Ethiopia

I should like first of all to extend to Mr. Didier Opertti the Ethiopian delegation’s congratulations on his well-deserved unanimous election to preside over the fifty-third session of the General Assembly. We are fully confident that under his guidance the work of this session of the General Assembly will meet with resounding success. I should like also to express our appreciation to the outgoing President for the most effective guidance he provided to the fifty-second session of the General Assembly and for the most valuable contribution he has made in this regard. We are indeed deeply indebted to our Secretary- General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who has tried to inject new vitality into the United Nations and who has, under difficult circumstances, continued to make a difference at the helm of the Organization. We appreciate very deeply in particular what the Secretary-General has been doing to ensure that the voices of all those whose viewpoints needed to be heard are heard, and that there is a more effective cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity (OAU). I wish in this regard to commend him with great satisfaction for what can only be called the historic report he has submitted on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. This report, on which the Secretary-General has deservedly already been congratulated by many, raises all those issues which are vital for the future of Africa and treats them with such frankness and transparency that I can only hope that we will all have the necessary resolve and commitment to follow up its recommendations and ensure their implementation. We in Africa have made, over the past few years, tremendous efforts to change Africa’s image and reality. Despite the apparent slips of the past few months, what 9 has been achieved on our continent since the early 1990s should not be underestimated. This applies both to activities in the economic area as well as to the work for peace and stability on our continent. The past few years have demonstrated quite vividly how most African countries, including my own, Ethiopia, have shown the necessary determination to create a domestic climate conducive to economic growth and development. There is today hardly any country in Africa which has not acknowledged that the economic future of countries lies in market-based and private-sector-driven economic transformation and which has not taken the appropriate steps to that end. It is indeed gratifying to note that the results, certainly in my own country, have been encouraging. However, it is hardly disputable that our performance in the economic area has not by any means measured up to our expectations and that it has been far below what is needed to prevent hopelessness and despair on our continent, especially among the younger generation. Although the reasons that provide part of the explanation for this may not be wanting, it is nonetheless very obvious that the well-known limitations we face in international economic cooperation, in particular in the area of trade and in connection with the debt burden, constitute the major impediments to Africa’s economic regeneration. Consequently, the Secretary-General has reiterated in his report that there is indeed an urgent need for political will to ensure sustainable growth and development in Africa, not only on our part as Africans but also on the part of the international community as a whole. In the past few years we in Africa have also made every effort, in particular through subregional organizations, to work for peace and to prevent and contain conflicts. In this regard, the establishment by the OAU of a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution in Africa has been a major step we have taken, and our achievement on this score over the past few years should not be underestimated. In our own subregion, we have continued to exert the necessary efforts for peace in the Sudan and to assist the people of Somalia in achieving national reconciliation and establish a broad-based Government and a central authority. In both cases, while success has not been easily won, the efforts we are making have nonetheless continued because of the conviction, including on the part of our partners in the international community, that there is no effective alternative to these efforts carried out at the subregional level through the mechanism of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). But it is very clear that the gains, however small, made over the past few years in the area of peace and security in Africa have been tested very severely in the past few months. Developments in the Great Lakes region, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, represent some of the serious sources of concern we have in this regard. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that a way out of this looming danger in the Great Lakes region will be found based on full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries of the region, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and on the full recognition of the security concerns of all countries of the region. It is Ethiopia’s firm conviction that there is no alternative as a guarantee for peace and amity among States to the scrupulous observance of all of the principles of international law governing inter-State relations. However, the greatest danger for peace in this connection is not so much the violation of international law per se, but the response by the international community in the face of such violation. When the international community, for whatever reason, fails to respond to aggression and to violations of international law with the required indignation and resolve, then aggressors are sent, wittingly or unwittingly, the message that the principles of international law are not there to underpin the peace and that laws are there to be violated with impunity. This has been the lesson that we have drawn from one of the major recent disappointments that we have had in the area of peace and security in Africa. I am, of course, referring here to the naked aggression by the State of Eritrea against Ethiopia on 12 May 1998. Despite the efforts by various parties, this aggression continues to portend the outbreak of a full-scale war between the two countries because, on the one hand, of Eritrea’s intransigence in insisting that the peaceful resolution of the crisis must be linked to Ethiopia’s acceptance of the loss of its sovereignty over a part of its territory and to the consequent appeasement of Eritrea, and, on the other, of the dangerous impression the international community is conveying: that aggression entails not costs to the aggressor, but rewards. The aggression committed by the Eritrean regime against Ethiopia is unprecedented in more ways than one. 10 First, it is aggression that was not only unprovoked but was also carried out against a State that, until the day of the aggression, was a true friend of Eritrea — probably the only true friend Eritrea had until that day of infamy when it decided to stab Ethiopia in the back. Secondly, this is an aggression that, paradoxical as it may seem, was designed to impose Eritrea’s will and policy on a country that is in no shape or form suited to play second fiddle to Eritrea. It is quite possible that Ethiopia’s preoccupation with development and with the fight against poverty over the past several years might have created the wrong impression in the minds of Eritrea’s leaders, with their fixation on muscle-flexing and military might. Conscious of its responsibility not only for its own people but also for peace and the image of our subregion, Ethiopia has exerted and continues to exert the maximum possible effort to ensure the peaceful resolution of this crisis, which was created solely by the Eritrean aggression against Ethiopia and the subsequent occupation of Ethiopian territory. Our full cooperation with the various efforts made in this regard — ranging from the United States-Rwandan facilitation to the ongoing effort by the Organization of African Unity — attests to the maximum amount of self- restraint that Ethiopia has demonstrated under difficult circumstances and in the complete absence of a rational and reasonable partner for peace on the part of Eritrea since the early days of the aggression. The origin of the crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea is not in any bilateral dispute between the two countries; rather it is the result of aggression — an unprovoked aggression which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. To many this Eritrean aggression against Ethiopia has been incomprehensible. But to those who, like us, are familiar with the internal Eritrean situation, the behaviour of the Eritrean Government stems directly from the total absence in Eritrea of the normal characteristics of a State. The absolute failure of institutions, the absence of the rule of law and the lack of accountability can explain the aggressive behaviour of the Eritrean leadership towards its neighbours ever since the establishment of Eritrea as an independent State. As a result, these factors also constitute the single most important cause for the current crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The fact that aggression was committed against Ethiopia by Eritrea has been indisputable for some time now. This has been the position and conclusion of all those who have so far tried, under the difficult circumstances posed by Eritrea’s obduracy and lack of civility, to make their good offices available as facilitators and as brokers of peace in this conflict. No one who has been intimately involved with these various efforts for peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea would fail to see that Eritrea has never, ever been prepared to give peace a chance. No one who has been close to the efforts made so far to resolve the crisis peacefully would fail to have noted not only the absolute disregard for peace on the part of the Eritrean authorities, but also their attempt to conceal the truth, their lack of transparency and their sheer failure to demonstrate the minimum decency towards all those who have tried to help. Nevertheless, it is indeed regrettable that some, jettisoning their principles, seem to have drawn the conclusion that, in the face of the known irrationality bordering on the insane in Eritrea, what needs to be done is to lean on Ethiopia, the victim of the aggression, to compromise on principles and to agree to the appeasement of the aggressor and to reward aggression. Two things must not be overlooked by the international community with regard to the enormous implications of Eritrea’s aggression against Ethiopia for international law and for the future of peace and stability in our subregion. First, it must be recognized that this is precisely a trap laid by the Eritrean authorities in the form of a deliberately designed game of chicken, calculated, these authorities hope, to end with rewarding aggression. Needless to say, Ethiopia refuses to play according to the Eritrean script, and we call upon the international community to take the same resolute stand. Secondly, it should never be assumed that through appeasement war would be averted and that durable peace can be ensured in our part of the world. Although because of its recent history this part of the world admittedly needs peace most, it cannot be expected to pay any price to avoid war, in particular by accommodating aggressors. Clearly it stands to reason, and history has amply demonstrated, that war in the long run cannot be averted by appeasing aggressors. It is a total illusion to believe that Eritrea will be tamed, and we are saying this from experience. One just has to look at Eritrea’s track record of the past few years in our area. Eritrea’s propensity to aggression manifested itself first in its belligerent attitude towards its neighbours over the past seven years and has culminated in its most extreme form of aggression against Ethiopia. In the face of such a destructive attitude one may ask why such belligerence by Eritrea was tolerated for so long. The answer is that, since we believed that the transition from leading a liberation movement to running an independent State would take time, we somehow entertained the hope 11 that the Eritrean leadership would mature over time, as is the case in almost all other similar circumstances. But our hopes were finally dashed on 12 May 1998. In light of this, we have absolutely no doubt that, if we fail to tell the Eritrean authorities in no uncertain terms that their unruly behaviour cannot be tolerated any longer, the result will be even greater instability and interminable conflict in the subregion, and it will have enormous implications for peace and stability in our continent. That is why the Ethiopian Government and people firmly believe that this flagrant violation of international law by a small nation that is totally blinded by arrogance and led astray by a leadership that has concluded that brinkmanship will always pay should not be left unchallenged. On our part, whether the international community stands with us or not on the fundamental principle of preserving international law and resisting aggression, regardless of the consequences, we are prepared to stand alone, if need be on principle as well as for our national dignity. This, as we all remember, would not be the first time for Ethiopia to be in such a situation. In this connection, one is reminded of Emperor Haile Selassie and the League of Nations following Italian aggression against Ethiopia in 1936. The measure proposed at the time against Italy was the imposition of an oil embargo, which certainly would have been effective in crippling Italian aggression against Ethiopia. Nevertheless, since appeasing Fascist Italy was the preferred option for the great Powers of the time, the proposal was rejected. Instead, in a clear demonstration of injustice unprecedented in the history of inter-State conflicts, an arms embargo was imposed by the League on both the aggressor, Italy, and the victim of aggression, Ethiopia. As a result we all know, as history has recorded, this dismal failure of the League of Nations to prevent aggression was one of the causes which brought about the demise of the organization and later contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. It is Ethiopia’s hope that this shameful episode will not be repeated by the international community today, although the nature and scale of the challenge Ethiopia is facing today is radically different, and is not comparable to what it faced during those difficult days on the eve of the Second World War. The United Nations is still grappling with various issues affecting international peace and security around the world. Among these, the situation in Angola is a cause for serious concern to us. The behaviour of UNITA clearly constitutes a dangerous trend which might lead to the derailment of the peace process — namely, the full implementation of the Lusaka Protocol. We urge the United Nations to exert the maximum effort to save the fragile situation in Angola and ensure the establishment of lasting peace and stability in that country. On the situation in the Middle East, we hope every effort will be exerted towards the full implementation of the Oslo accords, with a view to establishing durable peace in the area. With regard to the question of Western Sahara, it is our earnest hope that the proposed referendum on the future of the territory will be held as soon as possible to bring about a final and successful settlement of the issue. As a founding member of this Organization, Ethiopia has always been prepared to contribute to the best of its ability to all efforts designed to make the United Nations and its various organs more effective and more representative. Accordingly, my country attaches great importance to the ongoing exercises aimed, among other things, at reforming and restructuring the Security Council. A satisfactory, fruitful and expeditious outcome of this process is indeed vital for the effectiveness, credibility and, I might add, the enhanced legitimacy of the world body. For Ethiopia, and for all those who have trust in the efficacy of multilateralism, there is no alternative to the United Nations. The Organization should therefore be protected, and what it stands for — whether in the areas of economic cooperation, disarmament or human rights — should be promoted and fostered with all dedication and commitment. In this endeavour, Ethiopia will continue to be second to none in discharging its responsibilities to the United Nations in this and other activities of the Organization. I therefore wish to conclude by renewing Ethiopia’s commitment to the United Nations and to what it stands for.