Most often than not, foreign politicians make uncalculated and unwise judgments on the socio-economic and political performances of developing countries in general and African nations in particular. They do so because their judgments are by and large not substantiated by facts and figures or not based on advices from qualified professionals in the field. In other words, they think that they know everything and thus they can say whatever they want about anything and everything on earth. Without giving a through thought about issues in question, politicians often fall to quick, hasty, biased and uneducated guesses based on emotions rather than logic and reality. When that happens, they are bound to make disastrous and unfortunate mistakes that later become embarrassing to themselves and to governmental and non-governmental institutions they represent. More importantly, hasty, biased, emotional and unwise and untimely comments often have negative and at times detrimental consequences on images and livelihoods of the recipient. The comment made by the Honorable Dutch Member of Parliament Ardenne-Van Der Hoeven at the latest World Trade Organization (WTO) trade talks in Hong Kong on Dec.13 2005 where Ethiopia had an observatory status in the organization was simply out of line and least expected from a person of such stature and experience. The comment was neither based on facts or figures nor does it include expertise opinion. Therefore, the comment possess no evidence what so ever and more importantly, it does not reflect the reality of the government in question at all. The comment is therefore personal, emotional, harsh and simply regrettable. 

Before making a comment on the socio-economic performances of Ethiopia, it is prudent to comprehend the progress made by the Ethiopian government in that regard within the last fourteen years since it defeated the former military dictatorship. Data and figures are always available for anyone’s perusal. To begin with, the Ethiopian government has made democracy, poverty alleviation, good governance and sustainable development as its number one priority because those fundamental principles are matters of survival and not matters of choice for the government and the public at large. Also institutions such as the Human Rights commission, the Office of the Ombudsman guarantee the rights of citizens at large. However, as is the practice in any democratic nation, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, therefore in order to protect citizens rights, violent and illegal activities must not be tolerated and those who commit crime against innocent citizens and public property face justice and their case is tried in a free and fair manner under the law of the land. Honorable Member of Parliament you may if you wish see for yourself the government’s performance. Those fundamental principles are entrenched in the Ethiopian constitution and the following are some examples for your perusal. 

Article 106, 11, 2.1. Of the Ethiopian constitution states that “establishing a democratic system and good governance in the country would mean lessoning the tension among the resolving, in due course, the grievances of various nations and nationalities that resulted from the anti-democratic practices of previous regimes. It would also mean saving the country from unnecessary bloodshed and disintegration, creating a favorable environment for sustainable and reliable peace and thereby ensuring the viability and sovereignty of our country”. Also 

Article VII. States that “For good governance to prevail in a country, democracy should be realized. However, it does not mean that under all democratic situations we can insure good governance. In the context of Ethiopia, the fight against corruption is a matter of ensuring good governance with view to establishing a democratic system and promoting development in the country. The provision of efficient government service is also a matter of good governance, democracy and development as well as being competitive in the world economy”. 

Further, Article XIII on the rights of Nations and Nationalities to self determination states “One of the defining characteristics of our democracy is that it recognizes the rights of nations and nationalities to self-determination up to secession. All nations and nationalities have their own languages, history and modes of administration. Every nation and nationality shall have the right to use and develop its own language, to exercise and promote its culture, and to preserve its historical heritage. The language, culture and history of the people of Ethiopia are the manifestation of their common values and interrelationships. The right of self determination underlines all these basic consideration”. 

Based on Rural Development Policies and Strategies and Programs, Article 2.2. Of the Ethiopian constitution, the Ethiopian government has designed a policy, strategy and programs on rural agricultural development, which is decisive to the overall economic growth. The basic objective of this policy is, to ensure a developed free market economic system in our country by guaranteeing an accelerated economic growth that will benefit the people at each level. Hence, to make the agricultural undertaking a success, extensive infrastructure and social development activities need to be performed. The development direction we are perusing is known as the Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) s that places agriculture and rural areas at its core. The basic objective has four features. The first is to ensure fast economic growth. The second is to bring about a situation where the people could benefit substantially. The third is extricating our country from being a charity case and improving the position of our country in the process of international economic integration. The forth feature is to realize a flourishing free market economy”. The policy stipulates that land shall be owned by the people and that the government, particularly regional governments; will administer it on behalf of the people. The policy also asserts that because land belongs to the state every farmer has the right to possess land free of charge to help him maintain his livelihood.  

*There are many critics against the government’s land policy. According to one criticism, since land can not be either sold or transferred, it would be fragmented and distributed among the peasants thereby limiting the use of modern means of farming by investors. However, from the total land area there is a significant part, particularly from the northern up to the southern tip of the western lowland area where there are unpopulated and non-utilized area that can be cultivated through irrigation and rain. The land is administered by the government and is available to be given on long term lease to investors that may wish to engage in extensive farming. 

The following data shows some of the major results obtained from the implementation of the above policy 

MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON RURAL AND  AGRICULTURAL SECTOR (LAST TEN YEARS)

 On Education: The Ethiopian government has placed a particular emphasis on quality education. As a result, pre-primary education enrolment increased from 80,835 in 1996/97 to 151,943 in 2004/2005 which is an increase of 88%.  Primary education (grade1-8) increased from 3.7 million in 1997/98 to 7 million in 2001/02. This trend continued with the annual average rate of 11.7%. Accordingly, the primary school enrolment in 2004/05 reached 11.4 million. With regard to secondary school (grade 9-12) enrolment, there has been an increase from 424,495 in 1996/97 to 942,578 in 2004/05 which is an increase of 121%. The total of Technical vocational school (TVET) increased from 17 in 1996/97 to 158 in 2003/04 and enrolment from 2,924 to 102,649 out of which 51.1% are female. Tertiary education has increased from 9,067(diploma 4,245 and undergraduate degree 4,821) in 1996/97 to 31, 997 (undergraduate degree program) in 2004/05. The total enrolment in higher education institutions (both government and private) has increased from 42, 132 to 172,111 in 2003/04. This indicated an increase of 309%.  In the same manner, there has been a significant progress in the areas of health, transportation, information and communication technology etc. 

Regarding the Ethio-Eritrea war here are facts:

The Eritrea Ethiopian Claims Commission issued the fourth set of awards on December 19, 2005 regarding the Parties’ remaining claims, which include Ethiopia’s Jus Ad Bellum, Western Front, Eastern Front, Port, Diplomatic, and Economic-damages claims and Eritrea’s Western Front, Aerial bombardment, Occupation, internal displacement, Economic, and Diplomatic claims

On Monday, 19 December 2005, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission based in The Hague, at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, issued its fourth set of Awards in the first phase of its proceedings. The Awards address several of Ethiopia’s and Eritrea’s claims; the most important one is the award on the illegal use of the force or the jus ad bellum claim, which the Commission gave significant focus. In this statement the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to give some detailed insights into the Western Front, Eastern Front, port, diplomatic, and economic-damages claims in addition to Ethiopia’s jus ad bellum claim.

A. Ethiopia’s Claims

I. Partial Award Jus Ad Bellum Ethiopia’s Claim 1-8

The claim that is bound to have far reaching consequence in the tireless efforts of the international community to resolve all outstanding issues between the two countries among all claims submitted before the Commission during the entire five-year proceedings on liability is Ethiopia’s claim that Eritrea started the war against Ethiopia by invading Ethiopian territory in violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. In its decision, the Commission unequivocally ruled in Ethiopia’s favor. The Commission brushed aside jurisdictional objections raised by Eritrea and rejected Eritrea’s assertion that it was acting in self-defense. Instead, the Commission determined the following:

Eritrea violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations by resorting to armed force to attack and occupy the town of Badme, then under peaceful administration by Ethiopia, as well as other territory in the Tahtay Adiabo and Laelay Adiabo Weredas of Ethiopia, in an attack that began on May 12, 1998, and is liable to compensate Ethiopia, for the damages caused by the violation of international law. (Para. 16.)

In reaching its determination, the Commission agreed with Ethiopia’s version of events that Eritrea, and not Ethiopia, started the war by attacking undefended civilians and that the attacks were not in response to any armed attack against Eritrea. The Commission concluded as follows:

The evidence showed that, at about 5:30 a.m. on May 12, 1998, Eritrean armed forces comprised of at least two brigades of regular soldiers, supported by tanks and artillery, attacked the town of Badme and several other border areas in Ethiopia’s Tahtay Adiabo Wereda, as well as at least two places in its neighboring Laelay Adiabo Wereda. On that day and in the days immediately following, Eritrean armed forces then pushed across the flat Badme plain to higher ground in the east. Although the evidence regarding the nature of Ethiopian armed forces in the area conflicted, the weight of the evidence indicated that the Ethiopian defenders were composed merely of militia and some police, who were quickly forced to retreat by the invading Eritrean forces. Given the absence of an armed attack against Eritrea, the attack that began on May 12 cannot be justified as lawful self-defense under the UN Charter. (Para 14.)

As regards Badme and the other areas attacked by Eritrea the Commission also held:The areas initially invaded by Eritrean forces on that day [May 12, 1998] were all either within undisputed Ethiopian territory or within territory that was peacefully administered by Ethiopia and that later would be on the Ethiopian side of the line to which Ethiopian forces were obligated to withdraw in 2000 under the Cease-Fire Agreement of June 18,2000. (Para 15.)

Also of significance, the Commission directly rejected Eritrea’s legal position that the threat or use of force is justified under international law to reclaim territory merely based on alleged validity of once claims. The Commission stated the following:

The Commission cannot accept the legal position that seems to underlie the first of these contentions-that recourse to force by Eritrea would have been lawful because some of the territory concerned was territory to which Eritrea had a valid claim. ...

[T]he practice of States and the writings of eminent publicists show that self-defense cannot be invoked to settle territorial disputes. In that connection, the Commission notes that border disputes between States are so frequent that any exception to the prohibition of the threat or use of force for territory that is allegedly occupied unlawfully would create a large and dangerous hole in a fundamental rule of international law.

II. Partial Award Ethiopian Western and Eastern Front Claims

a. Physical Abuse

As it did in its previous decision on the Central Front, the Commission found that Eritrea engaged in a pattern of frequent physical abuse of civilians in each of the weredas of the Western Front and in two of the weredas on the Eastern Front in which Eritrea conducted military operations, including intentional killings, beatings, abductions, forced labor, and conscription.

The Commission found that Eritrea committed a “flagrant violation” of international humanitarian law during its invasion of Badme for the shooting of a one-armed Ethiopian civilian in Badme in a manner “that can only be described as murder.” {Par. 39.)

The Commission also decided that Eritrea also failed to take effective measures to prevent rape of women by their soldiers in some geographic areas, including all of Dalul and Elidar Weredas.

In contrast, the Commission rejected Eritrea’s claims that Ethiopia engaged in frequent physical abuse of civilians in any of the eight Eritrean sub-zobas on the Western Front in which Ethiopia conducted military operations.

b. Property Looting and Destruction

As it did in its previous decision on the Central Front, the Commission found that Eritrea engaged in a pattern of widespread looting of property in all three weredas of the Western Front where Eritrea conducted military operations. However, with respect to property destruction on the Western Front, although the Commission recognized that Ethiopian houses and buildings had been found in ruins when Ethiopia retook those towns and villages, the Commission concluded that those areas had been subjected to intense fighting and that liability could not be imposed on Eritrea for that reason.

On the Eastern Front, the Commission held Eritrea liable for both widespread looting and widespread property destruction in Dalul and Elidar Weredas. Indeed, the Commission noted that the “failure of the Eritrean military to enforce discipline presumably explains Ethiopia’s clear and convincing evidence of a pattern of looting and deliberate property damage committed by Eritrean soldiers” in these weredas. {Para. 71.)

In contrast to Ethiopia’s claims, the Commission made limited findings with respect to Eritrea’s claims of property looting and destruction against Ethiopia. With respect to three of the eight sub-zobas for which Eritrea made claims, i. e., Shambuko, Haykota, and Gogne Sub-Zobas, the Commission dismissed the claims in their entirety. Remarkably, the Commission found no violations of international law with respect to Ethiopia’s military operations in these three sub-zobas.

However, the Commission also limited the findings in some of these towns to specific buildings rather than making findings applicable to all destroyed buildings in the given town. For example, the Commission held Ethiopia liable for the destruction of only four compounds in Barentu and two compounds in Tokombia.

III. Partial Award Ethiopia’s Economic Claims

With respect to Ethiopia’s claims for large-scale economic damage resulting from Eritrea’s illegal invasion, the Commission held that losses attributable to Eritrea’s illegal use of force would be considered in the damages phase, following additional briefing by the Parties. This is an encouraging result because it leaves open the possibility of pursuing significant damages based on the harm that the war brought to Ethiopia’s economy.

IV. Partial Award Ethiopia’s Diplomatic Claims

The Commission found clear and convincing evidence that Eritrean guards twice arrested and then briefly (for less than one hour) detained and interrogated Ethiopia’s charge d’affaires at local police stations after he visited Ethiopian nationals in Aba Shawl in September 1998 and Medebere in October 1999. It held that these actions violated Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations but did not constitute violations of Articles 26 or 31 of the Convention.

The Commission also found Eritrea liable for violating official Ethiopian diplomatic correspondence and interfering with the functioning of the mission in breach of Articles 24 and 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Commission did not find Eritrea liable for the other diplomatic claims asserted by Ethiopia. .

V. Partial Award Ethiopia’s Port Claim

In its claim submitted to the Commission, Ethiopia stated that the essence of this claim is that Eritrea illegally confiscated large amounts of property belonging to the Ethiopian Government, Ethiopian nationals and international aid organizations in Eritrean ports in May 1998. Ethiopia described the claim as “a classic claim for property lost as a result of actions attributable to a foreign government.” Ethiopia also contended, at the hearing in The Hague, that the property allegedly expropriated included 135,000 tons of dry cargo, including aid shipments of 81,000 tons and 1,400 new vehicles, as well as 33 million liters of fuel. It claimed that 95 percent of this cargo had arrived and been unloaded within 180 days of the events in question.

Eritrea asserted that the port of Assab remained available to handle cargo to and from Ethiopia in the days after hostilities began, that Ethiopian export cargo continued to be loaded onto ships, and that it did not prevent import cargo from being loaded onto trucks for carriage to Ethiopia. The stranded goods were of varying kinds. Some were consigned to government agencies and to businesses. There were individuals’ household goods. Some material was perishable, including large amounts of food aid.

The Commission noted that it was confronted with two possibilities regarding the cessation of movements of cargo. First, as contended by Eritrea, Ethiopian cargo may have been stranded at the port of Assab as the result of actions taken by Ethiopia. If so, Eritrea is not responsible for any breach of international law. Alternatively, as Ethiopia contends, the stranding could have resulted from actions taken by Eritrea. If so, Eritrea would have acted within the scope of its rights as a belligerent, and did not violate international law by halting cargo movements. Moreover, the Commission indicated, a belligerent may regulate or freeze the private property of another belligerent’s nationals, with a view to the property’s eventual return or other agreed disposition after hostilities end.

The Commission cited McNair and Watts who stated “the development of a practice recognized as valid in international law whereby private enemy property, while not being seized and the enemy owner deprived of title, is placed under the administrative control of the State so as to prevent its use for the benefit of the enemy.” the Commission also referred to a group of distinguished American jurists studying the handling of enemy property during World War II, that concluded:

Any United Nation during hostilities may sequester private property of Axis nationals found on its territory. Such property, or its proceeds in case of sale or liquidation, should be restored after the war to the original owner with appropriate adjustment for improvement and for damage or destruction due to use or negligence during sequestration.

The Commission pointed out in its Award that “Eritrea indicated that it was prepared to enter into a process under which it would transfer to Ethiopia the property in storage and the value derived by Eritrea from other property that was sold or converted to Eritrean government use…” further the Commission stated that Eritrea’s offers in relation to the property subject to this Claim appear to be broadly in line with its belligerent obligations in relation to the property.

Thus, as Eritrea stated during the proceeding, it would be obliged to transfer to Ethiopia the stranded property, to provide an accounting for funds received for property it sold or otherwise disposed of, and to transfer the balance to Ethiopia. In this connection, the Commission requested the parties to make an arrangement to bring about the early return or other appropriate disposition of the remaining stranded property, as well as of the proceeds of other property that Eritrea sold or transferred. 

Honorable Minister, we hope that the above brief information will serve as a background to some of the activities the government of Ethiopia has embarked upon. Generally, Ethiopia’s priority number one is poverty alleviation, democratization and good governance coupled with sustainable development. This is so because those fundamental principles are as stated above matters of survival and not choice for the government and the public at large; therefore the trend will continue reinforcing those invaluable and civilized norms that European and North American countries cherish. It is important therefore that your good office will support the Ethiopian people in maintaining and strengthening those important values.