|
There is no “Acceptance in Principle” Deal, Boundary ruling is final, binding, no
appeal
Team EritreaDaily 13
Feb 04 Focusing on ‘L. Axworthy’s mission’, the UN Integrated
Regional Information
Networks (IRIN) posted a
report that unblushingly attempts to hijack Axworthy’s clearly specified and
limited involvement and turn it into a mandate to renegotiate the final and
binding decision of the Boundary Commission in a stern contravention of the
Algiers peace accord and in outright contradiction of (SC/7972[7 Jan 04]) and
(SC/7997[30 Jan 04]) of the UN Security Council.
In a shameless and futile attempt to detour Axworthy’s assignment,
the report fired a deceptive torpedo called “Acceptance in principle”, a
nonsense that was first uttered by Britain’s C. Mullin following his recent
exploratory mission to the region, and states that “If it (Ethiopia) accepts the ruling in
principle, say diplomats, then it could regain some of the moral high ground
held by Eritrea, which could then be urged to engage in
"broad-based" talks with its former foe. This might be a starting
point for Axworthy.” Well, the ruling of the Boundary Commission is not a proposal, a
suggestion, a compromise formula, an idea, etc., where first “acceptance in
principle” is sought and the details are then negotiated with the hope of
eventually achieving a mutually acceptable deal. To the contrary, the decision
of the Boundary Commission is a strictly legal ruling that was achieved
following a long legal arbitration. It is final, binding without appeal,
which by request and agreement of the parties, the UN, USA, EU, and AU have
obliged and committed to enforce as is, one way or the other. Further, once
the border ruling is out, the one and only option either party has is to
accept and abide by it as is: No negotiation, no brokering, no wheeling and
dealing, or alternative mechanism. Non-acceptance for whatever reason
constitutes consequential defiance. That is the salient and inviolable diktat
of the Algiers peace accord. In light of
that, C. Mullin’s blabber about “acceptance in principle” not only defies the
sanctity of the border ruling, it also violates the Algiers peace accord.
Moreover, “acceptance in principle” is a gutter ploy to fake acceptance and
renegotiate the decision for no other reason than to accommodate Ethiopia’s
defiant call for its reversal, for Eritrea has no problem with the decision.
Consequently, if “acceptance in principle” were the premise of Axwothy’s
‘mission”, then it is stillborn for he has no mission. Quoting
unanimous diplomats, the report adds that
“..the focus is again gravitating towards a piecemeal demarcation
where the agreed territories can be marked out, but placing disputed areas on
the back-burner”. This is a blatant lie and wishful thinking. No one country
in the world has wavered from the finality, binding nature, fate, and nature
of the border ruling. To the contrary, the international community is
persistently calling for the implementation of the border decision
expeditiously, without qualification and in its entirety. Hence, “focus on”
and “gravitation toward piecemeal/partial demarcation” is and remains fantasy
and magical thinking. Moreover, there are no “disputed areas” because every
inch of the boundary has been conclusively adjudicated and the verdict is
out. To this effect, here is EEBC’s response “Ethiopia’s reference to
“contested boundary” can only be understood as a reference to those parts of
the boundary to which it alone and unilaterally takes exception: No part of
the boundary is contested by both parties.” Axworthy or
not and regardless of the frequency and form of turning and rolling, the
Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission and its decision are there to stay. Yes,
Ethiopia’s adamantly persistent defiance cannot go on for ever or until
kingdom come, it is imperative to set time limit- Ultimatum. |
