Since 1889, Ethiopia has signed 8 treaties forfeiting its claims on Eritrea. With prompts from the host, Reyot Media’s Tewodros Tsegaye, the guest, Dr Yacob Hailemariam, tells us in an interview why none are binding & why Eritrean port Assab belongs to Ethiopia. Let’s look at all his arguments, with a brief intro to the interviewer and interviewee.
About Dr Yacob Hailemariam (Interviewee)
Dr Yacob Hailemariam is one of us: an exiled Horn African. A Business Law professor at an American University, he was also a prosecutor for the UN tribunal on war crimes in Rwanda. He moved to Ethiopia to participate in the 2005 elections; trounced the ruling party (EPRDF) candidate; was arrested and sentenced to life in prison (in Africa, incumbent parties really hate losing); was subsequently “pardoned” by the ruling party after his American university students protested his arrest and America strongly condemned the decision to arrest opposition members. Dr Yacob was also a member of the Nigeria-Cameroon border commission (this is VERY relevant, as we get to his arguments later) and author of a book with the very rhetorical title of “Assab: Whose Is It?” It’s also worth noting and giving credit: at least 3 times during the interview with Reyot Media, he says that the solution to Ethiopia’s need for a port must come about peacefully and under no conditions must there be war and they must enter into a peace treaty asserting so, now. Amen brother.
About Tewodros Tsegaye (Interviewer)
Tewodros Tsegaye is a man with an accomplished resume but, for our purposes here, we will focus on this: he had been advocating that Assab belongs to Ethiopia even when Abiy Ahmed was serving with the ancien regime, EPRDF, whose official position was “of course, Assab belongs to Eritrea.” Unsurprisingly, when Abiy Ahmed came to power and was touring the US for public meetings in 2018, the first question Tewodros asked of Abiy was what his views were regarding Ethiopia’s “legitimate case” of Assab ownership. The “historical, legal” basis he was referencing in the interview were clearly based on the book “Assab: Whose Is It?” Thus, when he was interviewing his guest, he was citing his guests words back to him, in a form of a question. The interview format was “fan talks to his mentor.”
The Interview
Dr Yacob’s Arguments (numbered) and my responses (just below it). Notes in brackets are added to provide context.
1. When Rubattino Shipping Company bought the port of Assab in 1889, the people in the hinterlands of Eritrea did not protest. This proves Assab doesn’t belong to Eritreans. Menelik would have protested but communications were not as they are now and Assab is so far from Addis: he didn’t hear about it.
If Emperor Menelik didn’t hear about it, why would the King of the Sea hear about the sale of a village with 100 residents to an astute Italian businessman who saw value when Suez Canal, built just 20 years earlier, was getting busy? That guy, a patriot, later sold it to the Italian government, which made it its base to occupy the whole of Eritrea. Assab was and is the birthplace of Eritrea (politically.)
2. The Treaties signed by Menelik with Italians were made under duress and therefore non-binding.
If the treaty is voided, why not claim the whole of Eritrea instead of just Assab? Moreover, the Empire of Ethiopia (its name on the treaties) also signed agreements with England (Sudan, Kenya, Somaliland) and France (Djibouti). Was the good emperor feeling duress only with regards to Eritrea or does that mean Ethiopia’s border treaties with the aforementioned countries are also null and void?
3. The OAU declared [in 1964] the principle of self-determination applies only to colonized people, not sovereign states. And nobody, except Eritreans, not even Arabs, believed that Eritrea was colonized by Ethiopia. [Therefore, the borders of Ethiopia (which included Eritrea in 1964) are Ethiopia’s permanent borders.]
Therefore, the entire Eritrea not just Assab belongs to Ethiopia? But seriously sir: when you say “not even the Arabs” I would argue “specially the Arabs.” A fellow Arab Leaguer (Morocco) was, and still is, occupying (colonizing) Western Sahara. In any event, aren’t some subjects so exhausted because all the arguments have been made and deemed inadequate to the task? Some things just are. For example, one of the calls of OAU (now AU) is to fight every vestige of colonialism—except colonial boundaries, which are sacrosanct, according to OAU founders. You know, like the one you fight over with Sudan. It’s on the basis of the sacrosanct nature of colonial treaties that Ethiopian and Sudanese soldiers fought just a couple of years ago in their common border area.
Many historical Ethiopian landmarks—-birth of King Theodros, death of King Yohannes, Return of the Conquering Lion of Judah—-all occurred on the Ethiopia-Sudan border. Those parts of Ethiopia are sacrosanct for you now. So is every section of Eritrea for us: it was sanctified by 30 years of long, bitter, mostly lonely war to have it, followed by 30 years of hardship stumbling to keep it. A combination of which has kept our population stagnant: it is the same as it was when we held a referendum to keep Eritrea, including Assab, in 1993.
4. The ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (ERBC) is null and void because it was based on a null and void Algiers Agreement which was based on the null and void Menelik Under Duress agreements.
The Emperor signed 5 treaties forfeiting any claims on Eritrea: A. The Wuchale Treaty B. The Addis Abeba Agreement (nullifying the Wuchale treaty based on disagreement on something that had nothing to do with ownership over Eritrea) C. Three separate agreements setting boundaries for Western, Central and Eastern Eritrea. How many mulligans do you get on this? If you denounce every previous treaty, who is to enter into a treaty and trust you? Even a treaty as noble as what you called for—-a peace treaty agreeing to forever and ever renounce violence (amen! by the way)—- won’t work if one or both parties cannot be trusted. Isn’t our problem that neither one of us, the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia, ever had leaders who are our betters?
5. The lawyers representing Ethiopia were incompetent and therefore the outcome of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) awarding lands to Eritrea–for example, conceding Tsorona to Eritrea without even making a counter claim–is invalid.
If I am not mistaken, I think it was Monokseito not Tsorona that Ethiopia conceded without a claim, to the surprise of the judges. What you are calling for is a mistrial due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. But good luck proving that when you consider the lawyers for both Eritrea and Ethiopia were the who-is-who of international lawyers. If you mean the Ethiopian government officials who were calling the shots (TPLF) made bad decisions, well, dear God, States enter into agreements, not individuals or parties, as you know better than me.
6. EEBC ruling is also null and void because the Algiers Agreement it was based on was nullified once Eritrea, violating terms of the same Algiers agreement [it signed], kicked out the UN-mandated UNMEE peacekeepers. That’s why the border was never demarcated.
You are confusing cause and effect. Eritrea’s decision to expel UNMEE—-with focus on American, Canadian and European staff—-was to protest the West’s (witnesses to the Agreement) unwillingness to compel Ethiopia to abide by the EEBC ruling which had been rendered 3+ YEARS EARLIER. After trying to appeal the unappealable decision (per terms of the agreement), Ethiopia said “let’s just ‘Article 242’ (Palestine) this issue: in time, it will fade and eventually disappear.” Thus were ushered the “No War, No Peace” decades for Eritrea, enabling an authoritarian to become totalitarian, and for our population to begin its steep decline. I have a point to make on this when we get to the “we are one people” argument next.
7. The EEBC ruling is also invalid because it did not consider rules of humanitarianism and justice letting the border line fall mechanically where it may, separating churches from graveyards. I was part of the Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute (which took 15 years, not the one year long Eritrea Ethiopia case), and an International Tribunal, not some commissioned judges, rendered judgement, and they based it on humanity and justice.
Okay. I didn’t study business law, but I have read and watched a lot of legal thrillers. Sir, may I approach the bench. Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides that the court may decide cases ex aequo et bono [with no regard for church and graveyard] only if the parties agree to it in advance. And the parties agreed. They agreed to let the border line fall mechanically where it may. The year 2001 would have been perfect timing for you to give advice to your government not to agree to such terms.
By the way, as the judges said in response to many appeals to the unappealable decision: nothing is to prevent the two parties, at any time, even now, to enter into agreement to alter the final line to do what’s right by the local people. But it cannot be under duress.
8. We, Eritreans and Ethiopians, are one people. [የኛism: your port is mine; and my land, even the most fertile, is yours.]
Many Eritrean readers probably know a relative who looks like you: elegant and soft spoken. Just as there are many Eritreans who feel that way about a Sudanese. Just as there are Eritreans who feel that way about the people they trade with them across the Sea. So don’t be so possessive about things you may not know or, worse, know but discount. Eritreans share a border with Sudan, too, and they have a long common history with people from across the Sea.
History is the story of human conflicts and we Eritreans and Ethiopians were on opposite sides in most recent bloodbaths. We need a break. We need to have sustained peace for the equilibrium to change so we can have same heroes, same villains. Now, we don’t: our heroes are your villains, and our villains are your heroes. What are Ethiopian history textbooks going to say about our bandit years? 30 years of fighting each other, 2 years of border war, 18 years of No War No Peace, 2 years of Tigray War, and whatever it is we are fighting about for a year now….
We don’t have the same narrative. And you know what happens when you force people with different narratives to share power and space because “we’re one people”? Exactly what is happening inside Ethiopia: bloody ethnic feuds. We need a break. Why is our relationship always binary: we love each other, we hate each other! Why can’t we just be two countries with friendly relations? Ports+ come after and not before friendly relations.
England doesn’t mourn its loss of USA on 4th of July; it considers it a Friend Appreciation Day since they have shared many moments of friendship since 1776. I believe that’s also what the Doctor envisions because he speaks of future generations living in harmony. Agree! For that to happen we have to start and we can’t do that under duress. You need to be respectful of our wishes.
Constantly mentioning your huge population is to (a) emotionally blackmail, and present us as uncaring to human appeals and (b) to bully us and remind us you have population, armaments, and diplomacy advantages. This is not conducive to the peace treaty you call for. Besides, given Ethiopia’s history of disowning every treaty it entered with us-—including the Federal Act (1952), the Referendum (1993), the Algiers Agreement (2000), the Peace & Friendship Agreement (2018)-—what’s to prevent whatever peace treaty we sign now, no matter how well intentioned, from being disowned? Literally every administration since Haile Selasse excluding Mengistu, has broken his word with us. And Mengistu was too blood-thirsty to have any treaties. So basically every Ethiopian ruler: that has to change before anything else does. Treat your word as your bond!
