Mereja.Forum

[DefendTheTruth]

እኚህ ሰዉ አንድ ቀን ስማቸዉን በከፍታ ያስጠሩት ይሁን? ታላቅ ሰዉ፣ ታላቅ ታሪክ፣ ታላቅ ሕዝብ የሆነዉ የአፋር ሕዝብ፣ አንጋፋ ና ጉምቱ ሕዝብ አንድነቱን መልሶ ይጎናፀፍ ይሁን? ታላቅ መከላኪያ፣ ለታላቅ ተልዕኮ!

ኣዴ አይሻ መሀመድ፣ ለኢትዮጵያ ትንሳዔ!

[DefendTheTruth]

Engineer Aisha Mohammed, Minister of Defense of Ethiopia, has an historical opportunity at her disposal to leave a lasting legacy behind by first and foremost working towards unifying the people of Afar under one Umbrella of Ethiopia and thereby ending the historical injustice that the people suffered, imposed division, as the Afar people.

I think to have heard somewhere that Ethiopia is building a large military base in the Afar region of Ethiopia, without any mention of the purpose. It is not without any goal, I think.

If the unification of the Afar people could be achieved during the tenure of Engineer Aisha as Minister of Defense in Ethiopia her name would turn into immortal in Ethiopia in par with the likes of the names of Empress Tayitu Betul of the reign of Emperor Menelik II.

[Meleket]

አይሻን ከሆነ “ሴትዮ” ለማለት ነውን? .. .. .. ኣዪ ኣማርኛ ድሮ ቀረ!

እኚህ ሰዉ .. .. ..

[sarcasm]

If the unification of the Afar people could be achieved during the tenure of Engineer Aisha as Minister of Defense in Ethiopia ....

So Colonel Abiy Ahmed wants to invade an African country to unify a nation divided into two African countries? Another colonel tired to unify nation divided into two countries by invading an African country. He's called Siad Barre.

Siad Barre, while advocating for a unified "Greater Somalia", did not achieve a lasting unification of the Somali-inhabited regions. His actions, particularly the Ogaden War, ultimately led to his downfall and the collapse of his regime, paving the way for the Somali Civil War and the continued fragmentation of the region. What is with your rush to lead Ethiopia into Somalia-like fragmentation? Do you guy do not know about cost benefit analysis?

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill


Abiy's talk about unifying the Afar people is the same as Said Barre's attempt to unify Somali people.

[DefendTheTruth]

አይሻን ከሆነ “ሴትዮ” ለማለት ነውን? .. .. .. ኣዪ ኣማርኛ ድሮ ቀረ!

እኚህ ሰዉ .. .. ..

መለከት፣ እንደማከብርህ ነግሬህ ነበር፣ እንደ ሌሎቹ የሻቢያ ጀሌዎች ምላስ አትረዝምም ና፣ ጨዋ ሰዉ ትመስለኛለህ፣ ጨዋ ያሳደገዉ። በሀሳብ ብንለያይም።

እኔ አማርኛን እንደ 2ኛ ቋንቋዬ እንደምናገር ግልፅ አድርጌያለሁ፣ በተቻለኝ መጠን ደግሞ ምን ጊዜም ለመማር ዝግጁ ነኝ፣ እንደ አንዳንድ ፅንፈኞች ሳልሆን ማለት ነዉ።
ሆኖም ደግሞ ሰዉ ማለት ሁለቱንም ፆታዎች የምያጠቃልል ይመስለኛል፣ ልክ እንደ እንግልዘኛዉም ማለት ነዉ (humans are both male and female, I guess)። ታዲያ ከዬት አመጠህ፣ ሴትዮ የምለዉን? ሴቶች ሰዉ አይደሉምን?

[DefendTheTruth]

I am afraid you are failing to recognize the simple fact that you can't correlate Somaila, a byproduct of colonialism, with Ethiopia, the only nation that has managed to evade the wrath of what colonialism has caused in Africa.

If the unification of the Afar people could be achieved during the tenure of Engineer Aisha as Minister of Defense in Ethiopia ....

So Colonel Abiy Ahmed wants to invade an African country to unify a nation divided into two African countries? Another colonel tired to unify nation divided into two countries by invading an African country. He's called Siad Barre.

Siad Barre, while advocating for a unified "Greater Somalia", did not achieve a lasting unification of the Somali-inhabited regions. His actions, particularly the Ogaden War, ultimately led to his downfall and the collapse of his regime, paving the way for the Somali Civil War and the continued fragmentation of the region. What is with your rush to lead Ethiopia into Somalia-like fragmentation? Do you guy do not know about cost benefit analysis?

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill


Abiy's talk about unifying the Afar people is the same as Said Barre's attempt to unify Somali people.

[Meleket]

ወዳጃችን DefendTheTruth እኛም እናከብረዎታለን። ያገራችን ሰዎች “ክቡር የኽብረኻ መጠን ነፍሱ፡ ሕሱር የሕስረኻ መጠን ርእሱ” ነው የሚሉት። ሰውን በሰውነቱ ማክበር የክቡር ሰው መገለጫ ባህሪ ነው፡ እንደማለት ነው።

ወደ ጉዳያችን ስንመለስ፡ በእንግሊዝኛ እያሰብክ ባማርኛ ስትጽፍ የሚያጋጥመው እንዲህ ነው። ምንም እንኳ ሴቶች ሰዎች መሆናቸው የታወቀ ቢሆንም። እዬገለጽክ ያለሀው ስለ ‘ሴትየዋ’ ስለሆነ “እኚህ ሴትዮ” ማለቱ ይመረጣል ለማለት ያህል ነው እንጂ ልትለው የፈለከው ገብቶናል። ኣንድ ኣባት ምን ብለው ነበር መሰለህ "ቋንቋችን ከተወላገደ፡ ኣስተሳሰባችን ደግሞ ይወላገዳል፡" ስለዚህ በተቻለ መጠን የተቃና ኣነጋገር ብንናገር መልካም ነው ለማለት ያህል ነው። ይመችህ ወዳጃችን!

አይሻን ከሆነ “ሴትዮ” ለማለት ነውን? .. .. .. ኣዪ ኣማርኛ ድሮ ቀረ!

እኚህ ሰዉ .. .. ..

መለከት፣ እንደማከብርህ ነግሬህ ነበር፣ እንደ ሌሎቹ የሻቢያ ጀሌዎች ምላስ አትረዝምም ና፣ ጨዋ ሰዉ ትመስለኛለህ፣ ጨዋ ያሳደገዉ። በሀሳብ ብንለያይም።

እኔ አማርኛን እንደ 2ኛ ቋንቋዬ እንደምናገር ግልፅ አድርጌያለሁ፣ በተቻለኝ መጠን ደግሞ ምን ጊዜም ለመማር ዝግጁ ነኝ፣ እንደ አንዳንድ ፅንፈኞች ሳልሆን ማለት ነዉ።
ሆኖም ደግሞ ሰዉ ማለት ሁለቱንም ፆታዎች የምያጠቃልል ይመስለኛል፣ ልክ እንደ እንግልዘኛዉም ማለት ነዉ (humans are both male and female, I guess)። ታዲያ ከዬት አመጠህ፣ ሴትዮ የምለዉን? ሴቶች ሰዉ አይደሉምን?

[sesame]

እኚህ ሰው ያላቸው ሰትዮ ማለት ስላሳፈረው ነው::

[sarcasm]

I am afraid you are failing to recognize the simple fact that you can't correlate Somaila, a byproduct of colonialism, with Ethiopia, the only nation that has managed to evade the wrath of what colonialism has caused in Africa.

No country in Africa evaded the wrath of colonialism. The fact is that both Somalia and Ethiopia were byproducts of colonialism as they were one country, named Italian East Africa. They were both liberated by British Forces in 1941. Checkout my recent thread on how the British liberated Addis Ababa in April 1941. Mogadishu was actually liberated 2 months ahead of Addis in February 1941!


Let's for argument sake assume that Ethiopia has evaded the wrath of colonialism. Are you saying, just because we evaded colonialism, we can invade our neighboring countries that were created by colonialism? Can you not see how stupid that sounds?



Administrative subdivisions of Italian East Africa c. 1941

[Selam/]

የፒፒ መደዴ ካድሬዎች የማይኮርጁት ነገር የለምና “እኚህ ሰው” በነጮቹ አስፀያፊ የሊበራል ፆታ-አልባ አባባል “they” ለማለትም ታስቦ ይሆናል!

[AbyssiniaLady]

What is with your rush to lead Ethiopia into Somalia-like fragmentation?

You are delusional, Ethiopia is already a fragmented war-torn landlocked country and that is why Amhara and Tigray regions are locked in a dangerous territorial dispute over two tiny zones as we speak.

Unless you have been living under a rock, War-torn Ethiopia dissolved into two sovereign states 34 years ago and will without a doubt continue to dissolve into more than 85 sovereign states, On the other hand, Somalia is still here, still intact, still shining, It is also the country with the longest and the richest coastline in Africa.

the Somali-inhabited regions.

Somali State is one hundred percent in Somali hands and Somali destiny is in their own hands, Somalis will bring Gallas to their knees,



This thread has nothing to do with Somalia & Somali State, Focus on this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=332614&p=1560759#top

[DefendTheTruth]

Ethiopia, like all the countries around the world, has an inalienable right to access the sea, a natural resource of the nations of the world. What is that difficult to grasp that much?
Well, war should never be the first choice to protect one's rights, in the absence of readiness to resolve the issues at hand by the involved parties, war would be unavoidable. This is also a simple logic.

You can never have a territory by locking others into a geographic prison, this is a simple truth, diplomatic or otherwise.

I have said many times this simple logic already and I can't keep repeating myself again and again.

I am afraid you are failing to recognize the simple fact that you can't correlate Somaila, a byproduct of colonialism, with Ethiopia, the only nation that has managed to evade the wrath of what colonialism has caused in Africa.

No country in Africa evaded the wrath of colonialism. The fact is that both Somalia and Ethiopia were byproducts of colonialism as they were one country, named Italian East Africa. They were both liberated by British Forces in 1941. Checkout my recent thread on how the British liberated Addis Ababa in April 1941. Mogadishu was actually liberated 2 months ahead of Addis in February 1941!


Let's for argument sake assume that Ethiopia has evaded the wrath of colonialism. Are you saying, just because we evaded colonialism, we can invade our neighboring countries that were created by colonialism? Can you not see how stupid that sounds?



Administrative subdivisions of Italian East Africa c. 1941

[sarcasm]

Ethiopia, like all the countries around the world, has an inalienable right to access the sea, a natural resource of the nations of the world. What is that difficult to grasp that much?
Well, war should never be the first choice to protect one's rights, in the absence of readiness to resolve the issues at hand by the involved parties, war would be unavoidable. This is also a simple logic.

You can never have a territory by locking others into a geographic prison, this is a simple truth, diplomatic or otherwise.

I have said many times this simple logic already and I can't keep repeating myself again and again.

Let's test your logic. There are 16 landlocked countries in Africa;i.e, 30% of the countries. All this landlocked countries, including Ethiopia currently enjoy right to access the sea. Now what you are trying to tell us is that these countries should tell the other 70% countries in Africa, "We are sufficiently using our right to access. You should continue to respect our territorial integrity. But we don't respect your territorial integrity because we want to own your ports."

Can you not see your thinking is a non-starter?


United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea


Article 125

Right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit

1. Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea
for the purpose of exercising the rights provided for in this Convention
including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common
heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of
transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.

2. The terms and modalities for exercising freedom of transit shall be
agreed between the land-locked States and transit States concerned through
bilateral, subregional or regional agreements.

3. Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their
territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the
rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no
way infringe their legitimate interests.

[DefendTheTruth]

Even if I am not a jurist paragraph 1 of the article you quoted says it all: access to the sea is an inalienable right of the people of the world, it stipulates this general provisioning. Ethiopia has a legitimate claim over this provisioning, you can't have it otherwise!

Paragraph 2 of the same, as you quoted, is a non-starter for Ethiopia in the whole of the argument here by any stretch of the imagination I have. It was blocked by Eritrea, Ethiopia has gone an extra mile and showed all kinds of readiness for a compromise. The party that refused the compromise path will take the responsibility of any sort of consequences, the simple logic dictates here.

Paragraph 3 has no relevance in this case!

The court of justice clears Ethiopia in this case of any wrong doing.

If Ethiopia is found to have been wronged by the other party to the issue at hand here, then she has all the rights to take actions geared towards self-defense. This (self-defense) is an inalienable right of humans and any form of collection hereof.

Ethiopia, like all the countries around the world, has an inalienable right to access the sea, a natural resource of the nations of the world. What is that difficult to grasp that much?
Well, war should never be the first choice to protect one's rights, in the absence of readiness to resolve the issues at hand by the involved parties, war would be unavoidable. This is also a simple logic.

You can never have a territory by locking others into a geographic prison, this is a simple truth, diplomatic or otherwise.

I have said many times this simple logic already and I can't keep repeating myself again and again.

Let's test your logic. There are 16 landlocked countries in Africa;i.e, 30% of the countries. All this landlocked countries, including Ethiopia currently enjoy right to access the sea. Now what you are trying to tell us is that these countries should tell the other 70% countries in Africa, "We are sufficiently using our right to access. You should continue to respect our territorial integrity. But we don't respect your territorial integrity because we want to own your ports."

Can you not see your thinking is a non-starter?


United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea


Article 125

Right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit

1. Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea
for the purpose of exercising the rights provided for in this Convention
including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common
heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of
transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.

2. The terms and modalities for exercising freedom of transit shall be
agreed between the land-locked States and transit States concerned through
bilateral, subregional or regional agreements.

3. Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their
territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the
rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no
way infringe their legitimate interests.

[sarcasm]

Paragraph 2 of the same, as you quoted, is a non-starter for Ethiopia

If you are not happy with Article 125 Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, then the solution is not invading or threaten to invade your neighbors. The solution is to get that paragraph amended or changed to your liking.

I have a good example how international law can be changed. Ethiopia didn't like the 1929 Nile Waters Agreement. She did not threaten to invade Sudan and Egypt because it didn't like the agreement. She coordinated regional and international forces to change the international law. You can read about it on the thread Seyoum Mesfin's brainchild Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement CFA (Entebbe Agreement) will become International Law after 26 yrs on 08 Sept 2024.

That is how it's done.

[DefendTheTruth]

sarcasm,

I am not really passionate about repeating the same thing over and over again. I told you the core message of the article you quoted is about guarantying the so called "landlocked countries" the right to access the sea. This is the intent!

The leading (core) sentence is paragraph one of the article, you may like it or not, this paragraph stipulates the intent of the article. The two other paragraphs do augment the technical details on the implementation of the first paragraph.

A jurist will now interpret the provisioning of the law starting with the lead sentence and in the absence of this fulfillment of the central provisioning there is no point to go over and start to interpret the augmenting sentences of the main sentence. If you can't understand the meaning of this simple logic, then please spare me from keeping repeat the same stuff again and again, I am really tired.

If you have a different interpretation, then please go ahead and present it for all to see.
I am done!

Paragraph 2 of the same, as you quoted, is a non-starter for Ethiopia

If you are not happy with Article 125 Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, then the solution is not invading or threaten to invade your neighbors. The solution is to get that paragraph amended or changed to your liking.

I have a good example how international law can be changed. Ethiopia didn't like the 1929 Nile Waters Agreement. She did not threaten to invade Sudan and Egypt because it didn't like the agreement. She coordinated regional and international forces to change the international law. You can read about it on the thread Seyoum Mesfin's brainchild Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement CFA (Entebbe Agreement) will become International Law after 26 yrs on 08 Sept 2024.

That is how it's done.

[sarcasm]

sarcasm,

I am not really passionate about repeating the same thing over and over again. I told you the core message of the article you quoted is about guarantying the so called "landlocked countries" the right to access the sea. This is the intent!

Hi Defend,

I have already addressed the "right to access the sea" issue in the below posting. I don't think you and I benefit from these exchanges, but it will help rational readers to have an informed rational position from comparing our reasoning.

Ethiopia, like all the countries around the world, has an inalienable right to access the sea, a natural resource of the nations of the world.

Let's test your logic. There are 16 landlocked countries in Africa;i.e, 30% of the countries. All this landlocked countries, including Ethiopia currently enjoy right to access the sea. Now what you are trying to tell us is that these countries should tell the other 70% countries in Africa, "We are sufficiently using our right to access. You should continue to respect our territorial integrity. But we don't respect your territorial integrity because we want to own your ports."

Can you not see your thinking is a non-starter?

[DefendTheTruth]

That sort of argument is really silly, to say the least in the milieu of legal interpretations. Only because somebody has not made of use of the legal provisioning of the rights, the rest also shouldn't demand the same, is your line of argument.

Here is an excerpt of what genAI says with regard to the readout of the article you mentioned:

Article 125 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guarantees landlocked states the right of access to and from the sea, including freedom of transit through transit states. This right is crucial for landlocked states to exercise their rights in the sea, such as fishing, exploration of the seabed, and shipping.

Highlight is mine.

sarcasm,

I am not really passionate about repeating the same thing over and over again. I told you the core message of the article you quoted is about guarantying the so called "landlocked countries" the right to access the sea. This is the intent!

Hi Defend,

I have already addressed the "right to access the sea" issue in the below posting. I don't think you and I benefit from these exchanges, but it will help rational readers to have an informed rational position from comparing our reasoning.

Ethiopia, like all the countries around the world, has an inalienable right to access the sea, a natural resource of the nations of the world.

Let's test your logic. There are 16 landlocked countries in Africa;i.e, 30% of the countries. All this landlocked countries, including Ethiopia currently enjoy right to access the sea. Now what you are trying to tell us is that these countries should tell the other 70% countries in Africa, "We are sufficiently using our right to access. You should continue to respect our territorial integrity. But we don't respect your territorial integrity because we want to own your ports."

Can you not see your thinking is a non-starter?