Mereja.Forum

[DefendTheTruth]

Ethiopia was rendered landlocked on the birth of an "independent" Eritrea under a dubious circumstances, above all by a regime that grabbed state power in Ethiopia itself by means of violence, without any due consultation of the people of Ethiopia. The lose of Sea coast incorporated the lose of years of investment by Ethiopia into port facilities and without any sort of compensation for the investment. Ethiopians didn't deserve to lose their dire resources of years of investment without any due consultation or compensation, if there is a rule of law.

Now, Ethiopia raises a legitimate question of why did she has to lose her own resources, unless confiscation, which is unlawful under the rule of law.

[DefendTheTruth]

The guys in the discussion perhaps deliberately skipped to raise a crucial point when it comes to Ethiopia's quest to an unimpeded sea access: Ethiopia has said from the get go that she wants to get an access to the sea on a basis of give and take, which the regime of the despot Isayas Afeworki's government in Eritrea promptly refused to accept and instead started to tour international lobbying campaign against Ethiopia and thwarting Ethiopia's effort in this regard, including with an arch-enemy of the nation, Egypt.

This crucial point should have never been overlooked, if the presentation is intended as an objective reflection of the situation on the ground, instead of a mere political campaign against the rising Ethiopia.

[ZEMEN]

The guys in the discussion perhaps deliberately skipped to raise a crucial point when it comes to Ethiopia's quest to an unimpeded sea access: Ethiopia has said from the get go that she wants to get an access to the sea on a basis of give and take, which the regime of the despot Isayas Afeworki's government in Eritrea promptly refused to accept and instead started to tour international lobbying campaign against Ethiopia and thwarting Ethiopia's effort in this regard, including with an arch-enemy of the nation, Egypt.

This crucial point should have never been overlooked, if the presentation is intended as an objective reflection of the situation on the ground, instead of a mere political campaign against the rising Ethiopia.

It shows that you have no self-respect nor quest for the truth.

[Zack]

Well Ethiopia has no leg to stand on the United Nations referendum was legally the elections had united nation supervisers. There is absolutely not a single thing wrong on how Eritrea obtained its dejura recognition and independence please bring forward your case and come with credible arguments



Dr Zackovich

[DefendTheTruth]

Well Ethiopia has no leg to stand on the United Nations referendum was legally the elections had united nation supervisers. There is absolutely not a single thing wrong on how Eritrea obtained its dejura recognition and independence please bring forward your case and come with credible arguments

Dr Zackovich

The issue that affects the generations of Ethiopian to come was decided on in the back of the Ethiopians themselves, the then government in power was not mandated to deliberate on such a strategic matter of the nation. Not even a legitimate government in the country, it was a regime that toppled its predecessor by means of violence and there was not even a constitution on the country. UN should have pointed out this glaring deficiency of the make up before deciding to involve itself.

Everything was backed in the back of the major stakeholders of the enterprise. This makes squarely illegitimate!

[Zack]

Well Ethiopia has no leg to stand on the United Nations referendum was legally the elections had united nation supervisers. There is absolutely not a single thing wrong on how Eritrea obtained its dejura recognition and independence please bring forward your case and come with credible arguments

Dr Zackovich

The issue that affects the generations of Ethiopian to come was decided on in the back of the Ethiopians themselves, the then government in power was not mandated to deliberate on such a strategic matter of the nation. Not even a legitimate government in the country, it was a regime that toppled its predecessor by means of violence and there was not even a constitution on the country. UN should have pointed out this glaring deficiency of the make up before deciding to involve itself.

Everything was backed in the back of the major stakeholders of the enterprise. This makes squarely illegitimate!

That is not entirely accurate. The EPRDF had established effective control over the majority of Ethiopia and was, in fact, the legitimate authority at the time it submitted its request to Boutros Boutros-Ghali for a UN supervised referendum only recognised govt can apply for a un supervised referendum or request it for their country as they did. Now, even if one were to argue that there existed another authority within the country, it remains that the United Nations operates on the basis of recognised legitimacy but that didnt even exist . The EPRDF was the internationally recognised government of Ethiopia and that is the crux of the matter.

Admittedly, the outcome may be unfavourable for you lot ethiopian nationalists , particularly with regard to becoming landlocked, yet the moment to contest such an outcome was when the EPRDF first consolidated power. Had its opponents succeeded in defeating the EPRDF prior to 1991 before it formally made the request then there might indeed have been a valid case to advance. As it stands, however, no such case can presently be sustained at the moment is done.

Dr Zackovich

[Zack]

Even if one argues that the EPRDF was not democratically legitimate when it came to power in 1991, it was the effective governing authority of Ethiopia at the time it exercised control over the state apparatus, administered the territory, and conducted foreign relations.

In international law, effective control and recognition generally outweigh questions of internal legitimacy. The United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU, now AU), and the international community all recognised the EPRDF as the lawful government of Ethiopia. Once a government is recognised and acts on behalf of the state, its acts are considered legally attributable to the state itself, not to the ruling party.

Even if one later challenges the legitimacy of a former government, its international acts remain binding upon the state. Otherwise, international relations would become chaotic, with every new regime repudiating its predecessors’ treaties, recognitions, or borders. This principle ex factis jus oritur law arises from facts ensures continuity and stability in the international order indeed.


Dr Zackovich

[Dark Energy]

Coward ugly Galla,


Compensation? Say what ? Compensation is due the other way around. Have you ever heard of illegal annexation? Idiot.

[Abere]

DDT/Huresa,

There are 3 wrongs here:

1) Isaias Afework/Shabia is still a rebel - every Ethiopian does not recognize him a leader of a country. He is illegitimate for Ethiopian

2) Meles Zenawi - is a an Tigre-Eritrea born, a rebel colluded with Shabia ( another leader). So, he was not a legitimate leader.

3) Abiy Ahmed - is both the Shabia and Woyane version of OLF. He is not a legitimate person. He is hijacking the legitimate question of restoring Red Sea for a wrong purpose. He is doing for political game and many believes to empire Orommuma empire - an other destined to fail like the Woyane of Tigray and Shabia of Eritrea province.

Having said this: Eritrea is not a country 100%. Cadres can talk all day long about the NGO known as UN. UN never stops Crimea from being taken back by Russia. Another hypothetical example: Suppose the USA is Ethiopia and Eritrea were her province, would you believe Shabia would be ignored and kicked in less than 24 hours? UN would cry for one week and learn the new normal. What it takes is a country with an accepted leader and a people feeling the country is theirs. There will never be a victory in the battle field where Amhara avoids to engage. Abiy Ahmed knows this fact, but he is using it to distract Amhara.

[Deqi-Arawit]

We are terrified and petrified by the prowess of the Galla!

We are going to capture these low IQ and kinky hair Galla and export them as slaves the way amhara used to do.

Please wait, video is loading...

[Zack]

DDT/Huresa,

There are 3 wrongs here:

1) Isaias Afework/Shabia is still a rebel - every Ethiopian does not recognize him a leader of a country. He is illegitimate for Ethiopian

2) Meles Zenawi - is a an Tigre-Eritrea born, a rebel colluded with Shabia ( another leader). So, he was not a legitimate leader.

3) Abiy Ahmed - is both the Shabia and Woyane version of OLF. He is not a legitimate person. He is hijacking the legitimate question of restoring Red Sea for a wrong purpose. He is doing for political game and many believes to empire Orommuma empire - an other destined to fail like the Woyane of Tigray and Shabia of Eritrea province.

Having said this: Eritrea is not a country 100%. Cadres can talk all day long about the NGO known as UN. UN never stops Crimea from being taken back by Russia. Another hypothetical example: Suppose the USA is Ethiopia and Eritrea were her province, would you believe Shabia would be ignored and kicked in less than 24 hours? UN would cry for one week and learn the new normal. What it takes is a country with an accepted leader and a people feeling the country is theirs. There will never be a victory in the battle field where Amhara avoids to engage. Abiy Ahmed knows this fact, but he is using it to distract Amhara.

The thing is nobody really cares what Ethiopia or its Galla leader think

[Abere]

Your statement is completely untrue. Why would the majority of people on this forum be Shabia trolls? Why are these trolls here 24/7? The answer is very clear: Shabia knows deep down that it stole the Red Sea from Ethiopia. That’s why it engages in this kind of deceitful behavior here.

Unless you’re suggesting that they’re here fighting their way back to reunite with Ethiopia — just as they once fought illegally to break away - having now learned their bitter lesson.

DDT/Huresa,

There are 3 wrongs here:

1) Isaias Afework/Shabia is still a rebel - every Ethiopian does not recognize him a leader of a country. He is illegitimate for Ethiopian

2) Meles Zenawi - is a an Tigre-Eritrea born, a rebel colluded with Shabia ( another leader). So, he was not a legitimate leader.

3) Abiy Ahmed - is both the Shabia and Woyane version of OLF. He is not a legitimate person. He is hijacking the legitimate question of restoring Red Sea for a wrong purpose. He is doing for political game and many believes to empire Orommuma empire - an other destined to fail like the Woyane of Tigray and Shabia of Eritrea province.

Having said this: Eritrea is not a country 100%. Cadres can talk all day long about the NGO known as UN. UN never stops Crimea from being taken back by Russia. Another hypothetical example: Suppose the USA is Ethiopia and Eritrea were her province, would you believe Shabia would be ignored and kicked in less than 24 hours? UN would cry for one week and learn the new normal. What it takes is a country with an accepted leader and a people feeling the country is theirs. There will never be a victory in the battle field where Amhara avoids to engage. Abiy Ahmed knows this fact, but he is using it to distract Amhara.

The thing is nobody really cares what Ethiopia or its Galla leader think

[Naga Tuma]

Without being a proponent of war but for the sake of argument without any expertise in international law, if it is established through a discovery process under the law that Meles Zenawi as a leader of Ethiopia was biased in favor of Eritrea and Eritrea was aware at the highest level of its leadership that Meles Zenawi wasn’t a neutral arbiter, can you cite any international law that doesn’t implicate both parties about the referendum process?

Even if one argues that the EPRDF was not democratically legitimate when it came to power in 1991, it was the effective governing authority of Ethiopia at the time it exercised control over the state apparatus, administered the territory, and conducted foreign relations.

In international law, effective control and recognition generally outweigh questions of internal legitimacy. The United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU, now AU), and the international community all recognised the EPRDF as the lawful government of Ethiopia. Once a government is recognised and acts on behalf of the state, its acts are considered legally attributable to the state itself, not to the ruling party.

Even if one later challenges the legitimacy of a former government, its international acts remain binding upon the state. Otherwise, international relations would become chaotic, with every new regime repudiating its predecessors’ treaties, recognitions, or borders. This principle ex factis jus oritur law arises from facts ensures continuity and stability in the international order indeed.


Dr Zackovich

[DefendTheTruth]

There are two ways of effective control: one is based on consent of the controlled and the other is based on imposition. If people are free, then their consent on the form of government should be primarily the centrally crucial point.

Yes, TPLF had an effective control over Ethiopia that was brought about by means of power of the gun, not through the consent of the governed. That makes it an illegitimate government to decide on the strategic interest of the nation. It is irrelevant if it had an external support or not, the stakeholders are always those who are "governed".

Even on the level of TPLF as such it was just a transitional government back then, not a standing government of the nation.

Transitional government is not allowed or supposed to deliberate on issues of strategic interest of the people it governs on.

Everything around the point here and others makes it a dubious business and generations of Ethiopians are going to suffer under such an arrangement. This should be lifted or corrected before more damage is done!

Well Ethiopia has no leg to stand on the United Nations referendum was legally the elections had united nation supervisers. There is absolutely not a single thing wrong on how Eritrea obtained its dejura recognition and independence please bring forward your case and come with credible arguments

Dr Zackovich

The issue that affects the generations of Ethiopian to come was decided on in the back of the Ethiopians themselves, the then government in power was not mandated to deliberate on such a strategic matter of the nation. Not even a legitimate government in the country, it was a regime that toppled its predecessor by means of violence and there was not even a constitution on the country. UN should have pointed out this glaring deficiency of the make up before deciding to involve itself.

Everything was backed in the back of the major stakeholders of the enterprise. This makes squarely illegitimate!

That is not entirely accurate. The EPRDF had established effective control over the majority of Ethiopia and was, in fact, the legitimate authority at the time it submitted its request to Boutros Boutros-Ghali for a UN supervised referendum only recognised govt can apply for a un supervised referendum or request it for their country as they did. Now, even if one were to argue that there existed another authority within the country, it remains that the United Nations operates on the basis of recognised legitimacy but that didnt even exist . The EPRDF was the internationally recognised government of Ethiopia and that is the crux of the matter.

Admittedly, the outcome may be unfavourable for you lot ethiopian nationalists , particularly with regard to becoming landlocked, yet the moment to contest such an outcome was when the EPRDF first consolidated power. Had its opponents succeeded in defeating the EPRDF prior to 1991 before it formally made the request then there might indeed have been a valid case to advance. As it stands, however, no such case can presently be sustained at the moment is done.

Dr Zackovich

[eritrea]

I don't know how it is that those who believe in cows are significantly smarter than those who believe in trees,

[DefendTheTruth]

I don't know how it is that those who believe in cows are significantly smarter than those who believe in trees,

This only shows how much you became insecure just because some independent opinions are started to air.

I have said long time ago, around a year or so, that "hyena runs away from humans during the day light, knowing well what damage it has incurred during the dark time of the day", taken from a long held adage of the languages of the nation.

[eritrea]

I don't know how it is that those who believe in cows are significantly smarter than those who believe in trees,

This only shows how much you became insecure just because some independent opinions are started to air.

I have said long time ago, around a year or so, that "hyena runs away from humans during the day light, knowing well what damage it has incurred during the dark time of the day", taken from a long held adage of the languages of the nation.

If that is the case, It just shows that even hyenas are smarter than the tree-believers, that they are aware of the consequences of their actions and make wiser decisions.

[sesame]

The dying PP regime is now backtracking on all the idiotic proclamations about the Red Sea. How will the idiots like Horsey and DTT, who believed that the PP clowns were alive, retreat now!

[eritrea]

The dying PP regime is now backtracking on all the idiotic proclamations about the Red Sea. How will the idiots like Horsey and DTT, who believed that the PP clowns were alive, retreat now!

እንታይ እሞ ክዓብስ ኢዩ ሕጂ ድፈሰኻ ምስ ፈሰኻ ሰለፍ ምእካብ።

[DefendTheTruth]

I just published an article on The Reporter Ethiopia online magazine, based the core message of "No justice, No peace!"

Beyond the Colonial Line: Ethiopia, the Afar People, and the Quest for a Just Peace on the Red Sea

The process that led to Ethiopia’s current landlocked status in 1993 was profoundly illegitimate from the Ethiopian perspective. The decision to allow Eritrea’s separation without securing Ethiopia’s coastal rights was presided over by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE).

This government was, by definition, a temporary, unelected coalition of rebel fronts formed after the fall of the Derg regime in 1991. Its primary purpose was to stabilize the country and pave the way for a new constitution and democratic elections. The TGE was never given a mandate by the Ethiopian people to decide on the permanent redrawing of the nation’s borders or the surrender of its sovereign access to the sea.

Such a foundational, irreversible decision should have been reserved for a democratically elected government and subjected to a national referendum within Ethiopia. Instead, it was a permanent decision made by a temporary government.

Compounding this failure of mandate was a clear conflict of interest. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), the very group seeking independence, was simultaneously a key and powerful actor within the Ethiopian transitional process. This meant one party was essentially helping to dictate the terms of its own separation from a state whose long-term national interests were not being legitimately represented.

This was a legal and moral failure. For a provisional government to authorize the permanent economic strangulation of its nation is a dereliction of its custodial duty. The process lacked constitutional legitimacy. It was a political arrangement between victorious rebel leaders, not a sustainable legal settlement between sovereign peoples. A decision of this magnitude, made without the consent of the Ethiopian populace, cannot be considered the final, just, or legitimate word on the nation’s destiny.

I enjoyed reading the article, if not for the content, the certainly for the reflection of my own message under this thread in it, where I used my own personal instinct to give my own judgement.

https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/47479/