UN Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia: Another Failed UN Mission

By Sophia Tesfamariam

ccun.org, February 16, 2008

On 27 November 2007, the US Institute for Peace (USIP) convened an interesting discussion with Jean-Marc Coicaud, Head of the United Nations University (UNU) office at UN headquarters in New York and author of Beyond the National Interest: The Future of UN Peacekeeping and Multilateralism in an Era of U.S. Primacy on UN peacekeeping operations, the successes and the failures and the role of the key Security Council members. I attended hoping he had included the United Nations Mission on Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) in his book, he hadn’t. Nevertheless, the discussion was informative and served to reinforce my own long held suspicions about the conduct of certain members of the Security Council. My interest was on the future of UNMEE as the discussions were being held exactly on the day the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s (EEBC) demarcation decisions on the Eritrea Ethiopia border took effect.  

Mr. Coicaud said that over 93,000 men and women were involved in UN peacekeeping missions around the world and blamed the shortage of resources-financial and human- as on of the factors that contributed to the failure of UN missions around the globe. The other was the lack of political will and courage of the Security Council and especially the five veto-wielding members, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. Mr. Coicaud said that the 5 veto-wielding members of the Security Council were self-serving and that their own narrow understanding of their rights and responsibilities affected Security Council decisions on international matters. He said that the powerful members of the Security Council were the “underwriters” as well as the “underminers” of the UN system. He said that Security Council (SC) decisions made to promote and advance national interests of the powerful SC members: 

“…undermine the legitimacy of international law, legitimacy of the rule of law, legitimacy of the UN System, legitimacy of the policies conducted in the name of the international system….” 

As he spoke, I thought about the over two dozen Security Council resolutions that had been adopted on the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue and how Ethiopia had refused to abide by any of them. I thought about the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission and its 6 year struggle to implement the Algiers Agreements and the harassments and intimidations that it had to endure as Ethiopia sought to amend, revisit, revise and even reverse the Final and Binding decision.  

But most of all, I remembered how Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General compromised his neutrality and integrity and attempted to obstruct justice by introducing illegal interventions and providing Meles Zenawi diplomatic and political shield as he flouted international law and violated the UN Charter. I understood only too well what Jean-Marc Coicaud was telling his audience. Today, Ban Ki Moon is following in Kofi Annan’s blood stained footsteps. 

Ban Ki Moon began his tenure by parroting Kofi Annan’s biases and distortions about UNMEE’s role and status and is now engaged in a face saving, diversionary tactic designed to cover up the Security Council’s failures and inability to uphold international law. Ban Ki Moon, who has remained conspicuously silent as Meles Zenawi violates Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, massacres thousands in Somalia has already compromised his credibility when it comes to Meles Zenawi, Washington’s favorite card carrying dictator. Burying his head in the sand, denying the truth and blindly cow towing to Jendayi E. Frazer and the US State Department will not garner him any more respect, nor will it absolve him of his legal and moral responsibilities under the UN Charter. His actions are also a clear violation of Article 100 of the UN Charter, which clearly says: 

“…In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization…Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities…” 

Contrary to what the western media are reporting today, it was Ethiopia that has undermined UNMEE’s mandate from the very beginning. Allow me to present the facts, lest they get lost in Ban Ki Moon’s barrage of ill advised, self-contradictory and incoherent statements regarding UNMEE and Eritrea.  

 I.      Establishment of the Temporarily Security Zone (TSZ) 

The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement required that Ethiopia deploy its forces to the pre-May 6^th 1998 position, and Eritrea was to rearrange Eritrea's forces to 25 kilometers from the Ethiopian positions. When UNMEE provided both sides the deployment maps, Ethiopia refused to accept the maps and insisted on adjustments to the southern boundary of the TSZ. On 18 April 2001 Legwaila Joseph Legwaila, the then UNMEE head, instead of remaining neutral and simply reporting Ethiopia's defiance, neglecting his “exclusively international character”, and cow towing to Washington’s requests, announced the “establishment” of the TSZ and further defended his obvious bias towards Ethiopia by saying: 

'…I told you that we have negotiated with Ethiopians insofar as that portion of Irob where we discovered they were sitting after we had verified the redeployment. We negotiated, and we discovered that it was a waste of time because they are not going to move out of there. They say they are where the 6 May 1998 line of administration was, and they are not going to move out, so what is the use of continuing to insist that they should move out when they are literally saying you dare move us out of it...Nobody wants to fight the Ethiopians out of that area and therefore we have told the President that this is a typical candidate for the Border Commission. That is the only solution, because to mortgage the creation of the TSZ, the progress of the peace process generally, to a resolution of the Irob issue would be tantamount to saying you don't want to create the TSZ, you don't want the peace process to go forward…'  

From the very beginning, instead of enforcing the Algiers Agreement, which clearly calls for punitive actions to be taken if either party fails to fulfill its obligations, Kofi Annan, former Secretary General chose to appease his personal friend, the defiant Prime Minister of Ethiopia, and violate the Agreements that he personally singed and witnessed. 

II.      The issue of direct flights between the two capitals  

On 15 January 2000, just over a month after the signing of the Algiers’s Agreements UNMEE released a statement which said: 

'…The United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) today opened a direct high altitude air access route between Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Asmara, Eritrea. The air route was established with flights between the two capitals by UN G-222 fixed-wing aircraft. The new access route, and all the land and air access routes that have been opened between the two countries to date, are to be used in support of UNMEE's mandated activities, including deployment of the 4,200 UN peacekeepers between the two forces, and meeting the peacekeepers' logistical and medical needs…” 

But then on 17 January 2001, just two days after the commencement of direct flights, the leader of the minority regime in Ethiopia reneged on his stated commitments under the Algiers Agreement and UNMEE was forced to issue another press release. This is what they had to say then in response to Meles Zenawi's flip flop: 

'…The Eritrean authorities have been willing to authorise UNMEE flights by the direct route between the two capitals used by commercial flights before hostilities began in 1998. The Ethiopian authorities have been willing to authorise UNMEE flights by a route requiring a diversion...The Ethiopian authorities remain unwilling to allow use of the direct route without diversion...' 

Again, instead of maintaining his “exclusively international character”, the Secretary General, in his quarterly progress reports on Eritrea and Ethiopia to the Security Council, putting the defiant party, Ethiopia, on equal par with the compliant party, Eritrea, decided to misrepresent the truth (cover up Ethiopia's intransigence) by calling on the Security Council to '...urge the two parties to allow direct flights'.  

 III.      Eviction of Jean Victor Nkolo, first UNMEE spokesperson, by Ethiopia 

Shortly after the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) delivered its final and binding decision on 13 April 2004 re-affirming Eritrea's sovereignty over Badme, a group of journalist visited Badme. As if Jean Victor Nkolo, the first UNMEE Spokesperson, had violated his mandate by taking the journalist there, the vote-rigging genocidal, deceptive minority regime in Ethiopia immediately demanded the removal of Jean Victor Nkolo from the area. He was not even allowed enough time to pack his belongings and say goodbye to his Ethiopian friends and colleagues. The Secretary General, once appeasing his friend Meles immediately replaced Mr. Nkolo, violating the “exclusively international character” of Mr. Nkolo. The international community did not register a single protest, let alone call for an emergency meeting of the Security Council. 

  IV.      Eviction of Major General Patrick Cammaert 

Constantly testing the waters and getting away with all its defiant and arrogant demands, in violation of the 'exclusively international character' of the Secretary General's office and confident that he can get away with making even more defiant and arrogant demands, Meles Zenawi requested the removal of Major General Patrick Cammaert, the first UNMEE Force Commander. Ethiopia also closed the border to UNMEE and obstructed UNMEEís movement and Major General Cammaert's ability to carry out his mandate of monitoring and observing the troops on both sides. Here is an excerpt from a BBC report at the time: 

'…The UN is to appoint a new commander for its peacekeeping mission on the Ethiopia-Eritrea border...This follows increasing pressure from the Ethiopian Government to replace the current commander, Major-General Patrick Cammaert, who has been unofficially declared persona non grata by Ethiopia...Addis Ababa accusing General Cammaert of 'political bias' in favour of Eritrea...In April, Ethiopia closed its to the UN peacekeepers stationed at the border for 10 days...They demanded the removal of General Cammaert, a Dutch soldier, accusing him of 'political bias...Ethiopian officials accused him of 'deliberately trying to humiliate Ethiopia'...Ethiopia said that by crossing the border from Eritrea into the Ethiopian village without prior permission, the UN was implying that Badme was Eritrean...' 

Again, in violation of Article 100, the Secretary General obliged Meles' defiant request and the Force Commander was immediately replaced. The Secretary General did not issue any urgent 'alerts', 'calls', and did not call for emergency meeting of the Security Council, nor did he send envoys to impress on Meles that the Force Commander's actions were consistent with international law and his actions were “exclusively international in character”.  

So I am not at all surprised today to read about the many “concerns”, “calls” etc. from Ban Ki Moon and the western media as they attempt to cover up for Meles Zenawi’s intransigence and the Security Council’s complicity. Ban Ki Moon, like his predecessor Kofi Annan has been making several threats about relocating UNMEE to Ethiopia. I absolutely welcome Ban Ki Moon’s decision to relocate UNMEE to Ethiopia, after all, it was Meles Zenawi who was begging and pleading with his handlers for help and requesting for “security guarantees” as a condition for signing the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. Ban Ki Moon should not try to blame Eritrea for Meles Zenawi’s lawlessness and the Security Council’s lack of political will and courage to enforce international law and its own decisions and resolutions.  

Eritreans and Ethiopians alike remember Meles Zenawi, the deceptive master of double speak as he made his 30 May 2000 victory speech to the press core that he seemed to summon at every turn, and telling them the “war was over”. We also remember well as Meles Zenawi, attempting to hoodwink the Ethiopian people and the international community and looking for a way to escape from the quagmire he had placed his forces in (deep inside Eritrean territories and nowhere to go) and knowing full well that the Eritrean Defenses Forces were launching their offensive, begged the international community to allow him to continue to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories until the peace Agreements were signed.  

Meles and his handlers knew that the Eritrean Defense Forces were preparing their offensive and he knew that he would have had no chance at all to return to the 6 May 1998 positions on his own, without the international community’s “security guarantees”. Just like he cannot leave Somalia now without the international community’s “security guarantees” and African Union peacekeepers. The US led international community and the then Secretary General of the United Nations agreed to establish a peacekeeping mission and that is how the United Nations Mission for Eritrea and Ethiopia was born. Here is an excerpt from Meles Zenawi’s bombastic Briefing of 30 May 2000 to the gullible Addis based diplomatic community: 

“…We admit that we have our army in indisputably Eritrean territories at this moment. Because we are committed to the principle of the return to the status quo ante, we agree to redeploy our troops on the May 6 line in the context of a peace agreement…we are willing to redeploy to the May 6 positions without too much fuss. What we need is an agreement, cease-fire, cessation of hostilities agreement, which would guarantee that when we redeploy, the Eritrean army will not fill the vacuum left for the purpose of mounting attacks on our army…If the international community can provide such guarantees, our preference would be to stick to our principles and redeploy to the May 6 positions…If Eritrea occupies the high ground near Shilala, the defense of Badme becomes very difficult. The defense of Zalambessa becomes very, very difficult. So what we are asking the international community is to make sure that Shilala and the high ground between Zalambessa and Senafe do not fall into Eritrean hands before we have a final peace agreement…” 

So it is very clear to all that it was Meles Zenawi that begged for the UN and the US to intervene and save him. Eritrea agreed to the peacekeeping mission to give peace a chance, to allow the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia to get some respite from the bombings and destructions wrought by Meles Zenawi’s marauding forces. The world had witnessed then, as they do in Somalia today, the international crimes that were being committed by the occupying Ethiopian army in Senafe and other Eritrean border towns and villages and it was willing to allow peacekeepers to replace the Ethiopian army in order to prevent further tortures and deaths of innocent civilians. Eritrea agreed to allow for the establishment of a 25km Temporary Security Zone to give peace a chance. If Ban Ki Moon wants to continue to provide Meles Zenawi the “security guarantees” he seeks, he will have to find another way. Occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, including Badme is no longer an option.  

Allow me to end with something Jean-Marc Coicaud said about the United States’ negative role in the Security Council and its effects on UN peacekeeping missions around the world. He said: 

“…the U.S. government can meet its international responsibilities only by fundamentally altering its foreign policy. To take UN peace operations seriously and consequently invest strategically in them, the United States needs to become aware, at the general level of international affairs, of the necessity to link more closely power and legitimacy as well as solidarity and security. In turn, this entails several fundamental changes in the ways American foreign policy is conceptualized and implemented. They include: finding a better balance between national and international interests; coming to terms with the foreign policy implications of U.S. democratic values; exercising leadership within multilateral constraints; and overcoming the parochial characteristics of American foreign policy…” 

As one of the guarantors and witnesses to the Algiers Agreement, the United States should call on Ethiopia to respect international agreements, the UN Charter and the Final and Binding decision of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). If the US wants to maintain its position as world leader, it must begin by respecting and enforcing the rule of law. The US State Department’s total disregard for the rule of law have compromised the Security Council’s efficacy, integrity and neutrality.  

As for UNMEE’s current predicament, it is a result of the Security Council’s inability to enforce international law and its own resolutions and decisions. The lack of political will and courage has resulted in chaos and destruction in Somalia and has emboldened the minority regime in Ethiopia to commit international crimes against humanity and flout international law, violate the UN Charter and over two-dozen Security Council resolutions.  

UNMEE was doomed to fail because it did not have the requisite political support of the Security Council. As for its future, Ban Ki Moon must know that in the past, the Security Council emphasized that the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia on 18 June 2000 linked the termination of UNMEE with the completion of the process of delimitation and demarcation of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border. Therefore, now that the delimitation and demarcation of the Eritrea Ethiopia border has been completed, the issue of UNMEE is moot. It cannot continue to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories indefinitely, and relocating it to Ethiopia is of course, his prerogative…it does not concern Eritrea. 

The rule of law must prevail over the law of the jungle!