Why Ethiopia MUST implement the EEBC decision - NOW!

The audio is publicly disseminated and can be found at https://youtu.be/XPnkNWBCeQI.I have set out the facts of the Algiers Agreement and the EEBC decision in an earlier article which is publicly available at https://www.madote.com/2017/07/the-necessity-for-implementation-of.html

This article is to address and rebut the current misinformation campaign that is permeating our tabloids and media on the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission decision, commonly known as the acronym EEBC. And further to Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s promising statements to implement the EEBC decision in June 2018 and President Afwerki’s response to dispatch a delegation to Addis Ababa.

?This Article was written in 2018 and refers to the interview with Professor Brilmayer and Professor Pratt. It remains relevant today.

The content and information contained in this article is premised on discussions as between distinguished Professor Lea Brilmayer and Professor Martin Pratt as well as with Mr. Herman Cohen. The purpose of the dialogue was to obtain understanding on the question of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary, as it engaged with legal (Professor Brilmayer), pragmatic (Professor Pratt) and political (Mr. Herman Cohen) perspectives.?

?Professor Brilmayer was the Government of Eritrea’s legal advisor on the EEBC process, Professor Pratt, Director of Bordermap Consulting Ltd an international boundary expert and Mr. Cohen, former United States Secretary of State for African Affairs (1989-1993) responsible for brokering the end to the Eritrean-Ethiopian war in 1991. All titans in their fields.

?First, the sanctity of adjudication– as Professor Brilmayer states, how can we have the concept of international order, mutual respect and trust as between two equal sovereign countries, where Ethiopia does not abide by important international legal decisions.

So, when the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in November 2004 said that the EEBC decision was an “illegal and unjust” decision and other considerations required addressing and that the boundary was not equitable on the ground - he was in contravention of the very legal due process that he had openly engaged with.

?What is of concern is that this dissent is what is permeating international media including recent pictures of settlements in border towns and villages in response to Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s call on implementation of the EEBC. This is legally and ethically incorrect to bring such voices to the table.

?During our discussions Professor Pratt initially alluded to such concerns, that is to the border areas, local people, communities, migrations patterns etc. However, Professor Brilmayer, provided facts on the arbitration, legal agreements, the extensive pleadings and documentations which rebutted such concerns. This of course was not present in the public mainframe discussions and prevailing narrative against Eritrea.

?Professor Pratt capitulated on his pragmatic approach to these concerns and emphatically stated and qualified any further such suggestions, with the proviso that the sanctity of adjudication had to be respected.

?The sanctity of adjudication has also been echoed by Mr. Herman Cohen who states,

? “Badme in the morning and discussions in the afternoon”.

?That is ensure that Ethiopia implements the EEBC decision first by the removal of its troops from occupied sovereign territory including Badme.? This is important. This is something that is very precious to International law - the respect for arbitral or judicial adjudicated results.

?Further Professor Brilmayer said in the discussions “The Eritrea Ethiopia boundary is I believe from the research - the first case in history in international adjudication where one side has been allowed to thumb its nose at the results of a judicial arbitral delimitation - and this is extremely dangerous to international law and as an international lawyer I regret this and as much as for the people of Eritrea”.

?Second, the principle of “ex aequo et bono”. The principle that states consideration of what’s fair and equitable is not to be taken into account. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia wanted the decision to by law and not on what would have been fair and equitable to the local settlements, villages and communities around the borders.

Professor Brilmayer said that Ethiopia deliberately and in direct violation of the EEBC decision had started to “lay “facts on the ground” and resettle Ethiopians from central Ethiopia to the border areas. This further rebuts Ethiopian TPLF’s disingenuous assertions that the local conditions should be taken into account. Ethiopia’s modus operandi was clearly evident of increasing its territory.

Third, Professor Brilmayer sets out clearly that the boundary was very clearly defined albeit time was limited with respect to the delimitation and demarcation to occur. Albeit, Professor Pratt expressed concern on a fragile boundary and that the boundary should not be set in stone. Professor Brilmayer was able to provide evidence drawn from the Arbitration process where extensive studies were carried out and detailed maps produced and with the assistance from the Soviets, the USA and the UN cartographic office, and that colonial, Khartoum, League of Nations, de Chaurand and Ethiopian maps were accessed which defined the boundary as well if not better than any other boundary around the world.?

Fourth, Professor Brilmayer advocated sternly that opening up boundary issues today would be opening up to uncontrollable bloodshed. That as a result of this awareness African Governments around the world had unanimously agreed to the Cairo Declaration that is they did not want to redraw colonial boundaries. Professor Pratt emphatically agreed with Professor Brilmayer and stipulated clearly that the delimitation process should therefore not be reopened.

Fifth, Eritrea had requested that all the pleadings/documentation of the proceedings be made public and transparent. Ethiopia was against this and refused. And it is important to note that allowing public access of this documentation would have addressed much of the misinformation campaign that has surrounded the facts and the non-implementation of the EEBC decision.

Six, Professor Pratt then suggested that perhaps adjustments and appropriate compensation could be provided, where Eritrea and Ethiopia creatively engage on finding a solution to the boundary. As boundaries were like the skin of the state and just like real skin, a boundary required looking after to stay healthy. And that he had remained concerned for Eritrea’s position since the delimitation stage of the Boundary Commissions work.

This was because the Commission was aware that in the demarcation phase Ethiopia was not co-operating, and it was quite explicit in that criticism - that the Commission repeatedly invited both parties to take a more creative approach to looking at the boundary during the demarcation phase. And that because there had been no willingness to engage or even think creatively on demarcating the boundary on the ground that reflected the local conditions that Eritrea and Ethiopia should think about the boundary into the future as well as the impasse in the present without Eritrea being bullied.

However, Professor Brilmayer was quick to point out, ?that with Ethiopia’s laying facts on the ground and resettling Ethiopians into the boundary areas which the EEBC delegation proved as fact was happening meant that Ethiopia was effectively saying “go to hell” to the sanctity of adjudication and reiterated the critical importance of the sanctity of adjudication otherwise what trust was there in adjustments of the boundary, if later these could also be the subject of a dispute in the future.

Seven, the importance of finality and closure on the matter. Professor Brilmayer was keen to reiterate “that once you start to have conversations that you can make adjustments here - draw this here, or put the church on the Ethiopian side etc. I am sure that we will not have a boundary negotiated, signed, sealed and delivered by a certain date. There would have been just as many new factors to consider - a little graveyard over here - a farmer’s field that required adjustment. This is in principle an endless process if one decides that you want an endless process. And when you pursue that path it requires giving up your stand on principle that the legal boundary is entitled to respect. This would have been very much to Ethiopia’s advantage to simply open up the boundary determination - there would have been no way to bring closure”.

Eight, and importantly if Ethiopia is genuine today that it wants to engender peace with Eritrea and stability in the Horn of Africa then it must as Professor Brilmayer states have a practice of honoring legal agreements made with Eritrea otherwise there is no point in having a boundary adjustment even if there are tradeoffs in territory, adjustments - there is no point in having agreements, if agreements don’t have to be honored and for states to live as equals and as worthy of each other’s respect.

Nine, the geopolitical advantage and leverage that Ethiopia has had as against Eritrea and the question of how Eritrea could have ever entered into any negotiations with Ethiopia during the Commission’s mandate. Importantly Professor Pratt agreed and further prefaced his discussions with the clear proviso that if Ethiopia uses anything that he suggested in the discussions to reopen the delimitation - “that is where I [Professor Pratt] draw the line and say absolutely that should not happen”. And further stated that the process of boundary making between neighboring states was to be entered into with good faith - which here had been questionable.

Ten, Professor Brilmayer stated clearly that there is no technical definition for demarcation that requires that it needs to be done in a particular way and that demarcation occurs in the best methods practical and possible given the circumstances. And that Ethiopia claiming that they have the right to veto the results of the boundary process by making it impossible for the technical staff to build pillars does not make any sense and it is not what International law has ever required. Further Professor Pratt stated, “I don’t see any scope at all of saying that the process under the Algiers Agreement - that the process has not been completed until pillars are placed on the ground because the Commission gave very precise coordinates”.

Conclusion

This discussion has clarified much of the misinformation on the implementation of the EEBC. Professor Brilmayer’s in depth and direct experience of the EEBC and the process along with Professor Pratt’s suggestions and I stress predicated on Ethiopia’s respect for the implementation of the EEBC, for a pragmatic perspective has provided a true reality to the situation and information that can be utilised by policymakers to ensure that there is sanctity of adjudication and for the countries to move forward practically.

It therefore leaves Ethiopia in a position to be held accountable for its actions to date and to ensure that it respects the implementation of the EEBC before any further discussions can take place.

I am indebted to the time, due care and attention and extraordinary insights that were provided by Professor Brilmayer and Professor Pratt and to Mr. Herman Cohen who kindly gave of his time to candidly discuss the matter and importantly to credit the late Lord Avebury as a key advocate for the implementation of the EEBC decision who stated in 2015 and as Vice Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group:

“It is tragic that Ethiopia refused to accept the EEBC’s decision on demarcation as agreed when the Commission was established and doing so now would be a huge contribution to world peace. The alternative is a colossal waste of resources by the two states on superfluous military armaments and manpower, together with the forfeiture of the great opportunities for joint economic cooperation such as access by Ethiopia to the ports of Assab and Massawa that full acceptance of the EEBC's decisions would enable Ethiopia to realize. And he went to state that “The notable achievements of Ethiopian Airlines could be enhanced still further by adding Asmara to its growing list of destinations”

?

Ruby Sandhu

[email protected]

Published April 2024.

?