back home, humbled by and appreciative of the greatness of Ethiopia and Ethiopians. I believe I have found my way. My great moments of reminiscence has nothing to do with the great �Halls� of learning I walked through, but with the little tukul with dirt floor where a generous teacher spent hours trying to teach me Ha Hu�, Le Lu� for free! Therein started the greatest adventure of my life�the adventure within, the search for truth and meaning and purpose�ultimately to stand in service to others.  As my great ancestors have done, I sacrificed my life for the unity and independence of Ethiopia. I was imprisoned, dehumanized by a brutal regime, and I was in exile most of my adult life. My relations including brothers and sisters have been engaged either in direct armed struggle or supported the resistance movement against the brutal regime of Mengistu Hailemariam. Our family was persecuted by Mengistu�s thugs through out his brutal reign. I will never be a doormat and allow anyone attack my integrity or my Ethiopian identity, especially those who had done nothing more than wiggling their tongues coming from areas not larger than ye ber� ginbar and whose idea of Ethiopia is so parochial that it hardly exceeds a village or chika woreda (district).

 III. The Berlin Conference of 1885

Much has been made of the Berlin Conference of 1885, a Conference that should not be given more importance than it actually deserves. Its role in our understanding of the activities of Menilik II must not be hyped in order to minimize the treasonous actions of Menilik to become Emperor of Ethiopia. It is like grasping at straws by a sinking man, to bring in the Berlin Conference as an excuse or justification of the activities of Menilik. The treasonous activities of Menilik started with his dealings with French gunrunners from the 1870s and with the Italians starting in 1882.  Those are dates that predate the Berlin Conference by a decade in the case of the French and few years in the case of the Italians respectively. For example, Menilik negotiated a series of agreements, a kind of prelude to the Treaty of Wuchalli, prior to 1885. Moreover, there is no evidence that Menilik was aware of the Berlin Conference in 1885 or even later. In other words, the claimed coercion of European nations as a unit due to the Conference on Menilik�s behavior, which presumably was offered as an excuse for his agreeing to cede Ethiopian territory to the Italians, cannot be established.  At any rate, it is an error to use the Berlin Conference without understanding its origin and impact in European politics, as some sort of a justification for the treasonous activities of Menilik, which I have established with adequate documentary evidence in my four-segment article.

The Berlin Conference of 1885 is only one among several multilateral and bilateral treaties European governments had signed or ratified in the Nineteenth Century in order to regulate their international conduct [colonialism, slavery, protectorate, trade et cetera] with each other or third party governments elsewhere. The Berlin Conference of 1885 is not any more of a �union� of Europeans than most such treaties were, except in the sense that it had thirteen European governments participating in addition to the United States. It had both political and social dimensions; however, we must not exaggerate its significance because of the fact that most European governments were signatories of the Conference. We ought to consider the Conference in context of what was happening in Europe on ground level. I have described the situation in Europe in Part Three of my four-segment article. The Conference was initiated by Bismarck of Germany because it fitted with his grand design for Germany and its role in Europe. It was a time Germany was coming into itself as a united state of the �Germanic� people hitherto fractured into numerous principalities et cetera. [The Treaty of Westphalia, October 24, 1648 is good evidence on the fractured state of the Germanic People and how the Holy Roman Empire tried in vain to unite Europe a couple of centuries earlier.] There was also the tumultuous period in Europe after the defeat of Napoleon, an individual who embodied the French ambition in the footsteps of Charlemagne, and the Holy Roman Empire for the unification of Europe once again.

During the period leading to the 1885 Berlin Conference, Europe was still in the process of recovering from the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, and the winners were still carving up Europe through some form of a political dance that was identified by political scientist as the time of �balance of power� between those European Governments. Italy was one result of such process so was Germany. That same policy of balance of power was carried out in Africa or Asia wherever those European Powers came in contact with each other over the local conditions. It is to be recalled that the influence of both Germany [Cameroon, Togoland] and France [Guinea] was to the north of the Congo. Both France and Germany were interested in the Congo that was being �influenced� by Leopold II through his non-governmental association called International African Association, which later in 1883 transformed itself as the Congo Free State�a private nation of Leopold II.  

By the time the Berlin Conference was concluded in February of 1885, most of Africa�s coast [including some deep interior penetration] was in some form of colonial occupation or protectorate. In other words, the Berlin Conference was not the cause or authority used for the purpose of the colonization of Africa by European nations. Due to the logical fallacy of failing to make a distinction between cause and effect on one hand, and correlation of events on the other, one is lead to such absurd synthesis of citing the Berlin Conference as cause or evidence to support the view that Menilik was fighting against the concerted efforts of Europeans to colonize Ethiopia! Such approach distorted the significance of the Berlin Conference in regard to Ethiopia. For Example, the French were supplying Menilik with weapons to fight off the Italians who were in the camp of the British. It was not a situation of �colonialism� per se but the old expansion of empires ever carried out by powerful nations the legacy of the Egyptians, the Medes, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Israelites, the Greeks, the Axumites, the Romans, the Normans, the Ottomans, the Napoleonic French, the Victorian British et cetera. Those conquests had minimal overriding racial motivations, but were the ways in which old empires were built�by old fashion conquests. �Frictions among the powers during the ensuing �Scramble for Africa� inevitably arose, causing them to put considerable emphasis on identifying and drawing boundaries around their spheres of influence. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 was the high point of this diplomatic line drawing, which was done without regard for the needs or wishes of Africans. Within a decade of the conference, virtually all of Africa would be claimed and to a large extent controlled by European powers.� [1]

Germany and France, the powers behind the Berlin Conference of 1885, were deadly enemies who fought fifteen years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Both nations were foremost interested in the Congo River basin free trade. In addition, because they were pressured at home, those same European nations sought to control and abolish slavery, to bring �civilization� i.e., Christianity into the heartland of Africa. Most importantly, they tried to avoid conflict in the future by not stepping on each other�s sphere of influence in Africa�s Coastlands. The Conference was never an agreement by European countries to launch a concerted war of colonization on Africa, which is suggested by such article applauding Menilik and defending his signing of agreements betraying his Emperor and ceding Ethiopian territories. It is absurd even to suggest that the Conferees (powers) adhered to such courtesy not to step on each other�s toes, for European nations never stopped from undermining each other. The historical evidence is very clear and in abundance on the contentious individual initiatives and shifting of allegiances displayed by the signatories of the Conference, which ultimately resulted in the First World War (1914-18) itself. Mind you, Europe did fall apart after a year from the death of Menilik with the launching of the First World War the main antagonists being the two promoters of the Berlin Conference, Germany and France. They were engaged in one of the most horrific wars fought by man where poison gas, dumb-dumb bullets et cetera was used. So much for the Berlin Conference that was supposedly an instrument to solidify European power!

If we look a little more closely to past events in Europe, we ought to realize that the Berlin Conference was nothing more than one among a series of agreements between contentious European nations biding time and strategic advantages. After all, the prevalence of war and conflict is evidenced far more graphically than any rhetorical arguments by the fact that Europeans designate their wars and conflicts not just by particular dates but by very long periods such as the �Thirty Years War�, the �Hundred Years War� et cetera.  By placing the Conference in its right place in history, we can see that Africa was not colonized on the authority of the Berlin Conference; already more than ninety percent of the colonies and protectorates in Africa were in place by the time the Berlin Conference was held in 1885. It is not the first time that an agreement or a conference has been given an attribute that was not true. Some of the earlier efforts, whereby Europeans had tried to put in place some form of structure to regulate their international relations either with each other or with non-Europeans, were a series of Papal Bulls (grants). One such famous �grant� was the Bull of 1493 by Pope Alexander VI that allegedly divided the discovery of India by another Western route, the �New World,� into two between Spain and Portugal. It is to be recalled that the Portuguese secured from Pope Eugenius IV [1431-1447] earlier �a grant in perpetuity� to all heathen lands in the Eastern part of the World.  There were a series of Bulls after words as well such as the Bulls of 1452, 1455, 1454, 1456, 1481, and 1484.

Because no one had any idea about the true identity and significance of Columbus�s landings in the New World, both Spain and Portugal believed the new land was part of India reached from a different trajectory. Of course, that was a mistaken understanding but a popular one. The Bull by Pope Alexander IV of 1493 was meant to balance out the papal grants to Portugal of earlier claims. The Pope�s role was that of an arbitrator between two contending world powers of the time. He did not authorize or sanction colonialism of independent non-European nations or communities. It is truly horrendous for anyone to bring in excuses and justifications by laying blames for actions of brutal secular leaders as if such secular governments were incapacitated from their violence without the approval of religious leaders. The most one may assert would be that the Catholic Church cooperated with the secular powers to promote Catholicism at the cost of indigenous religion and culture resulting at times in devastation of local peoples.  

Similarly, it is possible to make serious mistakes in assessing the history of the Berlin Conference of 1885, especially if one just limits one�s investigation to the reading of treaty articles or conference provisions, without looking into the development and the behavior of individual governments in the decade leading to the Conference and after. I have not come across any record of cooperation, a common command structure, or sharing of resources by any of the Governments who signed the Berlin Conference of 1885 in furthering a common goal of colonialism. The participants were ever the contentious selfish states as before the signing of the Berlin Conference of 1885 as they were after, undermining each other�s policies and goals, which later resulted in a world-devastating two World Wars. A clear example of such discordant behavior is the case of the British government outright turning down the request of the Crispi government for military help after Italy was defeated in 1896 by the Ethiopians.  At any rate, had there been a historical event where two or more European powers in concert attacked an African nation, tribe, or entity?

Nations have always acted in their own interests. It is only a question of a matter of degrees that we could reasonably consider on the topic of state cooperation in multinational or bilateral treaties or conferences. Especially the Nineteenth Century was a period where European national governments were competing for power and dominance in the European political arena and of course colonial possessions. Lord Palmerstone put it succinctly when he stated in a speech to the House of Commons, 1 March 1848, "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Such expression of individualized self-interest sums up the essence of European national politics. No number of Bulls, Conferences, Treaties or agreements ever created a united Europe against the rest of the world since the time of Charlemagne. Thus, any suggestion that there was a concerted attack of Ethiopia by Europeans is ludicrous. I have properly discussed the state of affair in Europe during the time of Menilik II and the Nineteenth Century in general. [See Part Two: Section V. The Myth of European Colonialism: A. European Ambition, International Law, and Ethiopia]

For good or bad, Ethiopia was identified, long before the time of the Berlin Conference, as the land of �Pester John,� a Christian Kingdom, lead by �Priestly Monarchs,� which perception was not that far from the truth because Ethiopian Monarchs were, indeed, superbly Church-trained scholars of the first order. Wherein some of those Ethiopian monarchs had authored books, which to this day is part of the superb literature of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Western powers (nations) were fully cognizant of the state of affair in Ethiopia. If it were not for the up-start Italy coming into the European  scene in 1860 [a mere twenty five years earlier from the Berlin Conference of 1885] demanding recognition, the rest of Europe would have been content with having Ethiopia as a distant Christian nation on equal standing as the rest of them. Thus, the so-called idea of a �civilizing mission� to Ethiopia was only promoted by Mussolini in the Twentieth Century not during the early part of the scramble for Africa.

At any rate, during the scramble for Africa, the primary preoccupation of the Europeans seemed to me to be the acquisition of natural resources (lumber, ivory, and spices) and minerals (gold, silver, copper et cetera) not per se farmland. Thus, picking one international Conference among hundreds of international events such as the Berlin Conference in order to make whole cloth excuse or justification on the activities of one remote Emperor, without regard to the actual effect of such a Conference on the parties involved or anybody else, seems to be either lack of cognition or sophistry of the worst kind.

IV. International Law v. Domestic Law, and the Boundary Commission

The distinction between international law and domestic law is not that difficult to acknowledge even if the line of separation could be blurry. Encyclopedic definition of international law, even though simplistic, can give us some clue as to the general meaning of international law as being �the rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilized states in their dealings with each other.� Even though concepts of �civilized states� and �state to state interactions� are supplanted by a more inclusive and multicultural recognition of the world�s communities through the establishment of the United Nations and other regional organizations and thousands of resolutions, conferences, and multilateral treaties, at its basis international law remains normative and less positivistic.

The distinction between international law and domestic law revolves around concepts of positivism and natural law. One obvious distinction is that we cannot speak of international law in a positivist sense except in the limited area of treaties.  Even then, I believe that all multilateral treaties tend toward becoming customary international law in aspects of international acceptance of certain principles [norms] of universal application. It seems to me that contrary to the statements of Lauterpacht and his team [in an opinion in some kind of a tortured process that was instituted by Belize as an arbitration case between Belize and Guatemala (2000- 2002)], no hierarchy of international law is offered by Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), for example. Any suggestion of such overriding idea of ordering of �sources� by a treaty is subject to the principles of customary international law. More importantly, the attempted interjection that a �treaty� can be isolated from the workings of customary international law is a mistaken statement. In other words, norms of customary international law not the positivism of international treaties have the ultimate normative significance.  

There is no doubt in my mind that the most perverse seismic upheaval of international law was carried out by Lauterpacht and his team who have undermined the process of adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Lauterpacht and his team of �arbitrators� have succeeded in interjecting their personal views on certain issues in international law by installing their �arbitration tribunal� or �arbitration commission� between the ICJ and cases that should have been resolved by the ICJ due to the important and crucial questions raised in such cases, such as questions on sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights et cetera. Moreover, if we scratch under the surface of the activities of Lauterpacht, we find a concerted effort to justify the occupation of territories by force. This charade of adjudication by arbitration tribunal [Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission] seems to go back to that one important personal commitment of Lauterpacht to create a new regime of international law dealing with boundaries, occupation, driving out people from their ancestral homes on the pretext of international law. Lauterpacht and company are positivists of the worst kind, who seem to overlook the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive aspect of international law.

Equally alarming is the fact that Lauterpacht and his group have undermined scholarly work and proper handling of international issues by spreading their effort too thinly over numerous cases, with the result being shoddiness and too hurried conclusions. It is humanly impossible to do justice to the many intricate issues raised in every arbitration case handled by Lauterpacht and his team considering the time frame and the number of commitment those people had. A case in point is the cavalier manner they handled the arbitration between �Eritrea� and Ethiopia�a case that no arbitrator should have accepted because of lack of capacity, fraud, and coercion involved.

The fact that the �doctrine of Kompetenz � Kompetenz has been consistently confirmed by various decisions and commentators, which recognize [that arbitrators decide] their own competency is an inherent attribute of international tribunals;� however, that does not mean arbitrators are above principles of international law norms and practices. It is inexcusable for any arbitration tribunal to adjudicate on a case that is clearly a fraudulent setup solely designed to benefit one party to an �agreement.� There should be no doubt in any sane person�s mind that the 2000 Algiers Agreement was an agreement between two dictatorial leaders who had prior arrangement unknown to the People of Ethiopia or their Representatives and in collusion to defraud the people of Ethiopia, with the participation of the United States and its European allies promoting their misguided political and economic strategy in the region. Who had heard of any decision taken in disregard to historical evidence by presetting an agreement to revive long dead �colonial� treaties in favor of one party as was done in the case of the decision of 13 April 2004 by the Boundary Commission. The Commission based its authority solely on the 2000 Algiers Agreement�an Agreement that is null and void on several solid grounds because it violated well established international law principles and norms.  

The Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission could have declined to pass judgment on a case that was impregnated with obvious problems of tremendous political coercion and possible collusion and fraud by the parties involved, rather than bulldozing the way it did in an absolutely corrupted decision. By contrast over forty years earlier, an enlightened International Court of Justice declined from passing judgment in  the North Cameroon case of  1961 because it saw no justice being served in passing a judgment that would have ended up in more controversy and possible war.

�The Court might, in an appropriate case, make a declaratory judgment but such a judgment must have a continuing applicability. In this case there was a dispute about the interpretation and application of a treaty, but the treaty was no longer in force and there could be no opportunity for a future act of interpretation or application in accordance with any judgment the Court might render�.Whether or not at the moment the Application was filed there was jurisdiction in the Court to adjudicate upon the dispute, circumstances that had since arisen rendered any adjudication devoid of purpose. Under these conditions, for the Court to proceed further in the case would not, in its opinion, be a proper discharge of its duties. The answer to the question whether the judicial function was engaged might, in certain cases, need to wait upon an examination of the merits. In the present case, however, it was already evident that it could not be engaged.] By 10 votes to 5 the Court found that it could not adjudicate upon the merits of the claim of the Republic of Cameroon.� [Northern Cameroons (Cameroons v. United Kingdom), ICJ Report (1961-1963)]

In a private arbitration case, an alert and ethical arbitrator declared that he had no jurisdictional power to decide on the merit of a case because he realized the arbitration agreement was based on fraudulent claim. [See Award in Case No. 1110 of 1963, Yearbook Comm. Arb�n XXI (1996)] All of the above reasons are sufficient to invalidate or void and rescind the 13 April 2002 Decision of the Boundary Commission, without even considering the corruption of  the decision due to conflict of interest due to the activities of Lauterpacht having pecuniary relationship with the United States Government, an interested party in the out come of the arbitration being handled by the Commission..

The interview given by Professor Yacob Hailemariam to the REPORTER is exceedingly illuminating on the point I have tried to make on the singular importance of the ICJ in cases involving such important issues of sovereignty, citizenship, human rights et cetera. The Boundary Commission was acting totally beyond its capacity to handle such a case of profound significance for the seventy million people of Ethiopia, and its decision of 13 April 2002 must be voided or rescinded. [It is tragic to observe the pathetic effort of placing the interview of Yacob Hailemariam in the same caption of an attack article on my effort and person, in an effort to create the illusion of endorsement and lend respectability to an article that Yacob Hailemariam would shrink from in disgust. I am sure.]

One need be cautious from introducing willy-nilly domestic law into international law to further some esoteric goals. That is why I always stress the natural law (normative) aspect of international law than its positivistic side. Domestic law is identified with positivism, pure and simple in as far as such things can be. This is not to say that principles found in domestic law are not reflected in the law of nations. After all, no system is hermetically sealed from the influence of the activities of human kind in whatever form. However, in particular cases involving profound questions on matters dealing with international law principles and norms, a great degree of specialized knowledge makes a difference between a wise and informed decision as opposed to a cursory and superfluous one.  I have tried to be as clear as possible by indicating that international principles and cases I referred to in my essays are complex and need be studied far more carefully than could be done in a twenty-page article.  My goal is to give some indicators and guidance for people to do some follow-up reading.

V. The Meaning of Treaties, Termination, Null and Void

A. The Meaning of Treaties

It is almost five years since I have been writing and sharing my views on the monumental problems facing Ethiopia due to the independence of �Eritrea,� the land locking of Ethiopia, and the undue collaboration of the EPRDF dominated Government of Ethiopia with actual and potential enemies of Ethiopia that lead to the conflict of 1998 and the subsequent establishment of the Boundary Commission pursuant to the Algiers Agreement of 2000.  To begin with, I want to point out the fact that we have been suckered into using the wrong lexicon referring to the conflict with  �Eritrea� as a �boundary� demarcation and delimitation problem,  which notion did not reflect the exact international law language that ought to describe such event. It is not a �boundary� demarcation (delimitations) that is involved, but ceding of territory.

There is a clear difference between the two terminologies: boundary demarcation (delimitations) and ceding of territories. Boundary demarcation (delimitations)  presupposes the existence of two separate independent legitimate sovereign entities interacting in order to define a common line of demarcations (delimitations), on the other hand ceding of territory is an act done by a single sovereign entity giving up its own territory for any number of reasons, such as outright sale (e.g. the sale of Alaska, Louisiana et cetera), mutual arrangement to benefit a particular Sovereign (e.g. Menilik�s arrangement with Italy). Since the entire arbitration is based on the fact of the three so called colonial agreements (treaty and conventions) entered between Menilik and the Italian government, we cannot speak of ceding of Ethiopian territory to an entity that is now claiming independence and succession. There are well-established very strict procedural and substantive limits to such rights of succession and ceding of territory.

I am aware of the fact that the �treaties,� �conventions,� diplomatic letters� et cetera all have varying dispositive weight.  Nevertheless, I might have referred to all of them as agreements or treaties in the generic sense of the word. This is not an error or even an oversight. For example, in Part Four, Section X. [International Law and Ethiopia,]  A. [The Treaty of Peace with Italy - Paris 1947], I wrote about the status of �all treaties� in the introductory paragraph of the section dealing with the 1947 Treaty of Peace the following.

�Lest I leave my readers thinking that my entire presentations end up supporting Isaias Afeworki�s Government claims as filed with the Boundary Commission, I must point out here that none of the treaties signed by Menilik were ever binding or valid. All such treaties are defunct, terminated, and null and void. Their nullity and voidness is not because they were �colonial treaties,� for none was colonial treaties, but due to several other international law principles and practices that render them null and void. They were never signed under duress or threat of colonialism, but as shown in this essay [See Section VIII, supra] they were signed for some other reason exclusively in the treasonous interest of Emperor Menilik II. The termination and nullity of all treaties was due to breach of treaties by Italy, and also due to Italy�s subsequent renouncement of all of its interests spelled out in the 1947 Treaty of Peace (Paris). Those are the main reasons for the termination of all treaties between Ethiopia and Italy. Moreover, some of those international instruments were of questionable worth even at the time of signing or before the 1947 Treaty of Peace (Paris) because of vagueness and none implementation because of impossibility of performance or abandonment. No delimitation or demarcation ever took place as required by some of those instruments.�

We must understand that bilateral treaties appear under many names.  Sometimes they may be identified as agreements, charters, conventions, memorandums, pacts, protocols, even exchange of notes et cetera. Regardless of the different labels such instruments are identified with, as long as they create binding rights and obligations between states under international law, they are all treaties. This may sound like a circular argument to the extent that the status is determined in the function rather than the label of the legal document is given. �A rose is a rose by any other name.�

The word �treaties� in the above quoted paragraph was used in its simple common or generic meaning to refer to all kinds of agreements and was not meant to be as a technical reference or sui generis to �treaties� as special form of international agreements. Such clinical use of the term and proper identification, you may find in Part Four, section �X� subsection �B� where the appropriate identification is put in place as indicated below. In subsection �B�, I discussed the status of the 1900 Convention, 1902 Treaty, and 1908 Convention entered between Emperor Menilik and the Italian Government before the 1947 Treaty of Peace was entered. I wrote the following:

�Emperor Haile Selassie by Order No. 6 of 1952 (Official Gazette), on 11 September 1952 declared the 1900 Convention, 1902 Treaty, and 1908 Convention between Ethiopia and Italy to be null and void. Such declaration completed the task of terminating the so-called colonial treaties, conventions or international instruments. Although not necessary for the purpose of my analysis in regard with the nullity or termination of any treaty-based obligation on the part of Ethiopia, it was a prudent step by Haile Selassie in formally declaring all Treaties entered with Italy prior to 1947 null and void.� [emphasis for indication]  

I have properly identified the international instruments, as the above quotation from my four-part essay Part Four shows, at the appropriate point. At no time, I have confused my readers as to the proper status of those international instruments of 1900, 1902, and 1908. Moreover, I have used �a term of the art� phrase such as �termination� and �null and void� as part of my statements trying to cover all possibilities in resolving the issue of the border demarcation and delimitation between �Eritrea� and Ethiopia. The two concepts thus identified do have different consequences. For the sake of avoiding any further debate, it may be helpful to clarify what exactly is covered by those terms.

B. Termination [in a nutshell]

An international bilateral treaty may be terminated for several reasons or for any one of the reasons listed below. For example, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) [hereafter, Vienna], which is a codification of customary international principles and norms, provides that a treaty may be terminated for any of the following reasons:

1) according to its own provisions,

2) under the rules of general international law (customary international law):

a) by the consent of the parties;

b) due to material breach of one of the parties [Vienna, Article 60];

c) due to supervening impossibility of performance [Vienna, Article 61];

d) due to substantial change in circumstances [rebus sic stantibus] [Vienna,

    Article 62].

A process to terminate a treaty outside of the reasons identified is possible through denunciation, For treaties not containing a specific provision for denunciation, the prevailing opinion is that states parties may denounce agreements establishing international organizations or dealing with commerce. �States parties may not, however, denounce treaties of peace, treaties establishing international borders, and treaties codifying international customary law.�  However, termination of a treaty due to breach or as a part of a peace treaty, such as the 1947 Peace Treaty, is not in any way affected by such limitations.

International law experts further make more basic categories and distinctions thereof between �reciprocal� and �integral� treaties affecting the concept of the termination of treaties in general. There is a rich body of literature specifically dealing with the consequences of the termination of treaties in international law and practices. The one important consequence of the termination of a treaty is the fact that some acts undertaken by the parties under the treaty prior to termination continue to have legal effect on the parties after termination with restitution as one of the consequences.  I have only indicated here above, in a very cursory manner, for our understanding of the basic ideas of termination of treaties and the consequences thereof.

C. Invalidity [Null and Void]: [in a nutshell]

Invalidity [null and void] has the most serious and far-reaching consequences on bilateral treaties. It �eradicates� or nullifies to the extent possible all legal effects of a treaty.

Four categories of grounds exist for determining whether or not a treaty is invalid:

 1) defect of capacity, authorization [non-compliance with a nation�s internal law] [Vienna, article 46]

 2) error [Vienna, Article 48], fraud [Vienna, Article 49], corruption [Vienna, Article 50],

 3) coercion of representative [Vienna, Article 51], or threat or use of force against a state party [Vienna, Article 52]                  

 4) violation of peremptory norm of international [customary] law [jus cogens]. [Vienna, Article 53]

The signing or ratification of a treaty must be properly authorized and such authority must be properly conferred on the Agent of a Government according to the internal law and procedure of a signatory party. The requirement of proper authorization through the internal law and procedure of a party has a very important practical reason. For example, it makes the process transparent that there is no duress, coercion, or threat or use of force, thereby insuring the consent to be bound by the treaty was procured properly and not by a threat or the use of force either against the representative of a state or against the state itself. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention declares that such a treaty to be void if its conclusion has been procured by such �threat or use of force� in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

A treaty is null and void also if it violates a peremptory norm of general international law. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention defines a peremptory norm of general international law as a norm that the World community of states as a whole accepts and recognizes and which permits no derogation [except through an equally significant change of principle accepted by the World community].  Such change is not dependant or limited by the passage or function of time, for it is possible to have instantaneous customary international law. �These international legal theorists very much value jus cogens. The legal consequences of finding a treaty invalid differ according to the grounds. Treaties which are the result of coercion, as well as those treaties in conflict with a peremptory norm of international law are absolutely and retroactively invalid.�

I understand the concern of individuals who insist that the treaties and conventions signed by Menilik II are colonial treaties signed under coercion, thus invalid due to such coercion. The problem with such argument is that its force of persuasion is narrowly dependant on the determination of whether Menilik was �coerced,� which question shifted the whole argument to a narrow question of fact that could be refuted easily and prejudicially to our case. At any rate, there is no need for insulting me because I argue for a far better and more expansive legal arguments based on a number of legal principles and international norms, peremptory or otherwise. When we resort to name calling of people with a different view than those that we have, it only proves the weakness inherent in our arguments.     

Now, coming back to the contrasting consequences of termination and invalidation of treaties, the nullity and/or voidness of a treaty takes away the very basis of any rights and/or duties (obligations) under such a treaty, thus, no such acknowledgment of an act or non-act under such null and void instrument. For example, an agreement entered with a criminal objective is null and void ab initio, no legal consequence would attach to any act carried out by the parties to such an agreement from the very beginning. Of course, there are refinements in the general outline I suggested as a distinction between �termination� and �nullity and void ness� of a treaty.  The purpose here is to clarify the reason of my straddling of two lines of thinking that is meant to cover as much ground that would benefit Ethiopia. Those who are familiar with litigation understand that offering alternative pleadings of claims or defenses (of facts), even contradictory ones, are acceptable forms of proper advocacy.

Art 64 of the Vienna Convention is a far more formidable provision in our defense of the integrity of Ethiopia. It states, �If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.� The new peremptory norm I am identifying in the present conflict is the right of the Ethiopian people cannot be bulldozed through technical �legal� acrobatics. Fundamental rights involving human rights cannot be negated by any arbitration tribunal.

D. On Questions of Allegiance and Financial Arrangements

Although of minor importance, one individual had complained that I did not publish an article that was written by an American journalist on what happened after the defeat of Tewodros at Meqdella. The problem is not that I was trying to hide history, but the fact of copyright. If the individual who complained sends us his own writing about his views on anything posted in our Website, written within the prescribed form announced to contributors to our Website, I see no reason for not posting such an article. No one is �hoodwinking history� for we are about knowledge, truth, and exposure.

I have stated repeatedly and clearly in my writings that the actual transfer of money is not important in order to establish the treasonous activities of Menilk II. What is important is the fact of evidence of the state of mind for the commitment of such betrayal, such as draft treaties, letters, signed agreements, letters of authorizations et cetera. It does not help any one to discuss how international loan agreements are concluded. We are not engaged in some abstract analysis of an international loan agreement. What I was establishing by my discussion of financial matters was for the purpose of establishing the state of mind or the culpability of Menilik in committing treason. I have stated in Part Three, Section VIII (D) that fact: �It is not of material importance whether Menilik received all of the money promised or none of the money agreed to be paid by Italy.�  Even if Menilik in reality never received a single lire from the Italians, he still would be considered to have committed treason if he had agreed to such payment [as grant, loan, or compensation] that can be shown to have a direct connection with the ceding of Ethiopian Territory. Thus, any discussion about the capacity of Menilk or that of the Italian Agent in the conclusion of loan agreements is a red herring, which simply is an attempt to diverted our attention from the real issue of an King or an Emperor committing treason.

There was also a mistaken effort to establish that Menilik as King of Shoa owed no allegiance to Emperor Yohannes IV, thus was not obliged to be loyal to Yohannes. The argument seems to be based on the idea that there is no treason committed between equals because Ethiopian Kings and Emperors led independent existence. The fallacy of such argument is obvious. It is a matter of fact that Yohannes IV did crown Menilik as King in 1877 at Boru Meda. One must be careful in putting forth such argument because it has some far more serious implications than just the squabble over Menilik�s treasonous activities. If we accept such independence of subordinate or vassal leaders, we run the risk of declaring Ethiopia as a fictitious Empire that had not existed at all before the reign of Emperor Menilik, which is the position of Meles Zenawi. I have attached herewith a part of a document sent to us anonymously that would clearly show the hierarchical relationship of vassal and lord between King Menilik and Emperor Yohannes IV. [See Attachment, 2]

Spraying one�s writing with legal jargons is a poor substitute for logical, coherent, and clear writing. I write at a level and depth to communicate with others what I know to be true. My purpose in writing is not to impress people with the �brilliance� of my ideas or to prove that I am the �true son of Ethiopia.� I am very much content with who I am�an eternal seeker of truth. I seek no one�s approval or admiration in order for me to know my worth. I enquire, search, and analyze in the interest of promoting the continued survival of Ethiopia and its citizens. Even in that, I worry for the possibility of being presumptuous. Of course, like everyone else, I am swayed [hurt] by what people say or write about me. However, I do not allow myself to lose my rationality and reasonableness due to such emotions. Gullible individuals always are impressed and satisfied by just looking at the veneer of things. By such self-censor of delusion, they miss the underlying solid ideas. I pity people, who spent their entire adult lives floating on the surface, without ever looking deeply into the intricacy of anything worth paying attention to, be it politics, history, law, economics, relationships et cetera.  At this point, far more important than my survival or ego is the survival of Ethiopia and the people of Ethiopia in freedom and independence. End 

Tecola W. Hagos

2 January 2005

Footnote

[1] https://www.newberry.org/nl/smith/teachers/notesafrica.html as retrieved on Dec 21, 2004 20:10:33 GMT

[2] Attachment 2 [Excerpt from unknown source that reached our Website]