Eleven Letters

Eleven Letters by Isaias Afewerki

related portals: Letters. To bring about the rapid conclusion of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Stalemate the President of Eritrea wrote the following Eleven Letters to the Secretary-General and Security Council of the UN.

Letter of 13 November 2003

Asmera, 13 November 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

Please receive my best wishes for success in your heavy responsibilities.

You will have received my letter of 27 October last month.

I am compelled to send this new letter with our envoy because the implementation of the final and binding decision of the Boundary Commission, and hence the peace process, is drifting towards a dangerous direction. I, therefore, wish to bring the matter, once again, to Your Excellency’s attention before the situation deteriorates beyond repair.

As Your Excellency is aware, the Ethiopian regime has publicly rejected the decision of the Boundary Commission. Furthermore, it has arrogantly declared that it will never allow demarcation to take place or withdraw from our sovereign territories that it continues to occupy by force. This stance is tantamount to declaring war. Its provocative acts of killing our citizens and looting their property continue without letup.

There is no doubt that Ethiopia’s unlawful acts and intransigence are being encouraged by the position of certain influential countries who, while giving lip-service to the final and binding nature of the decision, have made it clear that “ they will continue to support Ethiopia and refrain from taking the necessary measures stipulated in the Algiers Agreements even if demarcation is indefinitely postponed”. This deplorable abdication of responsibility can only encourage Ethiopia’s flagrant violation of the rule of law and its inevitable consequences, which is war.

The subtle campaign underway to nullify the decision of the Boundary Commission through interminable delays and wastage of time is moreover being packaged in the misleading label of “dialogue”. The pretexts are many. They include, among other things, “ the spectre of a new war after demarcation”… “the dislocation that may result due to demarcation etc”.

After claiming a huge loss of life and destruction of property, the unlawful and unjustifiable war that was launched in 1998 has come to a definite end through legal arbitration. There is thus no reason whatsoever for contemplating a “ hypothetical” war after demarcation. None of the parties can invoke justifiable reasons to provoke a conflict when the border is demarcated in accordance with the legal decision. To the contrary, it is the flagrant violation of the rule of law and the willful obstruction of demarcation through blackmail and sabre rattling which will inevitably ignite conflict and turmoil.

Mr. Secretary General,

The war unleashed by Ethiopia had caused the death of almost 20,000 of our citizens while another 70,000 were expelled from Ethiopia in very inhuman conditions and with the expropriation of their life-long earnings. More than 100,000 others were internally displaced; a majority of whom still live in makeshift camps under appalling circumstances and with inadequate assistance. The damage to, and the looting of, property were immense. In this perspective and at a time when the international community is extending generous humanitarian assistance to 14 million drought-affected Ethiopians, how can the potential dislocation of a few thousand settlers be seen as an insurmountable problem to justify the violation of international law and to hinder or postpone demarcation indefinitely? The international community, which is spending close to 200 million dollars a year for the maintenance of UNMEE, can surely allocate far less resources to address this relatively minor problem.

Actual or potential political problems in Ethiopia, often portrayed in various exaggerated forms for a variety of ends, are purely domestic issues pertinent to the Ethiopian regime and the Ethiopian people alone. They cannot otherwise be linked to the implementation of an international legal decision and the demarcation of an international boundary.

Major world powers may harbour their own strategic interests and considerations. Their might and influence cannot, however, be above the law to jeopardize regional peace and stability. The United Nations and the international community at large cannot be relegated to the back seat and watch helplessly when such unacceptable events unfold. This is not only untenable legally and morally, but it will not serve the collective interests of the UN member States.

Mr. Secretary General,

The United Nations and the international community are duty bound to ensure the respect of the rule of law, the inviolability of international treaties, and the implementation of the Boundary Commission decision through expeditious demarcation. There is no legal barrier, material force or resource constraint that can prevent this from happening. Your Excellency will surely appreciate the looming menace. In the event, we hope and expect to see effective deterrent legal action without further delay. No one can expect us to indefinitely tolerate the forceful occupation of our sovereign lands, the flagrant violation of international law or to engage in sterile and endless machinations.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 24 December 2003

Asmera, 24 December 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

Allow me to extend to Your Excellency my best wishes for a happy Christmas and New Year.

I also wish to thank you for your letter of 22 December this week.

Your Excellency will recall my recent communications to you explaining the grave situation created by Ethiopia’s rejection of the Boundary Commission decision and its violations of the Algiers Peace Agreements. Your Excellency will have also been informed of the issues clarified by my Chief of Staff to your Special Representative on 16 December last week.

As you are aware, the implementation of the Algiers Agreements and the decision of the Boundary Commission have become stalled with no progress whatsoever for months now. This is solely because the Ethiopian government has flagrantly flouted international law and breached the Algiers Peace Agreements while it continues to occupy our sovereign territories by force. The stalemate or impasse that you alluded to in your letter has occurred simply because the international community, including your high office, has failed to take the necessary legal measures of enforcement that are warranted by the Algiers Peace Agreements.

If there really was a border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia, it has been settled through legal means. And, if and when the legal decision on the border dispute is implemented in accordance with the Algiers Agreements, the bilateral ties between the two countries will be fully normalized to contribute positively to the stability of our region. On the other hand, one cannot realistically contemplate normalization of bilateral relations when our sovereign territories remain occupied by force and the legal decision, as well as the rule of law, continues to be trampled.

As Your Excellency will agree with me, the matter cannot be a subject of mediation. A new mechanism to substitute the Algiers Peace Agreements and the decision of the Boundary Commission will not only be illegal, but it will also create a dangerous precedent. Indeed, we have no legal right to indulge in a new mechanism.

The only way that we can extricate ourselves from what you have termed as stalemate or impasse is when the international community compels Ethiopia to respect its treaty obligations and the rule of law, and ensure the implementation of the Algiers Peace Agreements.

In conclusion, I wish to urge Your Excellency again to shoulder your responsibilities and ensure the respect of International law and the rule of law.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 21 January 2004

Asmera, 21 January 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

Allow me first to express my regrets for my inability to talk with you on the phone in the past couple of days. I have thought it best to convey to Your Excellency, through this letter, my thoughts on the critical issues regarding the peace process, as it may not indeed be possible to address them in a telephone conversation in addition to the obvious practical difficulties.

Excellency,

As you will recall, I had tried to underline the grave developments in the peace process that ensued from Ethiopia’s rejection of the Boundary Commission decision through my letters to Your Excellency of 27 October, 13 November and 24 December last year. Let me avail of the occasion to stress again that we are legally bound not to countenance any “mechanism” or “approach” that aims to substitute the Boundary Commission and the implementation of the decision of the Boundary Commission. My response to your proposal of a special envoy, which remains valid, is rooted on these considerations.

We believe that the only constructive way ahead is for the UN and the international community to shoulder their obligations to ensure the respect of the rule of law and the inviolability of international treaties through the full and expeditious implementation of the Boundary Commission decision. We fail to see the wisdom of, and rationale for, focusing on tangential issues and arrangements while the demarcation of the border, now delayed by more than one year with all its detrimental consequences for regional peace and stability, is relegated to the back burner.

It is not surprising to see the Government of Ethiopia toy with deceptive gestures of “good will” in order to disguise its rejection of the decision of the Boundary Commission, is flouting of the rule of law and its invasion of our sovereign territories. Ethiopia is in effect telling us to “ look sideways and applaud its decision to allow direct flights… re-open its embassy… etc”. While its continues to reject the decision of the Boundary Commission, violate the rule of law and occupy our land.

As I have expressed to Your Excellency in my communications, this roundabout way will not get us anywhere. On the contrary, it carries the risk of compounding an already precarious situation. As Your Excellency will agree with me, we cannot be expected to short-change our sovereignty, or accept the forceful occupation of our land, for resuscitating normal ties that exist between tow neighbouring countries. This cannot be acceptable legally and morally. I, therefore, urge Your Excellency to use the authority of your office to ensure the full respect of international law and thereby create the conditions for a just and sustainable peace.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 4 February 2004

Asmera, 4 February 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I wish to thank you for your letter of 30 January 2004 that I received yesterday.

I regret to have to bore you with repetitive messages. Allow me nonetheless to express my opinion on the points underlined in your letter.

As Your Excellency will agree with me, the implementation of the Algiers Agreements in accordance with the decision of the Boundary Commission is the legal mandate of the Boundary Commission alone. Furthermore, the EEBC had long issued detailed demarcation directions as well as specific time frames of implementation. The whole process should have indeed been completed successfully in November 2003. As such, there are no new issues that warrant a new round of discussions or which require a special envoy.

The problem lies in the violation of the Algiers Agreements by Ethiopia; its rejection of the decision of the Boundary Commission; and, its willful obstruction of the implementation of the decision. In the circumstances, we expect your good offices to be directed towards Ethiopia with the aim of ensuring the respect of the rule of law and so as to secure Ethiopia’s compliance with the provisions of the Algiers agreements and the decision of the Boundary Commission. Eritrea, on the other hand, continues to fully respect the Agreements it has signed. It has accepted in good faith the decision of the Boundary Commission and dutifully fulfilled all its legal obligations so as to ensure the speedy demarcation of the boundary in accordance with the Demarcation Directions of the Commission.

In light of these facts, we find it fruitless to depart from the legal stance and engage in what will essentially be a public relations controversy of whether “we accept or reject” your special envoy. This alley will lead us nowhere but only entangle us in a web of intractable complications.

We cannot, likewise, embrace a new process or “mechanism” on the basis of the diplomacy of the special envoy. Both the Agreements and our legal obligations preclude this eventuality.

I do not wish to waste your time further by dwelling on “dialogue” as I had indeed explained our views on this matter previously. Improvement of our bilateral ties with Ethiopia is predicated on mutual respect on compliance with the rule of law. We cannot thus be requested to ignore this basic prerequisite and entertain such an agenda at this point in time when the peace agreements remain violated and our territory forcibly occupied.

In the event, I appeal to Your Excellency to exert efforts so as to ensure the implementation of the Boundary Commission decision without delay and thereby uphold the integrity of the Agreements and the respect of international law.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 2 March 2004

Asmara, 2 March 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I received your letter of 25 February 2004, which was delivered to our Ambassador in New York on February 27, only yesterday on my return from Sirte, Libya.

I do not wish to waste Your Excellency’s precious time to dwell further on our position regarding the special envoy since the messages I conveyed to you in my previous communications are clear and uncontroversial based as they are on legality. For us, irrespective of the designations given to, and rationale advanced for, appointing a special envoy, the act can only be tantamount to the establishment of a “new mechanism”. In the event, we cannot be expected to legally accept such a course of action, which would only entangle us in a web of unnecessary complications.

You underlined in your letter that this could no be regarded as an “alternative mechanism” because the Algiers Agreements provide for “the decision of the Commission to be final and binding”. Let me simply add that the Algiers Agreements; the final and binding nature of the Boundary Commission decision; and, the details of implementation of the decision have all been formulated in clear terms; leaving no room for equivocation or ambiguity.

The Agreement provides for the application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter against a party that violates its key tents and terms. The Ethiopian regime has committed flagrant violations of the Agreement and obstructed the demarcation process for almost two years now. There is thus no reason whatsoever to militate against the application of Chapter VII or justify its delay. In this context, your allusion to “the absence of any external enforcement mechanism” is not only difficult to understand but it can only raise uneasiness on our part.

In the prevailing circumstances in which Ethiopia’s non-compliance and associated complication of the peace process is augmenting with time, the mission of your special envoy should have been solely aimed at securing Ethiopia’s respect of the rule of law and its treaty obligations.

Your Excellency has made repeated references to the “restoration of normal relations between the two countries”. But how can this be achieved when the Agreements and the rule of law continue to be flouted; when our land remains occupied by force and our people dislocated from their hometowns and villages? Indeed, how can all potential arrangements of mutual benefit and normalisation kick off when sovereign territories are not respected and demarcated?

Excellency,

It is unfortunate that the concerns and reservations that we harboured on your special envoy were only proven right. The information we have indicates that the special envoy is already exploring new arrangements that would accommodate and placate Ethiopia’s non-compliance with the terms of the Algiers Agreement and its rejection of the Boundary Commission decision. We have also learned that he has raised issues regarding the use of the ports, the movement of peoples and goods… and other related matters.

On what legal grounds can the special envoy review the Algiers Agreements and the decision of the Boundary Commission? On what legal basis can he discuss the use of our sovereign ports with a party that has flouted the Peace Agreements and the rule of law? Under what rationale can one contemplate the free movement of peoples and goods when sovereignty remains violated and the boundary not demarcated?

It is sad that the special envoy has gone beyond this to make unwarranted and unhelpful press statements: apparently with a view to embroiling us in a public relations row that we do not want and accept. In this regard, I wish to assure you that we have no intention or appetite to go out of our way to engage in this sort of exercise.

For us, the critical issue remains ensuring the respect of the Algiers Agreements and the decision of the Boundary Commission. I thus urge Your Excellency to work towards the application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter in accordance with the Algiers Agreement that was blessed with your signature since Ethiopia has and continues to maintain its intransigent position for almost two years now.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 15 March 2004

Asmara, 15 March 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

In my letter of March 2nd to Your Excellency, I mentioned our well-founded apprehension on the comportment of Mr. Axworthy, which we believe are not warranted by the circumstances.

My government has plainly and categorically made its views and position know on the appointment of the special envoy because we remain firmly convinced that such a course of action will, in addition to its negative legal ramifications, complicate and corrode altogether the final and binding nature of the decision of the Boundary Commission as well as key tenets of the Algiers Peace Agreement. This considered opinion has otherwise nothing to do with the competence, professionalism or other attributes of the envoy in question.

We have now learned that Mr. Axworthy is trying to contact the President of the Boundary Commission as well as Eritrea’s lawyers. We find this misguided action perplexing. Leaving matters of propriety aside, we wonder what legal and moral rights Mr. Axworthy can invoke to contact our lawyers, without prior knowledge and approval, Again, how can Mr. Axworthy be emboldened to approach the Boundary Commission if he has no mandate to review the legal decision of the Boundary Commission- a mandate that would not be legal under any circumstances?

I feel very uncomfortable to have to write to Your Excellency on this matter repeatedly. I hope that these unhelpful acts will come to an early end and allow us to focus on promoting a real solution to the problem on the basis of justice and legality.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 13 August 2004

Asmera, 13 August 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I received yesterday your letter of June 26 regarding the Special Envoy.

Your Excellency will recall the letters I sent you regarding this issue from the outset.

Our fundamental concern regarding the appointment of the Special Envoy has been and remains that this would inevitably be misconstrued as "an accommodation of Ethiopia's rejection of the decision of the Boundary Commission, derail the issue, delay implementation of the decision and compound the process in a web of endless wrangling". In spite of these concerns, however, we felt that we should explore the matter more cautiously to see whether it contained positive dimensions that we may have overlooked. To this end, we sought clarifications repeatedly. Unfortunately, we failed to get satisfactory explanations for our queries.

Your Excellency's visit to our region was a very significant event. We harboured high hopes that this occasion would give us the opportunity to obtain the clarifications we sought and that would allay our concerns. Unfortunately, the explanations given were not satisfactory and only reinforced our apprehension. Indeed, you intimated that the appointment could be rescinded when you sensed our disappointment. Perhaps due to your heavy schedule, the time allocated to your visit was short and you had to depart early. We assumed then that the chapter was closed.

Excellency,

I again appeal to Your Excellency to ensure the implementation of the Boundary Commission decision without further delay so as to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of the Peace Agreement. We cannot, indeed, afford to waste more time and get embroiled in public relations wrangling on account of the "Special Envoy" and other similar causes.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 6 September 2004

Asmera, 6 September 2004

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I refer to your letter of 30 August regarding the Special Envoy.

My letter of 13 August was clear on this issue and we fail to understand why it is being raised again. As far as Eritrea is concerned, this chapter is closed.

We cannot indeed afford to spend additional time and energy on this matter which has, unfortunately, eclipsed the critical problem since November last year. As Your Excellency will recall, it is almost one year now since Ethiopia rejected officially and categorically the decision of the Boundary Commission. Ethiopia's act is in violation of the Algiers Peace Agreement, the various resolutions of the Security Council and constitutes a threat to regional peace and stability. The provisions of the Algiers Peace Agreement, which is guaranteed by the Security Council, and general principles of international law should have elicited effective actions by the Security Council to persuade or compel Ethiopia to respect its treaty obligations. Unfortunately, this has not been done to date.

In the event, the road ahead must be to re-focus international attention on the main problem and expedite the long-delayed demarcation of the boundary in accordance with the decision of the Boundary Commission. I would hope that Your Excellency will exert efforts towards this end to help us bring about peace and stability in our region.

Accept, Excellency, the assurance of my highest esteem.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 17 January 2005

Asmera, 17 January 2005

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

It is almost three years not since the Boundary Commission, established on the basis of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in Algiers on December 2000, announced its delimitation decision on 13 April 2002.

A Temporary Security Zone was established in accordance with the Algiers Peace Agreement. UNMEE was deployed to the area subsequently.

The United Nations, and more specifically the Security Council, has treaty obligations, in its capacity as a guarantor and enforcer of the Algiers Peace Agreement, to respect the final and binding decision of the Boundary Commission and to take appropriate measures against the transgressing party on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter as stipulated in the Peace Agreement.

Eritrea has respected the rule of law; abided fully by the legal agreements it signed; and, dutifully upheld the final and binding decision of the Boundary Commission in accordance with its treaty obligations. We went further to show maximum patience for almost three years now in the hope that the Security Council would exercise its legal responsibilities.

Sadly, Your Excellency has shied from ensuring the implementation of the Agreements and the respect of the rule of law. Indeed, the actions you have taken seem intended at derailing the legal process so as to set in motion an alternative "mechanism" in its place. This misguided approach has only encouraged Ethiopia's defiance and flouting of the rule of law. The periodic reports of the Security Council have likewise been replete with negative and unbalanced information against Eritrea while Ethiopia's fundamental and gross violations of the rule of law were downplayed.

What is more perplexing and dangerous is the fact that Ethiopia has continued to occupy as well as set up new settlements in our sovereign territories under the watch of UNMEE. Your Excellency has not listened to our repeated pleas. Instead we see continuing endeavours to embroil us in endless diplomatic wrangling.

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

Three years is a long time and our patience cannot be limitless. The Ethiopian regime has violated the Peace Agreement, rejected the Boundary Commission decision, flouted the rule of law, and persists in occupying our sovereign territories under the umbrella of the peacekeeping force. The resultant dislocation of our people, doomed to precarious living conditions and incalculable mental anguish, cannot be tolerated anymore legally and morally. Furthermore, the situation is assuming a dangerous dimension. In the circumstance, I again appeal to Your Excellency to exercise your legal responsibilities or inform us accordingly if the decision is otherwise. I also wish to inform Your Excellency that we are not prepared to engage in another round of fruitless diplomatic exercise.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary General, the Assurances of my highest esteem.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 20 October 2005

Asmera, 20 October 2005

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I refer to your letter of 17 October 2005 for which I wish to convey my thanks.

Your Excellency, I have to state with much regret that your good self, and the Security Council, has forfeited your relevance on the very issues raised, in a rather habitual manner, in your letter. Allow me to underline that you cannot claim the legal, political, moral or humanitarian high ground on matters of law, the rule of law and humanitarian issues.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki

Letter of 27 October 2005

Asmera, 27 October 2005

Excellency,

We are watching with sadness the unacceptable and false campaign that you seem determined to set in motion to portray a "humanitarian crisis" in Eritrea. This campaign is apparently designed to cover-up the failure of the United Nations to shoulder its legal responsibilities in the border conflict and to wrongly shift the blame to Eritrea.

As Your Excellency is aware, the United Nations has, through its inaction, provided an umbrella for the forcible occupation of our sovereign territories thereby denying our people the right to live in their own villages and till their land. The physical and psychological scars exacted by this deplorable and crippling situation, which has literally kept our people hostage for the last five years is, too clear to merit elaboration.

We were acutely aware, throughout these years, of the deleterious consequences that would be entailed by the misguided approach of mitigating the hostage situation through nominal and unsustainable relief assistance. And yet, we tried to cope with the unbearable situation with maximum patience.

Our determination and hard work has enabled us to reap a good harvest this year and to overcome and control, it not eliminate by 100%, the chronic food shortages we faced in the past years.

I must inform you that the harvest and overall food situation this year is not bleak, as you might have expected it to be.

In conclusion, allow me to state that we find unacceptable the accusations peddled against us on the basis of wrong information or to advance and rationalize other objectives that we are not privy to. It is indeed absurd for others to pretend that they care more for the welfare and well being of our own people.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely, Isaias Afwerki