(Zeray Weldesenbet)

On June 05, 2018, the EPRDF politburo publicly and officially declared that Ethiopia has accepted both the Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision in its entirety while the House of Peoples Representatives adopted the five-point peace plan with Eritrea on November 25, 2004. A number of questions can be asked with respect to this the so-called full acceptance of both the Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s border ruling. Does the politburo have the authority to decide on the matter in law? Does the new peace initiative consonant with the adopted five-point peace proposal with Eritrea? Can the premier implement the new initiative in law? Could it build and maintain durable and sustainable peace between the two countries? Is it transparent and participatory? Does it address the key issues of the bloody two-year war between the two countries? Are its details significant? Above all what is the true purpose or motive of the latest hasty new peace initiative and movements towards its implementation? I will endeavor to deal with some of these questions in short hereinafter.

On November 25, 2004, the then prime minister, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Chairperson of EPRDF, and Commander-in-chief of the national armed forces, Meles Zenawi, has submitted the five-point peace plan to the House of Peoples Representatives for discussion and approval. The House of Peoples Representatives adopted the five-point peace deal with 428 voting in favor, 10 objections, and three abstentions. One of those who were voted against the peace proposal was Beyene Petros (professor). The late premier, Meles, indicated the fact that the Ethiopian parliament has adopted the five-point peace proposal in his letter sent to UN Security Council. The House of Peoples Representatives has adopted the five-point peace proposal in accordance with articles 55(1) and (12), 74(3), and 77(1) of the FDRE Constitution after having discussed and debated in the matter in detail. Here is the adopted five-point peace proposal:

1/ Resolve the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea only and only through peaceful means;

2/ Resolve the root causes of the conflict through dialogue with the view to normalizing relations between the two countries;

3/ Ethiopia accepts, in principle, Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission decision;

4/ Ethiopia agrees to pay its dues to the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission and to appoint field liaison officers; and

5/ Start dialogue immediately with the view to implementing the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s decision in a manner consistent with the promotion of sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the two peoples.

As noted above, one of the approved five-point peace proposal stipulated that “Ethiopia accepts, in principle, Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission.” Now the question is: what constitutes “in principle” within the context of the adopted five-point peace proposal. Having regarding the fifth point of the adopted peace proposal, it means the border ruling shall not the only basis of demarcation process, but also by the results obtained after a conciliation to resolve outstanding issues and to normalize relations between the two countries. In other words, “in principle” means incomplete acceptance, whatsoever its extent and degree, of the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s decision having regarding the five-point approved peace scheme, in particular the fifth point of the proposal. That means, the House has some reservations over the border decision. Therefore, Ethiopia has moderately accepted the EEBC’s border ruling “in principle” while demanding that the demarcation process be conducted according to international norms and after a conciliation to resolve outstanding issues and to normalize relations between the two countries. This is precisely in line with article 4(13) and (16) of the Algiers agreement.

On June 05, 2018, however, the EPRDF politburo officially and publicly declared Ethiopia has fully accept the Ethiopia-Eritrea Algiers agreement and the subsequent decision by the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission. Subsequent to this, the incumbent prime minister of Ethiopia in public said that Ethiopia has accepted the Ethiopia-Eritrea Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission decision without any precondition. Accordingly to the decision of EPRDF Executive Committee, the current prime minister is trying to implement the border ruling by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission in its entirety. Because of the following factors, however, it is against the FDRE Constitution in general and the powers and functions of the Ethiopian parliament.

On one hand, the ruling political party or a coalition of political parties (in this case, the executive committee of EPRDF) does not have both the constitutional and legal authority to decide whether or not to accept the Algiers agreement and/or the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission decision. Under sub-article (12) of article 55 of the FDRE Constitution, the House of Peoples Representatives has the exclusive authority to approve, or otherwise of any international treaty concluded by the executive. Thus, the ruling political party or a coalition of political parties does not have constitutional authority to decide on the acceptance, or otherwise of any international agreement. Since it does not have constitutional authority to decide on the acceptance, or otherwise of any international agreement, it could not decide that Ethiopia shall accept the consequent decision by the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission.

Despite this, the EPRDF Executive Committee has publicly declared that Ethiopia has accepted both the Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision in its entirety. Regarding the border ruling, this is a digression from the Ethiopian’s parliament five-point peace scheme. In other words, it is against the authority of House of Peoples Representatives either. As noted above, the late prime minister, Meles, delivered the five-point peace plan with Eritrea to the Ethiopian parliament for deliberations and endorsement. Consequently, the House has adopted the five-point proposal of peace after having discussed in detail and received detail elaboration from the premier. Looking from this view, the EPRDF politburo new decision is a retreat from the five-point peace plan with Eritrea adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives. Since the ruling political party or a coalition of political parties does not have constitutional authority to decide on the acceptance, or otherwise of any international agreement, as a result, the incumbent premier shall not implement the decision of the EPRDF Executive Committee in this regards.

Confusingly, the EPRDF executive committee declared that Ethiopia has accepted the Algiers agreement either. Now one might rightfully ask that why the politburo has decided and declared that Ethiopia has accepted the Algiers agreement if the parliament had ratified it before? It seems that the politburo is opinion that the legislative body does not ratify the Algiers agreement as are stipulated by the Ethiopian Constitution. Otherwise, there is no conceivable and plausible raison d’être in this regards. If it believes that the parliament has ratified the Algiers agreement as is stipulated by the Constitution, it would only decide and declare that Ethiopia has fully accepted the border decision without saying that Ethiopia has accepted the Algiers agreement.

As stipulated in sub- article (3) article 74 of the FDRE Constitution, on the other hand, the prime minister shall follow up and ensure the implementation of laws, policies, directives, and other decisions adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives. Besides, the Council of Ministers shall ensure the implementation of laws and decisions adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives under sub- article (1) article 77 of the FDRE Constitution. Seen from this perspective, the incumbent premier shall not implement the decision of the EPRDF Executive Committee, but rather he shall implement the decision adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives, which is the five-point peace proposal. So long as the peace proposal with Eritrea adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives is not repealed or amended by itself, the prime minister shall enforce the decision adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives. To put it differently, the incumbent premier shall not implement the decision of the PEPRDF Executive Committee to implement the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission decision in full. Rather, he shall stick to the five-point peace proposal adopted by the Ethiopian parliament. Hence, the declaration of full acceptance of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission resolution by the EPRDF Executive Committee is unconstitutional. Its implementation endeavor is unconstitutional either.

In sum, any peace deal and its implementation shall be measured by its legitimacy, among others. the EPRDF politburo said that Ethiopia accepted the Algiers agreement and the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s decision in its whole while the Ethiopian’s parliament decided that Ethiopia accepted Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission decision” in principle”. Seen from the decision adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives in this regards, it is retreat from the five-point peace plan with Eritrea adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives. From this point of view, the new peace initiative to fully accept the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision and the Algiers agreement and, its implementation is neither constitutional nor legal. Any peace initiative must comply with the framework and provisions of the FDRE Constitution. Producing contradictory initiatives will only lead to the additional difficulty of the dispute, and make it too intractable to be resolved.

With respect to the merit of the politburo’s new decision, any peace deal shall be measured by its value added to the process of building and maintaining long-lasting and sustainable peace between the two nation-states, but not by its verbose and jargonizing. Seen from this perspective, the new declaration to accept the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s decision in its entirety could not create durable and sustainable peace between the two countries. The inevitable question here is therefore: why such initiative and implementation could not build and maintain durable and sustainable peace between the two brotherly or sisterly peoples. Here are my arguments in brief.

Since the new peace initiative does not attempt to address the root causes of the bloody two-year war between the two states, it could not build and maintain durable and sustainable peace between them. Normalization and good neighborliness between the two states is in the interest of peace and in their mutual interest. For that end, identifying the root causes of the dispute and addressing them through inclusive and duly made negotiation is a significant prelude to the normalization of relations between the two states. This is the only genuine and concrete step forward towards durable and sustainable peace. So, discussion to solve the core causes of the disagreement between the two states is imperative. Secondly, the new initiative is not adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives and rather, it is a retreat from previous decision and as a result, it might lead to a serious escalation of the tension between the two countries and thereby undermine the peace to the worst. Thirdly, the Ethiopia-Eritrea boundary Commission’s decision is illegal and unjust, and any attempt to implement fully the Hague-based border decision might lead to a serious escalation of the tension between the two peoples and thereby undermine the peace. As a result, further dialogue is needed before the disputed border could be physically marked out; adjustments to the border delimitation decision should be made in the process of demarcation for the sake of durable and sustainable peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Note that durable and sustainable peace is in the mutual interest of the two countries.

Fourthly, the new initiative is not transparent and participatory even though the conduct of government affairs shall be transparent and nationals have the constitutional right to be consulted with respect to policies and projects affecting their community under the Ethiopian Constitution. The demarcation process obviously could displace the disputed border areas and its environs communities and adversely affect the livelihoods of those who reside in the disputed areas and rushing into implementation of the border verdict without consulting the concerned communities and regional states may agitate them. And in turn, it might generate public and regional states fury and thereby, complicate the matter than resolving it. Fifthly, the new peace proposal does not fully address award decisions of the claims Commission and other issues within the framework of the Algeris agreement and hence, it is incomplete peace deal initiative. Because of this, the intended durable and sustainable peace may not come true. Six, any attempt to fully implement the border decision will considerably divide the Irob ethnic group in Tigray regional state between the two states and in turn, it might lead to a conflict between the two peoples. All of these and other factors might be an impediment to durable and sustainable peace between the two conflicting nation-states. Therefore, the aforementioned factors are the necessary pre-conditions for the attainment of durable and sustainable peace between the two countries and accordingly, they must be addressed properly and timely.

********