(MoFA 02/12/09):-The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to put on record the position of the Government of Ethiopia concerning some matters raised in the resolution on the Horn of Africa adopted by the European Parliament on 15 January. The Ministry had hoped that a visit by the Development Committee of the European Parliament on a fact finding mission to Ethiopia would have helped the Committee ascertain facts for itself and so formulate a report whose recommendations would aim to enhance the development, peace and security of the region. It is extremely disappointing that the visit led to a resolution fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies concerning Ethiopia. These start with the preamble. This portrays the challenges of peace and security in the Horn of Africa in one sweeping paragraph, merging together disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea and between Eritrea and Djibouti, conflict in Somalia and the situation in the Sudan. The European Parliament shows no sign of understanding Eritrea has been, and continues to be, the principal force working to destabilize the entire region. It has launched wars of aggression against Yemen, Ethiopia, and most recently Djibouti and it is actively supporting terrorist groups in the region, particularly in Somalia.
These activities need to be seen separately from any dispute Eritrea has with Ethiopia, a dispute going back to 1998, when as the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission found, Eritrea violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations “by resorting to armed force to attack and occupy Badme, then under peaceful administration by Ethiopia, …in an attack which began on May 12, 1998, and is liable to compensate Ethiopia, for the damages caused by that violation of international law.” The two countries did not, of course, just quietly end ‘their war’ as the European Parliamentary resolution suggests. Ethiopia successfully reversed the aggression for which the Claims Commission found Eritrea liable. This led to the signing of the Algiers Agreements which included a number of obligations far broader than those mentioned in the resolution. Among them was an undertaking to permanently terminate hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia; to renounce the use of force in resolving any disputes that might arise between them; agreement that all disputes should be resolved peacefully; and the establishment of a Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) to provide the necessary environment for delimitation and demarcation of the boundary and for the comprehensive settlement of the disputes between the two countries.
Omitting all these cardinal aspects of the Algiers Agreements, and the findings of the Claims Commission, indicates the selective approach adopted by those who drafted the resolution. It should be added Eritrea did not simply “obstruct” UNMEE as indicated in the text of the resolution. It deliberately took a whole series of illegal actions which led to the eviction of the UN Peacekeeping Mission from Eritrea in an unprecedented and humiliating manner. All this is well documented in the Reports of the United Nations Secretary General to the Security Council and in the resolutions of the Security Council itself. The failure of the EU resolution to note these misrepresentations and factual errors has led to serious inconsistencies in its recommendations. It is, for example, absolutely unacceptable that the resolution asks Ethiopia to endorse the Boundary Commission’s “virtual” demarcation, by map coordinates, as final and binding. These coordinates cannot constitute a valid demarcation because they are not the result of a valid process recognized by international law. Similarly, the maps issued by the Commission cannot be considered as an acceptable, final and binding demarcation on the ground. Ethiopia and Eritrea have the responsibility to resolve their disputes peacefully. The resolution calls for dialogue and physical demarcation while, bizarrely, at the same time advocating acceptance of invalid demarcation by map coordinates.
It is equally regrettable that the resolution makes unwarranted allegations regarding a number of developments in Ethiopia. The Government is doing everything in its power to continue to provide humanitarian assistance in the Somali National Regional State of Ethiopia, and in close collaboration with international and national humanitarian agencies. Any contrary implication intended in the resolution is simply unwarranted, and unhelpful. It is disappointing that the resolution takes the position that the recently adopted Proclamation for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies has reduced the political space in the country and could restrict the activities of international and Ethiopian associations working for equality, justice, human rights and conflict resolution. It calls for changes to the law and its application. As the drafters of the resolution should well know, the new legislation is intended to enable civil society groups to make meaningful contribution to the democratization process in the country and the fight against poverty. It promotes the rights of citizens to organize independently in ways of their choosing. The restrictions relate only to political activities. As in any democratic setting, political activities in Ethiopia are restricted to the citizens. To this end, foreign money received by Ethiopian civil societies for political activities should not be more than 10%. This can hardly be called an undue restriction by any manner of means. The fact is that the new law does not impose any restriction whatever on domestic or foreign NGOs engaged in economic and social development areas. It does not restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, but only foreign funding for those groups wishing to engage in political activities. Despite the allegations of some international advocacy groups, there is no narrowing of political space.
This and other laws mentioned in the resolution, including the press law, and law on party registration, have been passed by the House of People’s Representatives after thorough and extensive discussions with the relevant stakeholders and with opposition political groups in parliament. In practice, these laws have shown tangible contributions to the increasingly vibrant political discourse in Ethiopia. The composition of the National Electoral Board was arrived at through scrupulous implementation of the constitutional provisions about its independence and the selection of members. It also involved the active and full participation of opposition groups in parliament. The suggestion in the resolution that any of this has negatively affected the political process is simply unjustified. Any impartial judgment of these laws will see that together they help to lay additional foundation for the further entrenchment of democracy in Ethiopia. In this context, we would note that the resolution openly questions the entirely lawful, and understandable, arrest of Ms Birtukan Midekssa. She was tried and sentenced by a court of law for a number of offences. She was then released, on a conditional pardon, after she had asked for pardon admitting her guilt and promising not to engage in illegal activities in the future. Despite this, after her release she publicly denied that she had asked for pardon, implying that the pardon had been given under false premises. She was given the opportunity to re-affirm her pardon but she refused to do so leaving the Government no alternative but to revoke her pardon and reinstate her sentence. Her first conviction, her pardon, and its eventual revocation due to her public denial, were done in full public view and in full compliance with the Ethiopian law. We would expect a resolution of the European Parliament to support the rule of law rather than take a false political position on a very clear legal case. One might also add that it is deeply regrettable that despite mentioning recent terrorist attacks in Somaliland, and Puntland, the resolution fails to include any paragraph condemning these appalling attacks.