In the last two consecutive editions of the Herald, we presented the unofficial translation of the interview Prime Minister Meles Zenawi made with local journalists. This is the third and last part.
Question: The government regularly explained that there is anti-Ethiopian and strategic unity among the CUD, OLF and Shabea. What does their status look now? How true is the assertion? How concrete is it? And at what level are Ethiopia and Eritrea now? As regards this, what was the implication of the dialogue held recently with the American delegation? Also, in relation to this, what was the implication of the Claims Commission verdict that Eritrea was the invader?
PM Meles: The strategic alliance among CUD, OLF and Shabea is not a matter of analysis. Listening to the Shabean radio or watching the Shabean television will make the case easier. It propagates and coordinates the CUD and OLF programmes.
It will at least exert efforts to carry out coordination activities. If unrest is to happen through their instigation in schools, for instance they transmit fabricated stories two three days it earlier that there was out break of violence. Using this and other strategies, there are things they carry out together. Their strategic alliance is therefore translated into action. So the issue of strategic partnership is concrete. To make a direct assertion just tuning to Shabean propaganda is enough. The major programmes propagated in the radio or on television are the programmes of the CUD and OLF. It is the former Dergue officials in America who give daily interviews for their propaganda. The alliance is therefore tangible, and it is not, in fact, surprising.
At present, I don’t think that Shabea is capable to invade Ethiopia directly. If it does not opt for the peaceful means, its option is to create havoc indirectly.
I don’t think it is the agenda of Shabea whether or not the aims of these forces who can indirectly instigate violence are in compliance with its objective. Its agenda is simply to cause instability in Ethiopia, thus, its coordination with these forces is not a surprise for me. I don’t think the merger will bring about the desired results of Shabea. Basically, its attempt has been foiled. The sporadic instances occurring now are the remains of the foiled attempts. They are not part and parcel of the major attempts that were blocked. We have survived the major parts of the challenge. I don’t take the remains would pose that much challenge. In fact, throwing of grenades may attack a person where the prevalence of overall peace in the country does not mean anything to the person who sustained serious injury. The peace at country level does not work for him as he is injured. It is reasonable if the affected person thinks that way. Generally, however, I don’t take it that it will expose us to a danger at national level.
Regarding Ethiopia and Eritrea, there is much difference. The fundamentals of the stands of the two governments are kept as before. The stand on the part of Shabea is made on the premise that it cannot ultimately coexist with the incumbent party in power in Ethiopia. Based on this premise, Shabea claims that the demarcation of the boundary should be implemented without any engagement and negotiation and without answering neighborhood issues and related matters. However, in relation to this issue, it is telling and lets others tell that it would start invasion. Though there is nothing that has been initiated so far, it is doing everything it thinks would destabilize the nation.
The stand on the part of Ethiopia is that the issue must have a lasting solution through peaceful means. A lasting solution would be possible through the Five Point Peace Plans the Ethiopian government offered. In this respect, dialogue and negotiation should be held and the issue of demarcating the boundary should continue and be implemented on the basis of the decision of the Boundary Commission and under negotiation and the necessary corrections to the implementation should be made. Our position is that the other issues should be seen and answered simultaneously. On the side of the Ethiopian government, there is no plan of going to war. But if a full-fledged aggression is launched against us, we have the right and duty to defend ourselves. Otherwise, we are following patiently a direction of peaceful means. Therefore, regarding this issue, there are no considerable changes made so far.
We conferred with the American delegation on two major issues. The first and major issue was the dispute of Ethiopia and Eritrea. And the second was about the current political climate in the country.
As regards the major agenda, the Ethio-Eritrea dispute it was planned that a visit would be made by the delegation to Asmara and Addis Ababa. However, the delegation did not pay a visit to Asmara for various reasons. Therefore, as the delegation did not visit Asmara, it did not have the chance to play a mediating role while it was on a visit here. So, I think, the discussion in the main served to clarify Ethiopia’s views on the issue. We got the opportunity to clarify our stand. But, this does not mean that they are convinced of our stand and accepted it.
However, we got the opportunity to make clear our position in detail and appropriately. They forwarded some ideas, which they thought, would be solutions. As the points were not the essentials, it is very difficult to assume that they would bring about those big changes. However, we consider the initiation and step the American government took to solve the issue peacefully by sending its delegation, as a big and positive step though it brought no concrete results.
The Claims Commission has passed verdict without any ambiguity that Shabea was the aggressor. In my view, I don’t think the verdict of the Claims Commission was a big issue. It is a nice thing that the court ruled against Shabea. But it is obvious that Shabea was the invader; this is a dead fact. It is not strange. In fact, rule of the court will have its own weight and implication. In my opinion, what most people do not, give attention to but has a significant implication is the reasons it attached to the ruling-the interpretation. Shabea, in its interpretation of the court decision argued that it did not invade but only took defensive action to recapture its occupied territories. The verdict of the Claims Commission whether Shabea’s territories were occupied or not is another issue. Whether territories were occupied or not, it is a criminal act to commence aggression to recapture territories claiming border occupancy. It is clearly stated that it is in contravention of international laws. If we see the implication of this assertion, at this time, Shabea is repeating the same argument. Shabea claims the territories that the court decided in its favor and if it is reoccupied that it has the right to take defensive action and recapture it and so on.
There is no such a right. The Claims Commission passed a verdict unequivocally that boundary disputes would be solved by international laws only through peaceful manner and dialogue. This, therefore besides confirming that the earlier action was crime, further confirms what Shabea brags at present is crime too. In my view, the second implication for the verdict of the Claims Commission is that if boundary disputes won’t be solved through battlefield; the only option is one and only one. It means that there is no other option than settling dispute through diplomacy and dialogue. This is the option that Ethiopia has proposed. We have already accepted the Boundary Commission decision, though we are not happy with it and are not convinced of it. However, we have requested discussions so that some necessary corrections should be made as regards the implementations in order to bring about lasting solution. Having a position such as this is what the international laws supports- the fact that the commission has confirmed.
In fact, we knew from early on that the stand of the Ethiopian government was in compliance with the international laws and experiences. Nigeria and Cameroon went to international court to resolve their boundary disputes where Nigeria made the appeal that there were problems in the implementation of court’s decision. Nigeria and Cameroon have been, therefore, in the process of negotiation regarding the implementation for three years now. Therefore, international experiences also support the verdict of the Claims Commission. Thus, the fact that Claims Commission has put clearly the issue of Eritrea in this manner will have a significant implication
No comments:
Post a Comment