Mereja.Forum

[MatiT]

https://www.facebook.com/mike.gebrehiwe ... 912823151/

[Digital Weyane]

When we Weyane hold a referendum for Tigray's independence we expect to get 100% votes for independence. Like my Weyane brother Awash says, Cento per Cento, baby!

[MatiT]

When we Weyane hold a referendum for Tigray's independence we expect to get 100% votes for independence. Like my Weyane brother Awash says, Cento per Cento, baby!

TI , dosnt work for tegraye, Dont get me wrong that if they want to seprate thre's no a single ethiopians are to worried..they let them go for life

[MatiT]

Tplf's A@@game General Tsadkan - wanted to seize Assab ( 1998-2000 wwar)..

[experts]

ስምና ባንዲራ ከሆነ መፎከር ትችላላቹ። ከዛ ባለፈ ግን ሲኦል የሆነችውን ድሃ አገራቹ ጥላቹ ኢትዬጵያ መፍለሳቹ፣ ደካማና ውሽታም የማትረቡ መሆናቹ ያሳይል። እድሜ ለአብይ ቅማላቹን አዲስ አበባ እያራገፋቹ ነው። ወያኔ የምትፎክረው ደግሞ። ከመቃብር የምትችለው እሪ ማንም አይስማህም። ሁሊሽንም አንበርክከናል። ግና ምን አይታቹ

[Degnet]

When we Weyane hold a referendum for Tigray's independence we expect to get 100% votes for independence. Like my Weyane brother Awash says, Cento per Cento, baby!

Why are mimicking Asswash?? He is super Cento per cento Eritrean.

Kematabeb lela menm waga yelachehum,ezih,wejane lela Halafi Mengedi ena lelochum lela sle enersu menager enkuan yasaferal anta adgi

[Dawi]

MatiT,

ታዲያ ታምራትን ምናርግ ነው የምትሉት?

በኤርትራ ጉዳይ ሕወሐት ውስጥም ልዩነት እንደነበረ ጄኔራል ፃድቃን ቁልጭ አርጎ ተናግሯል። እሱ ደግሞ ወያኔ ከነበሯት ምርጥ ሰዎች አንዱ ነው፣ በኢትዮጵያዊነቱ አይደራደርም።

አሸንፈናል ምናምን አያዋጣም ፣ ስምምነት ማድረግ ይሻላል፤

ኢትዮጵያ ደግማ ደግማ ልትዋጋ አቅም አላት ፣ ኤርትራስ?

ለምን ታምራትንና ፃድቃንን አትረዱም? እናንተም የመሐል አገር ተጠቃሚ ትሆናላችሁ፤

ኢትዮጵያም እንደ ኤርትራ "አሐዳዊ" መሆንን እንደገና ትማራለች፤

ኢሳይያስ ፕሬዝደንት አብይ ጠሚኒስተር ፣ ክፉ አትሁኑ ሁላችንም እንጠቀማለን።

"ክልል" ይውደም!!

Tplf's A@@game General Tsadkan - wanted to seize Assab ( 1998-2000 wwar)..

[Weyane.is.dead]

Ere tew atasekegn qiqiqiqi kumal and begging is your trademark eko. You were boasting and bragging how Eritrea was going to surrender and yet youre the one in hiding. Weyane rat

ስምና ባንዲራ ከሆነ መፎከር ትችላላቹ። ከዛ ባለፈ ግን ሲኦል የሆነችውን ድሃ አገራቹ ጥላቹ ኢትዬጵያ መፍለሳቹ፣ ደካማና ውሽታም የማትረቡ መሆናቹ ያሳይል። እድሜ ለአብይ ቅማላቹን አዲስ አበባ እያራገፋቹ ነው። ወያኔ የምትፎክረው ደግሞ። ከመቃብር የምትችለው እሪ ማንም አይስማህም። ሁሊሽንም አንበርክከናል። ግና ምን አይታቹ

[Zmeselo]

Please wait, video is loading...

[Zmeselo]

Tell me what happens to any tgrayan who ventures outside of his killil, towards the South? Gets lynched!

Eritreans are using your country, as transit point for further travel to US or EU. So, don't flatter yourselves. Tgray wouldn't resist, even a one week sanction; let alone an 8 year long one.

Yes, because of financial duress, currently Eritreans are fleeing but that will change soon. Many even return home as tourists, within 1 or 2 years. They attend Pfdj gatherings in their new adoptive country etc..

ቅማላም ቅማላም ብሎ ሲሳደብ: በጣም ያስቃል!!!

ስምና ባንዲራ ከሆነ መፎከር ትችላላቹ። ከዛ ባለፈ ግን ሲኦል የሆነችውን ድሃ አገራቹ ጥላቹ ኢትዬጵያ መፍለሳቹ፣ ደካማና ውሽታም የማትረቡ መሆናቹ ያሳይል። እድሜ ለአብይ ቅማላቹን አዲስ አበባ እያራገፋቹ ነው። ወያኔ የምትፎክረው ደግሞ። ከመቃብር የምትችለው እሪ ማንም አይስማህም። ሁሊሽንም አንበርክከናል። ግና ምን አይታቹ

[Fed_Up]

ስምና ባንዲራ ከሆነ መፎከር ትችላላቹ። ከዛ ባለፈ ግን ሲኦል የሆነችውን ድሃ አገራቹ ጥላቹ ኢትዬጵያ መፍለሳቹ፣ ደካማና ውሽታም የማትረቡ መሆናቹ ያሳይል። እድሜ ለአብይ ቅማላቹን አዲስ አበባ እያራገፋቹ ነው። ወያኔ የምትፎክረው ደግሞ። ከመቃብር የምትችለው እሪ ማንም አይስማህም። ሁሊሽንም አንበርክከናል። ግና ምን አይታቹ

Hehehehe digital qumal zeraffff wenduuuu eyalek naw?

Stfu agamew

[Degnet]

MatiT,

ታዲያ ታምራትን ምናርግ ነው የምትሉት?

በኤርትራ ጉዳይ ሕወሐት ውስጥም ልዩነት እንደነበረ ጄኔራል ፃድቃን ቁልጭ አርጎ ተናግሯል። እሱ ደግሞ ወያኔ ከነበሯት ምርጥ ሰዎች አንዱ ነው፣ በኢትዮጵያዊነቱ አይደራደርም።

አሸንፈናል ምናምን አያዋጣም ፣ ስምምነት ማድረግ ይሻላል፤

ኢትዮጵያ ደግማ ደግማ ልትዋጋ አቅም አላት ፣ ኤርትራስ?

ለምን ታምራትንና ፃድቃንን አትረዱም? እናንተም የመሐል አገር ተጠቃሚ ትሆናላችሁ፤

ኢትዮጵያም እንደ ኤርትራ "አሐዳዊ" መሆንን እንደገና ትማራለች፤

ኢሳይያስ ፕሬዝደንት አብይ ጠሚኒስተር ፣ ክፉ አትሁኑ ሁላችንም እንጠቀማለን።

"ክልል" ይውደም!!

Tplf's A@@game General Tsadkan - wanted to seize Assab ( 1998-2000 wwar)..

I agree with Eritrea's independence,what I hate is the barking of these dogs,they are insulting our ancesters,egna jegnoch Ethiopiawiann barya yadergenal.TPLF endiweged egna enfelegalen enzih gen atela nachew.Do you know the first time I were here in Holland,I saw all the manual work done by Turkish people,I thought then that the people were sad(poor)what I did not know was that there are(were) educated Turkish people too,it reminds me of Eritreans,I don't blame them,they might have seen the same in Asmera

[MatiT]

https://www.facebook.com/tsewar.eye.5/v ... 603837249/

[Zreal]

General ABEBE TEKLEHAIMANOT KAHSAY, TPLF General says Ethiopia has full right to have access to sea!!


https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/ ... xt=stu_llm


Ethiopia's Sovereign Right of Access to the Sea under International Law

by Abebe T. Kahsay

University of Georgia School of Law

ABSTRACT

Since Eritrea’s secession from Ethiopia there has been continuous opposition by intellectuals and the opposition to the government’s policy of making Ethiopia a landlocked country. Some totally reject the secession, while others accept the independence as a “fait accompli” and voice concern over the lack of an outlet to the sea, and still others acknowledge the right of self-determination and secession of Eritrea but denounce the inconsistency of the application of the Transitional Charter regarding the Red Sea Afar and the Algiers Agreement for denying Ethiopia its legitimate right to access to the sea and allege that the government is acting against the paramount national interest of the country.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Since Eritrea’s secession from Ethiopia there has been continuous opposition by intellectuals and the opposition to the government’s policy of making Ethiopia a landlocked country. Some totally reject the secession; while, others accept the independence as a “fait accompli” and voice concern over the lack of an outlet to the sea, and others acknowledge the right of self- determination and the secession of Eritrea but denounce the inconsistency of the application of the Transitional Charter regarding the Red Sea Afar and the Algiers Agreement for denying Ethiopia its legitimate right to access to the sea and allege that the government is acting against the paramount national interest of the country.

Access to the sea is an important issue in Ethiopian politics that needs to be addressed and the issue should be dealt with beyond the incumbent government. Ethiopia regained the right of access to the sea by the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations 1952. After about 40 years of enjoyment of its sovereign right it is again in the verge of permanently becoming landlocked. The present government of Ethiopia has agreed and signed the Algiers Agreement that could make Ethiopia a landlocked country. If the opposition wins the next election or any election thereafter, it may officially denounce the Algiers Agreement and demand a new arrangement that recognize the right of access to the sea. It is believed that access to the sea is one of the burning issues that contributed to the success of the opposition and the declining support of the government during the last election.

In this thesis, I argue that Ethiopia has the right to access to the sea as recognized by the recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly of 1950 which was implemented accordingly by federating Eritrea to Ethiopia. I recognize the right of self-determination and independence of the Eritrean peoples, but, argue that the independence of Eritrea and the sovereign right of access to the sea of Ethiopia are not mutually exclusive. The legal regime that governs the territorial disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea is the “treaty between the United Nations and Ethiopia’ or strictly speaking as the ‘treaty between the Victorious Four Powers of WWII and Ethiopia’ according to which Eritrea was federated to Ethiopia in 1952.

The peoples of Eritrea have decided on their fate and become independent and their wishes have been fulfilled by the blood that they paid during the struggle for their independence. But the ‘treaty between Ethiopia and the Four Powers” is not only about the wishes of inhabitants of Eritrea: it is also about the consideration of the security of East Africa and the legitimate need of Ethiopia to access to sea. In fact, I argue that the main objective and purpose of that ‘treaty’ is the right of Ethiopia access to the sea. The foundation of any settlement that is meant to solve the territorial disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea should be the recommendation of the UN General Assembly of 1950 and international law, which guarantee Ethiopia’s right to access to the sea.

I also argue that the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties between Ethiopia and Colonial Italy cannot be the basis for resolving the current territorial disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea. First, Italy breached the treaties by invading and occupying Ethiopia. Ethiopia invoked material breach of the treaties and declared them null and void according to customary international law. Secondly, the latest UN recommendation as a ‘treaty between the Four Powers and Ethiopia’supersede the former treaties. Even if Italy had not breached the treaties, the treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 are made irrelevant by the latest ‘treaty’--that is, the recommendation of the General Assembly as delegated by the four powers and implemented half a century ago.

This thesis does not address the Algiers Agreement as a whole nor the legal solutions to the obstacles that this agreement may have created. This thesis establishes Ethiopia’s right of access to the sea under international law and treats the Algiers Agreement as an anomaly that should be discarded. The Algiers Agreement is mentioned intermittently to clarify and ascertain Ethiopia’s right of access to the sea.

The thesis begins by reviewing the background history. A short description of the geography and demography of the Horn of Africa is followed by the geo-politics of the region. The modern history of Ethiopia and Eritrea starting from the ‘creation’ of the colony of Eritrea and up to present is described chronologically. The paper continues by addressing the problems of landlocked countries in general and their ramification to the economic and security of land locked Ethiopia in particular. The thesis then analyzes the different legal regimes that may govern the territorial disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The bilateral treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 between Ethiopia and Italy are brief discussed. The invasion of Ethiopia by Italy and its legal consequences are broadly discussed, based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is declaratory of customary international law regarding material breach and termination. The paper continues by discussing state practice on material breach and termination regarding territorial treaties. The Munich Agreement and the Riga Treaty of 1921 are taken as examples. This discussion concludes that, the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy was a material breach of the treaties and that Ethiopia had the right to declare the treaties null and void, which it legally did according to international customary law.

Chapter 4 of the paper then addresses the treatment of Eritrea after the Second World. The first section of this chapter discusses the meaning of the 1947 Peace Treaty with Italy-- especially the renouncement of its African colonies including the Ethiopia-Italy treaties of the first decade of the 20 century and the process of the disposition of Eritrea. It describes the position of the Four Victorious Powers on the disposition of Eritrea and the alternative proposals presented. It then continues to show how the issue was dealt with by, the United Nations General Assembly and the conclusions reached. UN Resolution Eritrea 390 A, recommended that Eritrea should constitute an autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown, and enumerated the basic tenets of the Federation. This section argues that the legal effect of this resolution vis a vis, the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties was that even if Italy did not invade Ethiopia and the treaties were not made null and void, this Resolution makes the earlier treaties irrelevant. The recommendation--which was made pursuant to a delegation by the Four Powers –in essence constituted a “treaty between the Four Powers and Ethiopia”. The thesis argues that, that treaty is the governing legal regime that regulates the relationship between Eritrea as an independent state and Ethiopia

The thesis argues that in light of, Article 31 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, the main objective and purpose of the “treaty between the Four Powers and Ethiopia” regarding the status of Eritrea was that Ethiopia should have security and the right of access to the sea. The thesis concludes that because this resolution is the governing legal regime whose main object and purpose is to implement Ethiopia’s recognized right of access to the sea, implementation of this right should be the foundation of any territorial settlement. The paper then discusses the opportunity lost in implementing this right during the1998-2000 War between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It concludes by a short recommendation.

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

Geography and Demography of the Region The Horn of Africa which consists of Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia, is roughly three-quarters of a million square miles in the northeast of the continent that juts out for hundreds of kilometers into the Arabian Sea, and lies along the southern side of the Gulf of Aden.Ethiopia is the center of the Horn of Africa and is bordered by Djibouti 349 km, Eritrea 912 km, Kenya 861 km, Somalia 1,600 km, and Sudan 1,606 km.

Ethiopia shares different ethnic groups with its neighbors. There are different ethnic groups residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Kenya. As will be discussed later, the most controversial are the Somalis residing in Ethiopia and Somalia. In Ethiopia’s Somalia Region there are 4.5 million while in the country of Somalia there are 7.7 million of Somali speaking people. Directly related to the issue of access to the sea are the Afar people. Of the two million Afar people more than one million are in Ethiopia and the rest are in Djibouti and Eritrea.The Afar extends from the Gulf of Tadura -(Djibouti) to the Gulf of Zula Eritrea. The Afars who inhabit the Asseb zone of Eritrea make up 3% of the population of Eritrea. Asseb separated from the main population of Eritrea by over 400 kilometers and developed closer economic connections with central Ethiopia than it did with the rest of Eritrea during the period 1938- 1991. Consequently, Asseb symbolizes the issue of Ethiopian access to the sea, which drove Ethiopians long struggle to gain and retain control over Eritrea. The cultural ties between the Red Sea Afar in Eritrea and the large majority of Afar is so firm that most do not recognize an Eritrean Afar. There are four million Tigreans in Ethiopia while nearly two million are in Eritrea (about 50 % of the population of Eritrea). Kunama minorities reside on both side of the border in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

All countries bordering Ethiopia have one or more sea outlets except Ethiopia which is allegedly denied an outlet to the sea by the Algiers Agreement. The population of the countries is as follows:

Djibouti 496,374

Eritrea 4,906,585

Somalia 8,863, 338

Kenya 36,913,721

Sudan 39,379,358

Ethiopia 76,511,887.

Ethiopia has Christian 60.8% (Orthodox 50.6%, Protestant 10.2%), Muslim 32.8%, traditional l4.6%, other 1.8% (1994 census). Most of the Christians are in the highlands of the country, while most Moslems are in the lowlands and all of the bordering countries in the region.

Geo-Politics of the Region

The intent to control the Red Sea and the passage to the Indian Ocean makes the Horn of Africa a strategic area. The attempt of the Arabs to make the Red Sea an “Arab lake” and the spread of Moslem fundamentalism coupled with the role of Egypt and its vital interest of controlling the Nile River makes the politics of the region complex. The perceived differences in national interests of the different countries in the Horn complicate the relationship of the neighboring states which is abused by other power outside the region especially Arab countries.

As early as 1952, the constitution of Syria identified the “Arab home land” as a national home for the Arabs. It consists of the area that extends beyond the Taurus Mountains…. the Gulf of Basra, the Arabian Sea, the Ethiopian mountains… the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea, and constitute one single complete unit, and which no part may be alienated. The Iraqi Baathists and the Palestinian Liberation Organization used to treat the Eritrean struggle as an inseparable part of the Arab revolution, when Eritrea was part of Ethiopia. The late President Sadat of Egypt observed that the Red Sea is an Arab lake. Arab countries have been interfering in the internal affairs of Ethiopia on the pretext that Ethiopian Moslems are being persecuted.

Egypt’s interest in utilize the waters of the Nile in disregard of the rights of the upper riparian countries is one of the issues that shape the politics of the region. Professor Haggai Erlich describes the importance of the Nile and how it is intermingled with Pan Arabism and Pan Islam:

“It has to do with the very existence of Egypt. As these lines are being written, the “gift of the Nile” enters the twenty-first century facing an ever-deepening controversy over its waters. In the coming decades, gradually and perhaps inescapably, the Nile River will become an issue of life and death. Egypt was the capital of both state and political Islam. It was the Nile centered state that aspired to control the greater Nile basin. It also became the capital of the modern Arab revolution that threatened to unite the Moslems of the horn of Africa.

In 1997, the Egyptian government launched an ambitious desert irrigation plan, namely the Toshika Canal, which, upon completion, would increase Egyptian dependency on the Nile and intensify Egypt’s commitment to exploit its “historic rights” to the fullest possible. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, reacting to the launching of the Toshika project “He accused Egypt of striking a ‘proprietorial attitude’ over the waters of the Nile river and charged that Egypt was trying to maximize its use of Nile water in order to make it impossible for an equitable quota system to be negotiated. The Egyptians treated the waters of the Nile, through Toshika project and the 1959 agreement as though they were a purely Egyptian affair rather than one concerning all the states in the basin.” The Nile delta is rich in silt brought from the Ethiopian Plateau which makes the soil the most fertile in Africa. Ethiopia provides 86% of the water that Egypt and Sudan consume and the Egyptians have tried to control the source of Blue Nile from the 19th century onwards. Khedive Ismail Pasha of Egypt attempted to control the source of the Blue Nile by invading Ethiopia. However, his army met crushing defeats in 1875 at Gura and then at Gundet in1876. Egypt has continued to abuse its leadership position by coordinating, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Saudi Arabia in an effort to weaken Ethiopia on the assumption that a strong Ethiopia would be in a better position to assert its right. Three of Ethiopia’s neighbors--, Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti-- are members of the Arab league and Eritrea is becoming a conduit for the Arabs who want to disrupt Ethiopian development. In Contrast, Ethiopia is primarily perceived as a “Christian Island’ because Christianity was the state religion of Ethiopian Emperors before 1974, even though it has been a secular state after 1974. Of course the dominance of the Christian elite continues to this day. The disrupting activities have been done through Ethiopian opposition armed groups and neighboring states like Somalia which had fought a number of wars with Ethiopia. ‘Pan-Somalism’ or ‘Greater Somalia’ is a unifying factor in Somalia that attempts to unify Somali speakers in Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia. The Journal of Foreign Affairs discussed the legitimacy of Ethiopia’s concern by stating that:

The Ethiopian government had a number of reasons for taking out the Islamic Courts. Ethiopia and Somalia have had a tense history, including three wars between 1960 and 1978. Somalia has hosted al-Itihaad al-Islamia, a terrorist organization that planted several bombs in Ethiopia in the 1990s, prompting the Ethiopian government twice during that period to send troops into Somalia to destroy the group and dismantle its training camps. Last year, senior court officials made clear that they intended to incorporate Somali populations in the Somalia region of southeastern Ethiopia into a greater Somalia. They were already backing Ethiopian opposition groups such as the Ogaden National Liberation Front and, in southern Oromia, the Oromo Liberation Front.

The Modern History of Ethiopia and Eritrea

Ethiopia which included the present-day Eritrea is one of the oldest countries in the world though not in its present shape. A unique, African civilization emerged at the beginning of the first millennium A.D in the northern highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Axum, located in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia, flourished for almost seven centuries and become one of the most powerful kingdoms of the ancient world. The kingdom extended across the Red Sea into Southern Arabia and west to Sudan’s Nile valley. Ethiopia is also the place where humans originated, as evidenced by the finding of “Lucy” or” Dinkinesh”.

The modern history of Ethiopia and Eritrea began with the Italian occupation of Asseb in 1882 and the possession of part of the Abyssinian highlands in 1889. On March 15 1883 Italy concluded a treaty of peace and friendship with Mohammed Hanfire, the Sultan of Asseb and chief of the Danakil (Afars). The name Eritrea was given to these regions occupied by Italy in 1890. In March of 1896, Italy invaded Ethiopia from Eritrea but was defeated at the famous battle of Adwa. Ethiopia and Italy agreed to delimit the boundaries in treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908. The delimitation was far from clear and the demand of Ethiopia to demarcate the boundary fell on deaf ears.

Italy again invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and occupied it until 1941.Italy had started to reorganize its ‘East Africa Colony’ from Eritrea in the north to Somalia in the south east indifferent regions. But, British and Ethiopian forces drove the Italians out and Ethiopia regained its independence in 1941. Eritrea remained under British administration until 1952.

The UN in its resolution in 1950 decided that Eritrea should be federated with Ethiopia as an autonomous entity under the sovereignty of Ethiopia and it was federated in 1952. The same year, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia declared the treaties signed with Italy null and void. The Emperor abrogated the federation and made Eritrea the 14th province of Ethiopia in 1962.

An armed struggle had already started in 1961 in the lowlands of Eritrea by Eritrean groups demanding independence Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1974 by a military junta.

In 1991, the military government of Ethiopia was ousted by armed opposition fronts, led by Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front (EPRDF) and a transitional government was formed. That same year Eritrean fighters entered Asmara and occupied all the places that they claimed were part of Eritrea with the exception of some villages around the boundary area. These Eritrean fighters formed a de facto government. The transitional charter of Ethiopia that was meant to be the “constitution” for the transitional period recognized the right of nations and nationalities to self-determination including by means of secession. %%%%Eritrea was recognized as an independent country after its people voted for independence. Ethiopia was instrumental in getting the recognition of Eritrea by other countries and by the United Nations by becoming one of the first countries to recognize the new state of Eritrea. Initially, the two governments had relations that were admired by many as exemplary although many Ethiopian held resentments over the relationship alleging that it was to Eritrea’s advantage The honey moon did not last long, however. In 1996 and early 1997 Ethiopia tried to tighten the uncontrolled economic relationships between the states. Eritrea was frustrated and relations deteriorated.

In May 1998 Eritrean forces invaded Ethiopia using mechanized forces by occupying north-west of Ethiopian town of Badme. Ethiopia demanded the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from occupied places and the restoration of the ‘status qua ante’. Eritrea rejected this demand. In 2000, in what has been estimated to be the biggest battle on African soil since the expulsion of Nazi forces from Egypt during the Second World War, Ethiopia practically annihilated the Eritrean armed forces and liberated all occupied areas. In the Algiers Agreement, Eritrea was forced to accept a humiliating cease-fire agreement which created a temporary security zone within its ‘territory’.

The Algiers Agreement created two commissions, a boundary commission and a reparation commission. The Boundary Commission was given the task of delimiting and demarcating the boundary according to the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties between Ethiopia and colonial ruler Italy and according to international law. The terms of reference in the agreement automatically made Ethiopia a landlocked country. The opposition and many intellectuals opposed the agreement and unsuccessfully pressed the government and the House of Representatives to reject the proposal.

The Algiers Agreement has stalled. The new Secretary General’s most recent report warned that:

The continuing stalemate in the peace process shows no sign of ending, and the impasse has the potential to not only lead to renewed hostilities between the two countries, but to destabilize the wider region, especially given the recent developments in neighboring Somalia. Ethiopia has refused to implement, fully and without pre-conditions, the Boundary Commission’s demarcation of the border with Eritrea, even though its decisions are supposed to be binding under a peace agreement that followed a two-year war in the late 1990s. For its part, Eritrea has maintained a troop presence in the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) along the border, as well as tanks, rocket launchers and guns, and it has also imposed a ban on UN helicopter flights, severely restricting the work of UNMEE.

Many intellectuals and the opposition allege that the Algiers Agreement is a betrayal of Ethiopia’s national interest and that, whatever result, may come from that agreement,- it will be a time bomb that may explode at any time and affect the peace and stability of the region. Many Ethiopians feel that their necks have been slashed by the secession of Eritrea and by being made landlocked and the same people think that it is only for some time before justice is done. The Red Sea is only 60 kilometers from the “boundary”, a reminder of the strategy of isolating Ethiopia and weakened it so that it would be ‘ready’ to be colonized by Italy.

Lack of Access to the Sea and its Impact on the Economy and Security

The economic and security issues are also important factors to consider when one investigates the right of access to sea, although these factors alone cannot be sources of sovereign right of access to the sea. Modern economic progress requires rapid, reliable, efficient, and cost-effective international trade. Kishor Uprety cites the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stating “the actual experience, like the logical historical evolution, proves that the absence of access to the sea constitutes a major obstacle for economic and social development.” Uprety lists the major economic difficulties that land lock countries in the developing countries face as

a) Additional transport cost b) Foreign trade deficit, trade between land locked and coastal developing states is rarely important because the two economies do not complement one another; on the contrary they often enter into competition for foreign and external resources within the international market. Land locked countries face additional economic burdens that flow from their lack of access to the sea. They depend heavily on the transport policies of transit states including payment of a portion of their transport costs in convertible currencies and bear increased costs resulting from the necessity of warehousing stocks, port delays and expenditures in the itineraries of re- exchange. c) Access to the resources of the sea on the same terms and conditions as coastal states.

Ethiopia’s export and import ratio as laid down in the data below, shows the importance foreign trade and that, obstacles to this trade have grave ramifications on the development of the subsistence economy.

Current account balance: -$3.384 billion (FY05/06 est.)

Exports: $1.085 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports – commodities: coffee, qat, gold, leather products, live animals, oilseeds

Exports – partners: Germany 15.5%, China 10.5%, Japan 8.5%, Saudi Arabia 6.9%, Djibouti 6.8%, Switzerland 6.4%, Italy 5.9%, US 5.5%, Netherlands 4.2% (2005)

Imports: $4.105 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Imports – commodities food and live animals, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, machinery, motor vehicles, cereals, textiles

Imports - partners: Saudi Arabia 14.7%, China 12.6%, US 12.4%, India 6.7%, Italy 4.6% (2005)

Poverty is the main enemy of Ethiopia, and the main threat of Ethiopia’s existence originates from it. There can be no long lasting peace, stability or security when a state’s system cannot feed, educate, or maintain the health of the great majority of its people. Denial of access to the sea is a source of insecurity because it hampers development. Ethiopia may use the ports of its neighbors Djibouti, Berbera, Zeila, Mombassa, Massawa and even Port Sudan. But, political uncertainties and the influence of other foreign countries have made it very difficult to rely on them because Ethiopia will constantly be vulnerable to blackmail. In western Europe the landlocked and transit states have managed to devise a system of international rivers, special transit rights, free zones in ports and arrangements to secure the relatively free flow of goods and people between the landlocked states and the sea. In unstable Africa where the system of governance is not institutionalized access to the sea depends upon circumstances. Coupled withthe geo-politics of the region this makes Ethiopia a high risk and vulnerable country. Belai Abbai and Zeru Kihishen a former minister and a politician in describing the security threats said that:

Ethiopia’s historic enemies will attempt to strangle her from the sea, if she is denied its own outlet to the international waters. As in the past, Egypt, because of its strategic interests on the Nile will attempt to destabilize Ethiopia to prevent her from focusing her development efforts on the Blue Nile basin. With Eritrea and Somalia controlling the waters, the potential for destabilization will always be there to be activated at the most critical moments maximum effect by any of her historic and strategic adversaries. Those who control the ports used by Ethiopia for importing and exporting its goods and services will also be in a position to collect all intelligence data for hostile purposes.

Somalia’s irredentism and Djibouti’s position, Arabs perception of Ethiopia as a Christian state and the advent of Moslem fundamentalism, the question of the Nile and the role of Egypt in the Arab world makes Ethiopia permanently vulnerable in its security and ability to use alternate outlet to the sea. Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti are members of the Arab League. The Port of Mombassa of Kenya is too far for most of Ethiopia and the Eritrean government is allegedly becoming an instrument of Egypt and Libya. Even tiny Djibouti tried to black mail Ethiopia after the Eritrea- Ethiopia war. A commentator on the Ethiopia situation said that:

To take a similar situation, since the seizure of the Bolivian port by powerful Chile in 1879, the date that that started the “Bolivian National Neurosis” there had been a number of wars between Chile and Bolivia, numerous changes of government in Bolivia, with each successive regime demanding that Chile return the sea coast. The same national neurosis may hang up in Ethiopia in a much consolidated way if the Algiers Agreement is implemented.

But Ethiopia is not the Bolivia of South America. Ethiopia enjoyed an outlet to the sea until recently. It is militarily the strongest country in the region and one of the strongest on the continent. Ironically, however, it is in the verge of losing its right of access to the sea despite having won the war with Eritrea. . The most populous country in the Horn and the third in Africa is in the brink of losing one of the essential elements of its survival. As a result, it may become the most populous landlocked country in the world.

To sustain long-lasting peace, security, and stability Ethiopia has to get rid of poverty. Poverty can be minimized and eradicated if there is immediate and sustainable development. One of the vital instruments is international trade which demands efficient, cost effective and competitive market. All obstacles to this trade and especially the transit process should be tackled with. External forces who do not want Ethiopia to develop may exploit Ethiopia’s lack of an outlet to the sea and destabilize Ethiopia.

The security of Ethiopia significantly affects and may be decisive of the security of the region because of its strategic position. A country denied of its rights and “a people that feels injured and betrayed by the deal must eventually destabilize both countries” This is a vicious circle. To break from this circle Ethiopia has to regain its legally recognized, historically and economically based sovereign rights of access to the sea.

CHAPTER 3

THE 1900, 1902, 1908 TREATIES BETWEEN ETHIOPIA AND ITALY, AND THE INVASION AND THE OCCUPATION OF ETHIOPIA BY ITALY IN 1935

The 1900, 1902, and the 1908 Treaties between Ethiopia and Italy

The famous Ethiopian General Ras Alula who later became the governor of the area that is now Eritrea, in asserting Ethiopia’s rights against the Italy proclaimed that “ I have beaten the Italians once [ at Dogali], and I will beat them again. As far as I am concerned, Ethiopia’s natural frontier is the Red Sea and that the Italians will get land in Ethiopia only when Alula becomes Governor of Rome”. The ports of Massawa and Asseb were switching hands between, Ethiopians Egyptian and later Italians. But as announced by Ras Alula, Ethiopian rulers never abandoned their right access to the sea and fought with Egypt and Italy. Ethiopian warriors defeated a more ambitious attack launched from the coastal city of Massawa in which the Egyptian forces were almost completely destroyed. A fourth Egyptian army was decisively defeated southwest of Massawa in 1876.

In 1889 Emperor Menelik, signed the Treaty of Wichale giving the Eritrean highlands to Italy. The Italians tried to swindle him by having two different versions of the treaty, one in Amharic, and one in Italian; with different version of Article 17. The Italian version stated that “The Emperor consents to use the Italian government for all the business he does with all the other Powers or Governments.” Whereas under the Amharic version ,“The Emperor has the option to communicate with the help of the Italian government for all matters that he wants with the kings of Europe”. When Menelik realized that he had been cheated he rejected the treaty and ceased all gratuities from the Italians. The Italians invaded Ethiopia and at the famous Battle of Adwa Ethiopian forces led by Emperor Menelik defeated them. Humiliatingly routed and with as much 70 percent of the Italian forces killed, wounded, or captured, the Italians were forced to abandon their claim to a protectorate over all Ethiopia. The Treaty of Addis Ababa, signed in October 1896, abrogated the Treaty of Wichale and reestablished peace. Why the Emperor stopped the war then and sought peace instead of pursuing the routed Italians and reclaiming the lost territories is a mystery. For some it was merely a prudent decision not to undertake an impossible military adventure with logistical night mare, to others it was an act of treachery Erlich entertains both views “Menilek realized that he could not afford pressing the Italians too hard and risk meeting them in Eritrea where they were entrenched in heavily fortified positions.He probably also felt that a reoccupation of Tigrean-in habited territories would strengthen Tigrean political aspirations.”

The Treaty of Addis Abeba was followed by different treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908, to delimit the boundary between Italian Eritrea and Ethiopia and in the case of the treaty of 1902 among British Sudan, Italian Eritrea and Ethiopia. The 1900 treaty delimited the north and north and west borders of Ethiopia with Eritrea. : -

Art. I.-The line Tomat-Todlue-Mareb-Belesa-Muna, traced on the map annexed, is recognized by the two Contracting Parties as the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Art. II.-The Italian Government binds itself not to cede or sell to any other Power the territory comprised between the Line Tomat, Todlue, Mareb-Mai, AmbessaMai, Feccia-Mai, Maretta-Mai, HaMahio, Piano galine Faraone, and the line Tomat, Todluc, Mareb, Belesa, Muna, left by His Majesty Menelik II, King of King of Ethiopia, to Italy. What would be the legal significance of Article II to peace treaty with Italy after the Second World War?

The 1902 treaty is a modification of the 1900 Treaty that gave more land to Italy in the North West of the frontier of Ethiopia. The 1908 Treaty officially and legally made Ethiopia Completely land locked Article I:

From the most easterly point of the frontier established between the Colony of Eritrea and the Tigre by the Treaty of the 10th July, 1900, the boundary continues south-east, parallel to and at a distance of 60 kilometers from the coast, until it joins the frontier of the French possessions of Somalia.

There are some Ethiopians who argue that these treaties were void abinitio, asserting that their were made under duress, alleging that Britain, France and Italy were conspiring to handover Ethiopia to Italy and that Italy was preparing another invasion and that the treaties were signed under such coercive pressure. But many treaties were made through the use of military force during that period. Use of military force to induce or force a state to sign treaty was not considered unlawful. Before international law prohibited the use of force in international relations, territorial changes often came about by virtue of conquest. A policy not to recognize the validity of territorial acquisitions brought about by force was adopted after the Kellogg Briand Pact.

For whatever compelling circumstances the Emperor might have had, or calculations that he might have made, the hero of the famous Battle of Adwa that signaled the downfall of European colonialism had to lose at the negotiation table. It is difficult to prove that Ethiopia signed the treaties under duress. Even if it was signed under duress, it was not unlawful at that time and non-retroactivity of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties forbids its applications in such circumstances. The argument that the treaties were void abinitio in both cases cannot hold water.

Invasion of Ethiopia by Italy as the Grounds to Render the Treaties Null and Void Treaties Signed in the 1900s

Ethiopia’s repeated call to demarcate the boundary according to the treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 fell in deaf ears in Italy. It, in fact made some military advances in different areas. Italy was not ready to implement the treaties in good faith. Italy’s bad faith culminated in its invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Italy not only invaded Ethiopia but rearranged the boundaries of Somalia, Eritrea, and Ethiopia to form the colony of Italian East Africa. Boundaries of the new administrative units did not follow the previous Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somalia or the international boundaries of Ethiopia as they existed before the Italian conquest. Tigray of northern Ethiopia was included in the government of Eritrea and the Ogaden of south east of Ethiopia was made part of Somalia. Italian East Africa had five units, Somalia, Galla-Sidamo, Harar, and Eritrea. By this flagrant decision, Italy wanted to dissolve Ethiopia as a nation and put the name in historical archives.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was largely declaratory of customary international law Article 60 on termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach, as a material breach of the treaty is a rule of customary international law. Under the Advisory Opinion on Namibia, 1971 I.C.J. 16, 47, the Court treated the rules laid down in Article 60(3), concerning termination on account of breach as a codification of existing customary law. In the cases concerning a ‘material’ breach of a bilateral treaty by one party entitles the other to invoke it as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending operation in whole or in part Article 60 (3) defines material breach it as:

“ a) Repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the convention; or b) The violation of a provision ‘essential to the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the treaty”

Territorial treaties are relatively consummated transactions like the conveyance of a territory, leases and servitudes and other agreements that have already been performed in whole or in part, also compliance is negative, thus consisting primarily of refraining from action and perhaps not requiring continuous positive action. Rights from these kinds of treaties are “earned,” “acquired,” or “real” rights and are meant to be relatively permanent because unilateral termination is unlawful. Unilateral termination of the treaty usually cannot be made without a resort by the claimant party to an overt act of coercion. However, according to general principle [i.e. customary international law] of law that a right of termination on account of breach must be presumed to exist in respect to all treaties, except regarding provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character.

The object and purpose of territorial treaties is the recognition by ‘neighboring’ states of the party’s sphere of full control as a matter of asserting its sovereignty and the mutual recognition of the existence of two sovereign states. The invasion and fragmentation of Ethiopia is a process of erasing the conditions of Statehood. Treaties cannot exist without the existence of one party. As far as Italy was concerned Ethiopia did not exist from 1935 onwards.

Italy breached the boundary treaty with Ethiopia by invading and occupying Ethiopia. Off course the breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties does not ipso facto put an end to the treaty, but only entitles the other party to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operations. This has been accepted as customary international law. Accordingly, Emperor Haile Selassie, by declaration and by the adoption of the Eritrean Constitution and the ratification of the Federal Act in 1952 made the 1900, 1902, and 1908 conventions between Ethiopia and Italy null and void. The Emperor’s declaration of null and void may be taken as a wise legal precautionary arrangement, since the treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 were made obsolete pursuant to the Paris Peace Conference of 1947 and the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Italy renounced its rights to its colonial territories and the “successors” of these rights, i.e. the Victorious Four Powers, upon the recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, decided to federate Eritrea to Ethiopia, there by effectively extinguished the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties.

Customary international law is a law that derives from the practice of states and is accepted by them as legally binding. The principle of material breach of a treaty and the right of the party which is upholding its obligation in good faith to deem the treaty null and void has been established by state practice. These practices can be described in many instances in the modern world in different treaties. Most treaties can be breached by action or omission of obligations and are usually time bounded. Territorial treaties are meant to be permanent and can only be breached by action usually accompanied by force as discussed above. The Munich Agreement and Riga Treaty represent contemporary states practice that reflects the customary law that may invoke a material breach to declare a territorial treaty null and void.

The Munich Agreement

On September 29, 1938, in Munich Germany, France, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom signed an agreement regarding the cession to Germany from Czechoslovakia of the territory known as the Sudetenland. The agreement was made to avert the Second World War and give an international guarantee for the new boundaries of the Czechoslovakian state against unprovoked aggression. But Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and took over the rest of the country at the beginning of the war.

In announcing that the United Kingdom did not bind itself to continue to accept the transfer of the Sudetenland Land to Germany according to the Munich Agreement, the Prime Minister declared that:

….as Germany has deliberately destroyed the arrangements, concerning Czechoslovakia, reached in 1938 in which His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom participated, His Majesty’s Government regard themselves as free from any engagements in this respect. At the final settlement of Czechoslovakia frontiers to be reached at the end of the war, they will not be influenced by any changes affected in and since 1938.

Similarly, President of the French National Committee Charles de Gaulle wrote a letter to the Czechoslovakian Prime Minister on September 29, 1942 stating that:

In this spirit the French National Committee, rejecting the agreements signed in Munich on September 29, 1938, solemnly declare that they consider these agreements as null and void as also all acts accomplished in the application or in consequence of these same agreements. Recognizing no territorial alternations affecting Czechoslovakia supervening in 1938 or since that time, they undertake to do everything in their power to ensure that the Czechoslovak Republic within frontiers prior to September 1938, obtains all effective guarantees for her military and economic security, her territorial integrity and her political unity.

In June, 1945, the Victorious Four Powers also implicitly treated the Munich Agreement as null and void by declaring that Germany, with her frontiers as they were on December, 311937, would for the purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be allocated to each power.

The Riga Treaty of 1921

The USSR was in a difficult position after the October Revolution and the War with Poland. Due to its military setbacks, the Soviets Union with resentment offered the Polish peace delegation substantial territorial concessions in the contested border areas. It did so under the Riga Treaty of 1921 to get some respite. Lenin said that while a few weeks earlier the Riga Conference has gone through crises, “we decided to make some more concessions, not because we thought them just but because we considered it important to smash the intrigue” of White Guardists and the entente.

The USSR unilaterally terminated the Riga Treaty and on September 28, 1939, concluded a Frontier and Friendship Treaty with Germany in “recognition of the collapse of the former Polish state.” They agreed in Article I to partition and determine boundary of their respective interests in the territory of the “former” Polish state.

On June 22, 1941, German military forces invaded the Soviet Union. On July 30, 1941, the Soviet Union and Poland signed an agreement as to war against Germany. Article 1 states that:

The Government of the USSR recognizes the Soviet- German treaties of 1939 as to the territorial changes in Poland as having lost their validity. The Polish Government declares Poland is not bound by any agreement with any third power which is directed against the USSR.

The USSR signed the Riga Treaty of 1921, unilaterally terminated it by signing a treaty with Germany, which divided Poland between them. The USSR declared null and void the territorial treaty with Germany when it was invaded by the same. The USSR re- installed the Riga Treaty by signing another treaty with Poland as cited above. Later, however, the USSR concluded an agreement with the United States, and the United Kingdom, which Poland was made to endorse, declaring the re-installed Riga Treaty null and void. The United Kingdom proposed the Curzon line, which the Soviet Union claimed, as a boundary between the USSR and Poland, by invalidating the Riga Treaty of 1921. On January 11, 1944, the USSR as a justification of the occupation and its demand for new frontier declared that: “… The injustice committed by the Riga Treaty of 1921, which was imposed upon the Soviet Union, in regard of the Ukrainians inhabiting the western Ukraine and the Byelorussians inhabiting Western Byelorussia, was that rectified”. United Kingdom and the USSR agreed that Poland should obtain equal compensation in the West from Germany including Eastern Prussia and frontiers on the Oder to compensate for the areas which would be in the Soviet Union.

In discussing how the invalidation of a territorial treaty was justified Steven R, Ratner has stated:

Despite pleas from the Polish government in London, the U.S. and British governments were prepared to meet Stalin’s demands. But what about the Riga Treaty—how could it be changed without Poland’s consent? Again, the parties invoked international law to defend their solution. Though Eden principally argued to a skeptical House of Commons in terms of justice and stability of the modified Curzon line, he also emphasized that Poland had violated the post—world war minority treaty regarding Eastern Galicia; he added that the UK had never guaranteed Poland’s1939 frontiers, implying that Britain was legally free to endorse a new line that took significant territory away from the Poland. For good measure, however, the Allied agreed at Yalta that the ‘opinion’ of the new Polish government would be “sought in due course” and that the final decision would await a peace conference, that is, be confirmed by treaty. A treaty was made that guaranteed the USSR Occupation

Conclusion

Germany was offered some territories of Czechoslovakia to avoid war, and maintain peace and stability. But as discussed above, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and breached the Munich Agreement. After the war the four powers by explicitly declaring that Germany destroyed the Munich Agreement and implicitly making territorial arrangements made the treaty null and void. The British Foreign Minister had to invoke international law to ignore the Riga Treaty of 1921 and recognize the territories occupied by the USSR to be take away from Poland because, ‘Poland had violated the post- world war minority treaty regarding Eastern Galicia.

The contemporary practices of the major powers re enforce the customary law and make it clearer why Ethiopia had the right to invoke material breach and declare null and void the treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 after Italy invaded and occupied Ethiopia in 1935. The above examples make Ethiopia’s case clearer because of the flagrant invasion and occupation by Italy of the whole country despite the treaties of the first decade of the last century.

The attempts to compromise territorial rights to avoid war, and maintain peace and stability during the Second World War, the role of force in making new territorial arrangements after the war and flexibility exhibited according to circumstances for a greater policy objective are also some of the lessons that can be drawn from these practices and which will be discussed latter.