Allow me to
extend to you, Madam President, our sincere
congratulations on your assumption of the Presidency
of the General Assembly at its sixty-first session and to
express our full confidence in your ability to guide the
session successfully.
Let me also express our appreciation to your
predecessor, Mr. Jan Eliasson, for his leadership during
the sixtieth session.
My delegation’s appreciation also goes to the
Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his selfless
15 06-53958
commitment and devotion to the objectives of the
United Nations, in general, and for his contributions,
through various initiatives, to the efforts of reforming
our Organization and for his dedication to their
practical implementation, in particular.
In our view, one of the key accomplishments of
the international community in recent years is the
agreement on the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). It is imperative that we all commit to
building stronger partnerships to achieve these noble
goals and targets. In this regard, we are cognizant of
the fact that each country is responsible for its
development. It should also be equally recognized that,
for those countries at the early stage of economic
development, there is a need for stronger support from
the international community if they are to meet the
MDGs.
For low-income countries, there is nothing more
important than a partnership that is predictable,
consistent and based on mutual obligations defined in
advance. The long-awaited opening up of international
trade, especially through the elimination of agricultural
subsidies, should also be expedited.
On our part, we have intensified our efforts to
improve the socio-economic conditions of Ethiopia.
Today, in the decade and a half since the dictatorship
was swept out of our country, our socio-economic
progress has been substantial. We have succeeded in
channelling our limited resources into capacity-
building and infrastructure programmes serving the
entire country. We have opened up new universities
and technical institutions of higher learning, expanded
primary health-care services and built roads, airports,
power plants, transmission and telecommunication
facilities and services, among others. As attractive
opportunities have become more apparent, domestic
and foreign investment has grown.
In this regard, I would like to highlight some of
the achievements recorded so far. In the past three
fiscal years, the Ethiopian economy has grown by an
average of 9.5 per cent annually. Over the same period,
our export trade has grown by 28.5 per cent per annum.
Our primary school enrolment ratio has increased to 89
per cent from a mere 30 per cent in the early 1990s. In
order to strengthen our capacity for development, we
are building 13 public universities. In two to three
years, when these universities are fully operational, the
total annual intake of public universities would
increase from the current 30,000 to 150,000 students.
Similar results have also been achieved in the health
sector, where the Government is equally determined to
enable rural people in Ethiopia to have adequate access
to basic health care by 2010.
Benefiting from the encouraging results of the
first five year plan and the experience gained in its
implementation, the second five year plan, namely, the
Programme for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty, was drawn up on a much
wider and enhanced scale. The main objective of this
latest plan is to alleviate poverty by ensuring food
security and meeting the MDGs.
As it carries out its development agenda, Ethiopia
strongly believes that the prevalence of peace and
security in the country and its region is an absolute
necessity. For this reason, Ethiopia will not allow its
dispute with Eritrea to distract it from its focus on
development, although that has been the main objective
of Eritrea since the conflict began eight years ago. For
the last four years, Eritrea has been blaming Ethiopia
for its own aggression against us and for the current
stalemate in the peace and demarcation process. In
fact, now, the whole world is being blamed for
Eritrea’s own failure and for its inability to behave like
a normal State.
For the benefit of this Assembly, it would be
fitting to place the conflict in the proper context and
perspective for a better appreciation of the current
impasse in the peace process. It should be recalled that
Eritrea launched an unprovoked attack against Ethiopia
in May 1998 in blatant disregard of international law,
thereby igniting the war and leading to the present
crisis. In this respect, I wish to draw the Assembly’s
attention to the decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims
Commission regarding issues of liability in the war
between the two countries.
In its decision, the Commission set forth, inter
alia, the following conclusions. First, Eritrea is liable
for committing unprovoked aggression against
Ethiopia. The Commission stated that Eritrea violated
Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United
Nations on 12 May 1998 and the days immediately
following when it resorted to armed force in attacking
and occupying areas peacefully administered by
Ethiopia. Secondly, Eritrea is liable to compensate
Ethiopia for the damages caused by that violation of
international law. Thirdly, the Commission rejected
06-53958 16
Eritrea’s argument that its recourse to force was
justified, because some of the territory question was
territory to which Eritrea had a claim.
The Commission’s decision shows not only
Eritrea’s warped understanding of international law but
unambiguously confirms that Eritrea’s illegal act
constituted aggression.
Before Eritrea launched its aggression and during
the war and after, Ethiopia has shown its strong desire
and willingness to resolve the conflict with Eritrea by
peaceful means. It should be recalled that, in order to
create conditions for a sustainable peace and in order
to re-establish all-around cooperation between the two
countries, Ethiopia presented a five-point peace plan,
which the international community, including the
Security Council, had welcomed. However, the
proposal was flatly rejected by Eritrea.
We have also cooperated fully with the Secretary-
General’s Special Envoy. Furthermore, Ethiopia has
welcomed the peace initiative presented by the
Witnesses to the Algiers Agreement, which is
supported by the Security Council and made the
following proposals. The current impasse should be
resolved with the assistance of a neutral facilitator in
the demarcation process. Freedom of operations by the
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
(UNMEE) should be restored, together with the
sanctity of the Temporary Security Zone. The threat or
use of force should be eliminated. There should be
normalization of relations between the two countries.
In this connection, I would like to assure the
international community that we shall continue to
persevere in our search for a lasting peace.
Ethiopia has on various occasions expressed its
readiness to demarcate the boundary, through dialogue,
in accordance with the decision of the Boundary
Commission, and has attended in good faith the
meetings convened by the Commission. It has also
reaffirmed its readiness to normalize its relations with
Eritrea. Ethiopia has done so not because it is desperate
for closer relations with Eritrea, but rather because
normalization is critical for durable peace. But Eritrea
will have none of this. Why? Because Eritrea’s
strategic goal is neither peace nor a peaceful common
boundary. What it wants is interminable boundary
problems with Ethiopia.
The latest report of the Secretary-General on
Ethiopia and Eritrea, of 19 September (S/2006/749),
and the report of the Boundary Commission annexed to
it clearly indicate that the Commission’s June and
August meetings were cancelled because Eritrea
refused to attend. Eritrea has also issued ultimatums as
a condition for its cooperation with the Boundary
Commission. I wish to underline here that Eritrea has
no reason to be frustrated by the lack of the speedy
implementation of demarcation. Eritrea is the reason
why the boundary between the two countries has still
not been demarcated.
Eritrea’s illegal and anti-peace stance is not
limited to issuing ultimatums. It has blatantly violated
the Algiers Agreement by threatening the use of force
and has violated the integrity of the Temporary
Security Zone by deploying its armed forces there. It
has tightened its blatant restrictions on the United
Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and
its personnel. The Secretary-General has reported time
and again that Eritrea has not only prohibited the
Mission from carrying out its mandated tasks, but also
engaged in a series of arrests and detentions of its
personnel. Those are naked violations of the Algiers
Agreement, Security Council resolutions and the
Charter.
The way forward to break the current impasse in
the peace process is very clear. Eritrea needs to abide
by the relevant Security Council resolutions and the
Algiers Agreement, withdraw its armed forces from the
Temporary Security Zone and restore the Zone’s
integrity and UNMEE’s freedom of operation. It must
demonstrate its compliance with article 1 of the
December 2000 Agreement by renouncing the use of
force to resolve the dispute between the two countries.
It should cooperate with the international community
in its efforts aimed at resolving the dispute peacefully
and through dialogue. Only when Eritrea decides to
cooperate with those legal measures will we be able to
begin to resolve the dispute in accordance with
international law.
Eritrea should behave as a responsible State and
resolve any dispute through diplomatic means. Eritrea
must understand that that is its only option. Its
continued, dangerous tactic of using brinkmanship
against many actors in the international community is
not acceptable.
Ethiopia shares a border of more than 2,000
kilometres with neighbouring Somalia and is home to
about 3.5 million Ethiopian Somalis. It is in the
17 06-53958
interests of Ethiopia that peace, stability and national
harmony prevail in that country. It is precisely for that
reason that we have spared no effort over the past 15
years — working together with partners in the Inter-
Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and
the African Union (AU) — to help the Somalis to
achieve peace and national reconciliation.
The Transitional Federal Government of Somalia
is the product of the efforts made by Somalis
themselves, with the support of IGAD countries, the
AU and the international community in general. That
Government is now facing a major challenge from
those who have ambitions that have nothing to do with
Somalia but everything to do with chaos, instability
and terror. The international community would do itself
a great disservice if it failed to appreciate the
implications of what is currently happening in Somalia
and did not respond in an appropriate manner.
Somalia is being dragged into the abyss by those
who are using religion as a cover to deny the people of
Somalia peace and the opportunity to revive a nation
that has been in a state of collapse for 15 years now,
making it possible for those who have no interest in
peace and stability to thrive. The latest opportunistic
move in this regard was made by Eritrea, but it is
bound to fail. IGAD and the AU are asking for political
and diplomatic support so that the Transitional Federal
Government can be in a position to contain those who
are the agents not of love, but of disharmony — not of
peace, but of war. That is not too much to ask of the
international community.
Only when the Transitional Federal Government
is in a position to protect itself from the internal and
external enemies of peace will dialogue provide a
solution to the crisis in Somalia — a crisis that the
extremists within the Islamic Courts Union hope will
engulf the whole region. It is precisely for that reason
that the partial lifting of the arms embargo is so
critical. There are those who want to wish away the
danger in Somalia. There are, on the other hand, those
who want to benefit from the danger. It is obvious that
the latter group, to which Eritrea belongs, is taking
advantage of the naivety of the former.
There should be no doubt that Ethiopia will
continue to be a pillar of peace and stability in the
Horn of Africa. That is Ethiopia’s vocation, whether
with respect to the problem in Somalia or in connection
with the difficulty we have in ensuring that Eritrea
chooses the peaceful path. Resort to force is never a
basis for sustainable peace. That is the philosophy that
underpins our policy towards Eritrea and towards the
crisis in Somalia. There is no better guarantee for
peace and stability than the nurturing of mutual
confidence and trust, regardless of differences in
outlook or in political or other values. This also
explains Ethiopia’s legendary commitment to the
United Nations and to its principles and purposes. As I
conclude, therefore, I would like to reaffirm Ethiopia’s
devotion to the United Nations and to the values of
interdependence, which the Organization embodies.