URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn 2004-05 (2. samling), Udenrigsudvalget 2004-05 (2. samling)
UPN Alm.del Bilag 7, URU Alm.del Bilag 12
Offentligt

Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn

UPN FT-del - Bilag 7,

URU alm. del - Bilag 12

Offentligt

1 )2

)r.)3

Date '

ch•PC

No. / V

.6 (5 /

4,O1,4`C 4.9"ht A.re

tbrrItl, (1-n0'AT'

Embassy of the Federal

Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Stockholm

6T-[111.h

Dear Sir/Madame,

I have the honour to send you herewith an Aide Memoire that further

elaborates Ethiopia's Five-Point Peace Proposal launched at the end of

November 2004 to put an end to the Ethio-Eritrea border impasse and bring

a lasting peace to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

I would like to further mention that the government of the Federal

Democratic Republic of Ethiopia strongly believes that the role of the

international community has become more essential than ever before in

urging Eritrea to sit for dialogue by welcoming Ethiopia's Peace Plan.

Accept, sir/Madame, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Encl. Aide Memoire

Stockholm,

ebruary 2005

ebede

Amb ssador

L'Ojtnantsgatan 17, Box 10148, SE-100 55 Stockholm, Sweden

Tel. 08-665 60 30, Fax 08-660 81 77, E-mail: [email protected]

Homepage: www.ethemb.se

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

Federal Democratic Republic ol Ethiopia

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

N41.

Aide Memoirs

On Ethiopia's Five-Point Peace Proposal

Next Steps in the Peace Process

On 25 November 2004, Ethiopia made public a five-point peace

proposal with the hope that the initiative may help remove the

stalemate in the peace process. Eritrea, as it would be recalled, had

refused until that time, to enter into a dialogue with Ethiopia despite

repeated calls by the Security Council, the UN Secretary General ; the

AU and the Chairperson of the AU Commission.

Despite

the

fact

that

the

five-point

Peace

Proposal

was

specifically designed to, among other things, address all the concerns

Eritrea had raised in its rejection of dialogue with Ethiopia. the

Eritrean

Government

has categorically

rejected

the

Peace

Plan

proposed by Ethiopia.

1. Why accept the decision in Principle?

One of the key points of Ethiopia's five-point Peace Proposal is

that

Ethiopia

accepts

the

Boundary

Commission's

decision

principle and that dialogue should be initiated to implement the

decision in a manner that promotes sustainable peace.

Eritrea

objects to this critical point and suggests that Ethiopia should accept

the decision without precondition and that there can be no dialogue

on demarcation.

(10

I ,3=!5

\lad

\,1,1,

,,•;

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

Ethiopia's acceptance of the Boundary Commission's decision is

unequivocal andiunconditional. However, there is a reason to why it

chase to use the wording, accepting in,principle. _It was to distinguish

from

the

simplistic

position

that

accepting

the

Boundary

Commission's dd'cision means, implementing it as is, whatever the

consequences and without any dialogue on implementation.

No delimitation decision of any boundary can be implemented

as is without adjustment.

Among other things, the technical

requirements of where to place boundary pillars normally requires

some adjustment to the line on the map, and this adjustments

however minor and technical require dialogue and consent of the

parties.

In the case of the Ethio-Eritrea boundary demarcation, the

process is likely to encounter not only such technical requirements for

adjustment but also what the Boundary Commission itself has

identified as the "anomalies" and "impracticalities" of the decision.

The Boundary Commission has said that it can correct these

"anomalies" and "impracticalities" only if the two parties give it the

mandate to do so. In other words, the Boundary Commission itself

recognizes that implementing the decision as is, is problematic but

that any adjustment to correct them requires consent of the parties,

and hence dialogue between the parties.

Dialogue between the parties is thus required not only because

it is the normal procedure in the process of demarcation, but also

because of the specific nature of the Boundary Commission's decision.

The Boundary Commissiori's ecision, not only does not preclude the

need for dialogue to implement it, but also, specifically points out

anomalies and impracticalities which can be overcome only with the

consent of the parties and hence implies the need for dialogue

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

between the parties to bring about the required consent.

Ethiopia's

acceptance of the Boundary Commission's decision, in principle, and

its call for dialogue is thus consistent, not only with the final and

binding nature of the decision, but the only rational means of

implementing it.

Ethiopia thus had every reason to expect that Eritrea would

understand the meaning of Ethiopia's Peace Plan and express its

readiness for dialogue.

Indeed, the Eritrean government had told a

number of interlocutors that if Ethiopia were to accept the decision in

principle Eritrea would be willing to engage Ethiopia in dialogue with

the view to making necessary adjustments in the implementation

process.

In one instance, the Eritrean government is said to have

suggested that Ethiopia need not make its acceptance public for

dialogue to start.

Ethiopia is thus puzzled as to why Eritrea should

reject Ethiopia's public and unequivocal acceptance of the decision.

2. Why Normalization?

It is very well known that Ethiopia and Eritrea had excellent

relation between 1991-1997 despite the fact their common boundary

was neither demarcated, nor delimited. The root causes of the conflict

between them have to do as much with the boundary as with their

economic and political relations. While demarcating the boundary in

a manner that promotes sustainable peace is a vital element of the

solution to the dispute, it is far from being sufficient to ensure peace.

A demarcated boundary is no guarantee for peace if the relations

between the two countries is characterized by high levels of tension.

The tension cannot be removed unless its root causes are addressed.

Demarcation without normalization may indeed increase the risk of

war in the sense that the UN mission 'will not be around after

demarcation to serve as a cushion in reducing tension between the

two countries.

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

Ethiopia is interested in lasting peace.

Demarcation of the

border is important not as an end in itself but as an important step to

stability and • lasting peace. Nofmalization is essential to complete the -

process of dispute resolution, which is why the second key element of

Ethiopia's Peace Plan was the call for dialogue to achieve

normalization of relations between the two countries.

Ethiopia had no reason to expect that dialogue on normalization

would be unacceptable to Eritrea. As everyone knows, Eritrea stands

to gain from it at least as much as Ethiopia does. Indeed, the Eritrean

Government had indicated through interlocutors that once the

impasse on the Boundary Commission's decision is overcome it would

be eager to start dialogue on normalization. Ethiopia is thus puzzled

by Eritrea's rejection of dialogue on normalization, and its argument

that as a sovereign nation it chooses with whom to have normal

relations and that -normalization-- of relations with Ethiopia is

something that it is not willing to consider at this time.

Eritrea had routinely complained about what it considers to be

Ethiopia's attempt to sideline the Boundary Commission and seek an

alternative mechanism to demarcate the boundary. Ethiopia's Peace

Plan addresses that concern fully. Ethiopia has not only declared that

it accepts the Boundary Commission's decision in principle but that it

will fulfill all its obligations to the Commission. In this regard, it has

agreed to pay all -its dues and appoint field liaison officers on the basis

of the instructions of the Commission. Indeed, Ethiopia has already

begun to implement these unilaterally.

Eritrea's rejection of Ethiopia's Peace Plan is thus puzzling

only because the plan addresSes all concerns .that Eritrea had

expressed with regards- to Ethiopia's previo,us position, but also

because Eritrea had indicated to more than one interlocutor that it

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

would be ready for dialogue if Ethiopia were to do what it did through

the Peabe Plan. One cannot' help wondering if Eritreå:is shiftirig its

goal posts.- because it is riot ihterested iriitpeace and _stability in -the

3. Ethiopia will persevere.

Ethiopia proposed the Peace Plan because it felt it was the right

thing to do.

It is convinced that is was appropriate. for Ethiopia to

break the ice and meet the Eritrean government more than half of the

way to peace.

While Ethiopia is disappointed that Eritrea has so

categorically rejected the Peace Plan, it does not believe that the

rejection constitutes the end of the Peace Plan or of the struggle for

peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Ethiopia, haS received reports and analysis that suggest that

government circles in Eritrea believe it is in their interest to

precipitate a crisis by carrying out an invasion of Ethiopia.

While

these analysts differ on whether such an invasion is likely to be

limited in scope, or would be an unlimited one, all agree that the

Eritrean Government believes such an invasion would help it divert

the attention of its people from the acute social, political and

economic crisis in Eritrea onto "an external enemy" and thus shore up

its diminishing hold on Eritrea.

There are indications, that Eritrea

also believes that by so prOvoking Ethiopia, it can bring about the

isolation of Ethiopia in the international community and thus weaken

the very encouraging social, economic and- political progress that

Ethiopia has made over the past few years. The Eritrean government

intends to bring Ethiopia to the:level of international isolation that it

finds itself in

.„

The international community has played a vital role in the peace

process so far.

Ethiopia believes that the role of the, international

URU, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 12: Henvendelse af 16/2-05 fra Etiopiens ambassade vedrørende fredsprocessen

community is now more essential than ever.

The international

community, can help by welcoming Ethiopia's Peace Plan and by

calliit for immediate dialogue

ir4Plemedt- the Boundary

C n*ission's- decision ,and to brin a but---i-D5r4iia zatfon. No matter

-4

how many times the Eritrean Government rejects dialogue the

•

international community must insist`'tlåt dialogueis the only path to

peace.

The international community must also make it

unambiguously clear to all sides that violence is totally unacceptable

and that any side which resorts to violence will be held accountable

for the consequences of such an irresponsible act.