V/005/2012:

Ethiopia: “Punitive expedition?”

I)            TRIPLE SHOCKES OF ERITERIANS WITH NO SHOCK ABSORBER

Pro-totalitarian dictatorship Eriteran natives experienced shock after shock in the months of January, February and March of 2012.

Just a few days back, after the second shock, a certain website posted information which said that a peace talk meeting between Ethiopia mad Eriteria was being organized to take place in Qatar on March 20/2012. I asked a certain official whether the said information was correct or not. He categorically denied it. I was waiting to see whether the said peace talk would take place or not assuming that the denial of the said official was a sort of usual diplomatic reply. However, March 20/2012 passed with no such meeting broadcasted through any of the well known channels.

The three shocking phenomena which challenged those dedicated to support and committed to keep the totalitarian state alive include:

a)      An attack on tourists within the territory of Ethiopia by about 20 armed terrorists which are hosted, trained, armed and dispatched by the totalitarian state of Eriteria. The attack was definitely thoroughly organized. It was perpetrated on a preconceived plan primarily targeting foreigner civilians (tourists) who had no part or idea about any sort of hostility around the sites they planned to visit. They were mere civilian guests of Ethiopia with no first hand information about the locality. The perpetrators and their organizers and commanders gave orders with an awareness of the consequences which will occur in the course of events. There could arise no doubt about the intention and knowledge of the consequences of their operation. Events that  followed after the attack revealed circumstantial and substantial evidences of paramount importance. It is a conduct that manifests violation of values of humanity, but presumed immunity due to having a backing from an already identified rough state.

 

The end result of this terrorism left five of the attacked tourists murdered (two Germans, two Hungarians and one Austrian); & two wounded. The wounded two tourists were reportedly taken to a military hospital for treatment. Two Germans, from among the tourists, were kidnapped by the terrorists accompanied by two Ethiopian citizens. They were taken to a prearranged destination within Eriteria. One of the tourists, luckily enough, became the only one who was saved without a scratch.

 

Of those who were kidnapped, the two German citizens were released in the first week of March 2012 and were transported to Addis Ababa [Jenny Vaughan (AFP), March 6/2012; Amanda Morrow, March 7/2012, o4:34, global.post]. Curiously enough, there remain two Ethiopians under the control of the kidnappers. Why?

 

b)      In early February, a veteran EPLF member and who served the totalitarian state at different capacity since 1991, called Naizghi Kiflu, died. The disbelief didn’t arise due to his death. He was seriously sick and was hospitalized in London (UK). He was visited by his colleagues and his former comrade-in-arms while he was being hospitalized, except Isaias Afeworki Abraham.

 

The shocking phenomenon became an unexpected, albeit legally, socially and culturally questionable, order from Isaias Afeworki after the death of Naizghi was confirmed and his dead body was put in his casket. Isaias Afeworki, of unknown and still unexplained reason, ordered his subordinates to block the transportation of Naizghi’s dead body to Eriteria. This issue became public because of the persistent and strong determination of Naizghi’s wife and daughter. Both of them & all his former colleagues were of the opinion that Naizghi’s dead body would be transported to Eriteria by his state and be buried in his birth land having a space among his deceased former comrades.

 

His dead body couldn’t produce an iota of voice. That is natural. But, it produced a deafening voice that led to shocking electro-neural impulses to all those who remained zealous defenders and supporters of the totalitarian dictatorship of Isaias Afeworki and his lieutenants (a special issue might be prepared, which is drafted, after some cases are verified and re-verified). The case created a weird situation in Eriterian and among Eriterians around the world. One thing starkly came out of this situation, that Naizghi Kiflu contributed a priceless service to Eriterians and Eriteria not being alive but being dead.  Too many questions were raised from every corner of the world, but got no answer from the center of the totalitarian state up to now. Puzzling!!!

 

c)      In Mid-March 2012, Ethiopian armed forces unexpectedly attacked about three military targets “which are used as training centers of terrorists”, to be , now and then, dispatched to Ethiopian territory with an aim to undertake terrorist operations. One of the most shocking phenomenons is the sophisticated plan to eliminate all African heads of States and Governments and other dignitaries during a session held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The plan botched. Internal sources indicated that not only the red handed caught terrorists spilled the bean, but also communications between the terrorist operatives in Addis Ababa and the command center in Eriteria were intercepted by professionals and top officials of an international NGO.

The article focuses on the third issue (which is related to the first and other unmentioned cases). It is unquestionable that this case involves fire works. It sent shivers among the defenders, supporters and advocates of the totalitarian system in Eriteria. The incidence, on the other hand, left certain groups naked. These groups are found to be organized as activists for “Peace”, “Human Rights”. Most of them are stationed in the UK. No one can deny that they were supposed to act and react impartially and to stick to legal instruments. Relating this surgical attack with political objectives, such as getting rid of Isaias’s system, is out of question. The Ethiopians had a 100% opportunity to do it in May-June 2000.

 

Before preparing this article I visited quite a number of websites. I have also communicated with individuals. A few viewed the measure positively based on their own perception of realities. Some were found to be no much surprised or concerned or worried. Of all one new arrival went mad when I asked him his perception and view. I recognized his right to express his views, but I questioned why on the first hand left Asmara and claimed to be a refugee.

II) QUESTIONS

1) Could one describe Ethiopia’s targeting of “terrorist training bases” within the territory of EPLF/PFDJ’s Eriteria AGGRESSION? Is the existence of assorted terrorists – hosted, trained, armed and supplied with bases, in Eriteira deniable? Why was the then President of the Sudanese national Democratic Alliance (NDA) ordered by Isaias Afeworki not to get out of Asmara without paying more than one million dollar to PFDJ in 2007?

2) Was the military action taken out of need to start a new war? If so, for what purpose? What motive would one suggest?

 

FN: Please note that FDRE is not claiming any territory from Eriteria although it declared its dissatisfaction on the delimitation that divided individual farmlands; families and relatives into two separate states. Indeed, I do not argue that such a controversial case arose out of a deliberate intention by the Boundary Commission. The delimitation was made without visiting the ground. Even then, I have no doubt that the effort exerted to clarify confusing cases was made with good intention.

 

On the other hand, Isaias’s Eriteria is still angry and complaining as well as blaming the international community for not demarcating based on the decision. The Algiers’ Agreement says, “Final and binding”, but the width, depth, and extent of responsibility as well as mandate bestowed up on the Commission, by intent or default, is open ended.  The criteria which were mandated to the Commission made the Commission crippled as of the beginning. No one can argue that the Commission ought to force the two parties make its mandate tightly closed. It is ethically, professionally & legally not appropriate. It was the duty and responsibility of the two parties to make sure that no loop hole is left behind.

 

3) Could the military measure be argued in terms of “violation of the sovereignty of Isaias’s Eriteria”?

4) Are there legal instruments which could make FDRE a deliberate provocateur and a trumpet blower for another war?

5) What is the declared purpose of the military surgical operation?

I argue that one has to consider the above listed questions, but I do not claim that they are exhaustive and highly refined.

III)  F A C T S

     The territory now called “the State of Eritrea” became officially independent on April 27/1993 after the UN sponsored referendum. EPLF decided may 24 to be marked as the official Independence Day because it wanted to make it correspond with May 24/1991, the day Asmara fell under the control of EPLF. EPLF was able to get into Asmara with the cooperation of EPRDF. The first tank that entered Asmara city and was stationed at the formerly called Zerai deres square was that of EPRDF.

Based on legal instruments of the UN and OAU/AU, the officially recognized day of independence of Eriteria was April 27/1993. This day has its own special meaning to Africa and to the world at large. This day, no matter whether accepted by EPLF or not, DEFINED THE TERRITORIAL BORDERS OF INDEPENDENT ERITERIA {see The Cairo Declaration of OAU/AU, 1964; The Cairo Declaration of a Mechanism For Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, Cairo June 1993, Para. 14; and others to be mentioned later].

In addition, in the “Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission, Delimitation Decision, Chapter III – The Tasks of the Commission and Applicable Laws, April 13/2002, Para. 3.36; is clearly indicated that, “… the Commission does see the provision [Article 4, Paragraph 1] as having one particular consequences. It is that the Parties have thereby accepted that the date as at which the borders between them are to be determined is that of the independence of Eritrea, that is to say, on 27 April 1993. Development subsequent to that date are not to be taken into account save in so far as they can be seen as a continuance or confirmation of a line of conduct already clearly established, or take the form of express agreements between them”.

Accordingly, the border issue of Eriteria was a sealed case starting April 27/1993. All those comments & arguments forwarded by different journalists, scholars, diplomats, politicians, etc. were null and void. In a number of cases a number of writers or publishers are found to have taken no necessary care to refine the information they are disseminating and the analysis they were doing for their conclusive remarks. In most cases their conclusive remarks are found to be null and void, because they were based on wrong information. Quite a number of them missed one of the crucial legal frameworks of the OAU/AU. That is why I repeatedly posed, “Who wanted the war? Why?”, because I was actively involved, albeit independently to communicate with the leaderships of the said countries and other international bodies so that the emergence of war could be averted in time. I raised this same issue in late August 2001 in the presence of one of Isaias’s lieutenants, Yemane Gebreab, but I was ordered to stop taking by him and Woldeab Issac (then the nominal President of the UOA who was subtly concocting political discrepancies between the state and University students).

FN: The mandate of the Boundary Commission was to utilize:-

1)      THE COLONIAL TREATIES OF 1900, 1902, 1908 as the sources of its decisions. However, these treaties were to be the main references but not exclusively binding legal instruments;

2)      Applicable internationals law;

3)      The OAU’s 1964 resolution on the sanctity of existing borders (i.e., at time of independence);

4)      Other factors which could be introduced by the concerned parties including ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS;

5)      ANY CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT MIGHT BEAR ON THE CASE RAISED.

IV) 1998-2000 WAR EFFECTS: FRACTURE OF PFDJ’S MACHINERY AND DETERIORATION TO THE “UNDERGRAUND WORLD

     No one can deny Isaias Afeworki’s illegitimate leadership of the shapeless organization which has no formulated political, social, economic etc program; his being the top leader of the conglomerate of business companies(PFDJ); his questioned “rightness superior power”; his commandership of the 1998-2000 war; his unwillingness to abolish the special court; his single minded rejection of implementing the 1997 Constitution even after an unprecedented decision made by his own National Assembly [BAI-TO]; his hatred of participatory multi-party democracy; his opposition and fear of popular elections;…etc. All of these and other unlisted determinants were openly challenged starting January 2000 to August 2001.

In August 200, the executive Committee of PFDJ met and a heated discussion took place. Senior members of the organization severely criticized and cornered Isaias for:-

a) Ignoring State and PFDJ hierarchy;

b)     Failing to consult ministers;

c)      His direct interference in the internal affairs of ministries without the knowledge of the top officials of the ministries;

d)     Delaying and opposing implementation of the 1997 ratified Constitution;

e) Degeneration to zero-sum game of the system and his creating a closely tight circle of opportunists including Yemane Gebremeskel (Hear, President Office and Advisor of the President); Yemane Gebreab (Political Officer, PFDJ); Hagos Gebrhiwot ( Economic Affairs, PFDJ); Abdella Jabir (Organization, PFDJ); & Zemihret Yohannes (Information, PFDJ).

The stormy meeting resolved among inter alia:-

1) To investigate PFDJ’s performances;

2) To investigate the failure of the war commanded by Isaias Afewori who even over ruled his Generals in a number of cases;

3) To hold a meeting of the Congress in December 2000.

FN: Please note that by this time (a) Eriteria’s troops were defeated; (b) quite a large territory failed under the control of the Ethiopian troops and then the troops withdrew and UNMEE was controlling 25 Km width along the 1000Km border between the two countries.

The resolution by the Congress was also humiliating to Isaias Afeworki. Despite these progresses, Isaias got sufficient time to eliminate his opposition benefiting from the delayed decision of the Commission and having the country stay under war footing. By doing so he was able to eliminate any symptom of opposition so that:-

(a) No investigation on the war of 1998 – 2000 takes place;

(b) He could consolidate his political power using his opportunist individuals (mentioned above as his inner circle) and no more challenge or criticism against his self-appointed leadership arises.

After eliminating his opposition he organized a fake national assembly meeting in January 2002. The invited attendants were carefully selected and screened as well as their being trusted was ascertained. This was made to make no single individual who could raise issues favorable to the incarcerated veteran EPLF members, is allowed to participate. During the meeting a prepared paper was read for 3 hours. The paper denounced all those taken to prison criminalizing them more or less as guilty of treason. And, at last: i) Isaias made sure that no more dissention arises against him. To this effect he organized a committee with a responsibility that every member of PFDJ speak “with a single voice”, i.e., stereotype presentation as pronounced and interoperated by Isaias Afeworki. The appointed head of this “one voice committee of PFDJ” was Askalu Mekerios. (ii) a new media communication was set-up to be run by the then new Minister of Information, Naizghi Kiflu. Nayzghi Kiflu was the one who ordered the closure of all free print media.

The glaring injustice executed by the totalitarian ruler of EPLF/PFDJ was eloquently described by a former staff of PFDJ’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in his resignation letter of November 23/2001. I would attempt to present a summarized version as follows.

V) LOUGHING STOCKS AND THEIR “LAUGHABLE JUSTIFICATIONS”

     His name is Derei Mohammed Debas. He was serving as the Director of the American Division in the PFDJ’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His immediate boss was Semere Riesom (now Ambassador of Isaias in Kenya). Derei, due to the nature of his job, had to meet with his immediate boss everyday for daily briefings. It is reported that Derei joined the Department in 1994 with a genuine belief and optimism to serve the newly independent country called Eriteria.

Apparently, the machinery he was serving didn’t fit his vision and decided to quit and submit his resignation letter on November 23/2001.

In his resignation letter he stressed that,

“… to explain to experienced diplomats for the arrest of the former ministers and members of the national Assembly; the arrest of elders, university students, the US Embassy staff, the journalists; the firing of the Chief Justice; the closure of the free press; the continuation of the Special Court, etc” is none, but “a laughable justification” because the diplomacy of PFDJ is “locked up in defending the indefensible acts”

 Of the government led by Isaias Afeworki.

Isaias eliminated everyone who manifested symptoms of dissention as well as who is suspected of such an attempt using the old EPLF tactic and strategy of purges. The world recognized Eriteria as an independent nation, but the nation is neither independent nor abided by the laws of the regional and international community. Its being the same old guerrilla force under banditry rule might be compared with the following description.

“It is an open secret that many people became mad after the inhuman treatment they undergone for a long period of time in EPLF’s prisons without even being told what crimes they were accused of. Besides, without providing any alternative law to the traditional rules [banditry rules], it [EPLF] gave authority to its cadres to use their discretion to deal with disputes among peasants. Indeed, many an Eriterian knows that the EPLF does not care about justice and that is why it is nicknamed the ‘small Derg’”. [Mekalih Harnet, 1983/84, Horn of Africa, 6(3) at 11].

After eliminating his opponents and potential opponents Isaias and his lieutenants brought about no peace or progress. Isaias’s gangrenous system, out of desperation and frustration went down and became dependent on terrorists, pirates, fanatics, human traffickers, black market arms dealers, racketeers, extortionists, etc. He himself became one of them but disguised as a Head of state. He shifted his office to Massawa to facilitate his comradeship and ties with international and regional terrorists. He used Massawa airport as a depot and transit of arms which are transported by planes that land only during the nights. People who control these arms loaded planes were always fully covered (except their eyes).They were Arabic speaking individuals and they contact and deal with Isaias Afeworki only.

Time went by and with it deterioration of Isaias’s brain and system. Following the recent surgical operation of Ethiopia, Mr. Osman Saleh, Minster of PFDJ’s Foreign Affairs; getting out of the usual practice of the system and the order prescribed by Isaias Afeworki in January 2002, distributed a Press Release signed under his own name (?). His Press Release aimed at bringing the issue to the attention of the international community and to offer a guideline to all EPLF/PFDJ diplomatic missions. He also made a brief, uncharacteristic and officially not well deliberated, visit to Kampala (Uganda).

VI) ETHIOPIA’S “SURGICAL MILITARY OPERATION”

1) What parameters must be considered to evaluate Ethiopia’s surgical operation of March 2002?

2) What was its objective? Was its goal political or military?

3) Is Ethiopia’s surgical operation, which could be described as a “PUNITIVE EXPEDITION” justifiable or not?

4) Is Ethiopia’s military operation a violation of “absolute sovereignty” of an independent African nation? If yes, what valid legal instruments need be assessed?

Based on the brief military theater, which didn’t put any territory under its control; the explanations given by both sides and other unmentioned realities; one might be forced to discard “political objectives or goals” and focus on the provisions of international legal instruments.

Despite this unavoidable necessity, one must also consider the regional legal instruments of Africa and the legal instruments of IGAD. It is true that the AU legal instruments, including its own “CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF THE AFRICAN UNION,  July 11/2000, Lome (Togo), OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/23.15” make “Political option” legally permissible under certain conditions not only in principle but also in practice. For instance, the cases of Somalia, Darfur, Liberia & others are specific examples.

In addition, the following could be cited for this purpose before I deal with the international legal instruments in the following issue.

1) Tunis Declaration on the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of refugee Problems, Adopted by the 30^th Ordinary Session, June 13-15/1994, Tunis (Tunisia), Para. 5;

2) Declaration on a Code of Conduct for Inter-African Relations, Adopted by the 30^th Ordinary Session, June 13-15/1994, Tunis (Tunisia), paras. 10, 13, 15, 16;

3) Declaration of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government on the Establishment within the OAU of a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, and resolution, OAU Doc. AHG/Dec. 3(XXIX), June 1993, Cairo (Egypt), para. 16;

4) OAU/AU Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa, OAU Doc. AHG/Dec. 1 (XXXVIII), July 8/2002, Durban (South Africa).

This declaration reaffirms that democratic elections are the basis of the authority of any representative government in Africa.

5) Declaration on the Implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), OAU Doc. ASS/AU/Dec. 1.1 (1), July 8/2002;

6) Africa [Banjul] Charter on Human and People’s Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3, June 26/1991, Nairobi (Kenya).

The provision of Article 30 of this Charter “imposes on a machination of obligatory judgments and sanctions” be they within or without any given African nation

In addition the African Charter “contrary to other instruments does not allow for derogation from obligations due to emergency situations. Thus, even a situation, such as war, cannot be cited as a justification for the violation by the State or its authority to violate the African Charter” [The HRC V Chad, Communication 74/92, 22; 1995].

If things are considered based on the provisions of the International legal instruments one would be compelled to analyze based on:-

a) Customary Laws or Laws of War [as preferred to be called by certain military personnel and a few scholars], (CL);

b) International Laws which are governed by the UN Charter of 1945 and the UN Charter itself which is seen as the constitution of the international community (IL);

c) International Humanitarian Laws (IHL);

d) International Human Rights Laws (IHRL);

An attempt would be made to present a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the case at hand in the next part.

 

Kiflemariam Melake Negassi,

P. O. Bopx 72522, Clock tower,

Kampala, Uganda.