Eritrea, 1996

Allow me first to congratulate

you, Sir, on your election as President of the General

Assembly at its fifty-first session. I wish also to pay tribute

to your predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral of

Portugal, who presided over the fiftieth regular session of

the General Assembly.

The Assembly will agree with me that present-day

international relations are characterized by two

contradictory trends. On the one hand, there is an

overriding desire and wilful movement to enhance

international cooperation through the expansion of trade and

investment. This trend is inextricably linked to the pursuit

and maintenance of peace and stability. However, parallel

with and contradicting this positive trend, we see a

proliferation of high- and low-intensity conflicts in various

corners of the world triggered by different causes. The

pursuit of viable mechanisms to reduce and seek a

permanent solution to these conflicts in order to promote

international cooperation for the welfare of mankind

remains, therefore, the key challenge that the United

Nations will continue to face in the coming years.

The Horn of Africa region remains, likewise, in the

grips of this dichotomy. On the positive side, the

countries of the region are committed to promoting

regional cooperation, and continue to make strenuous

efforts to this end. This is indeed manifested by the

substantial progress achieved to date to revitalize the

Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and

Development (IGADD), the regional instrument for

achieving this objective. At the same time, the region

continues to bleed due to grave internal conflicts within

some member States. The painful bloodletting that has

destroyed the social fabric in Somalia continues unabated;

the internal conflict in the Sudan and the climate of

regional tension created by the activities of the National

Islamic Front (NIF) regime continues to deteriorate.

The pursuit of peace and stability, with the attendant

opportunities that this provides for economic and social

development, have special significance for peoples that

have suffered the physical and psychological traumas of

war. In this connection, as the Assembly is aware, my

country has borne the brunt of a long war which has

exacted enormous human sacrifices, leaving its economic

and social infrastructure a shambles. Accordingly, peace

is crucial to the young State of Eritrea to heal the scars of

war, to recoup lost opportunity and to reconstruct what

has been devastated.

But my Government’s profound aspirations and

commitment to the maintenance of peace continue to be

threatened by the hostile and unprovoked acts of the NIF

regime in the Sudan, whose antagonism and subversion

against Eritrea began soon after it took power in 1989. I

hardly need emphasize here that the acts of subversion and

State-sponsored terrorism are not directed against Eritrea

alone, but have in fact been adopted as an instrument of

policy by the NIF in its attempts to destabilize its

neighbours and export its expansionist designs through

subversion and violence.

In pursuit of these aims, the NIF regime has propped

up and provided safe haven to assorted terrorists from

various countries and facilitated their acts of sabotage and

terror. Khartoum’s barely veiled hand is discernible from

the litany of border incursions by mercenary groups in a

number of countries in the region and acts of naked terror

in the international arena.

I must stress here that my Government has left no

stone unturned in its efforts to reduce and stave off the

climate of tension provoked by the acts of the NIF regime.

As a matter of fact, for five long years my Government

pursued a policy of constructive engagement, patiently and

tirelessly, hoping against hope that the authorities in

Khartoum would turn back from the dangerous alley that

they are heading for.

Unfortunately, the language of moderation and peace

only whetted the NIF’s appetite to spread its subversive

tentacles deeper and wider. In the event, Khartoum not only

refused to heed these continuous appeals, but escalated its

overt acts of terror and subversion beyond limits.

Another grave matter I wish to bring to the attention

of this Assembly is the maltreatment of Eritrean refugees

at the hands of Sudanese authorities. The NIF regime not

only is doing whatever it can to obstruct the organized

repatriation of the refugees to their home country, but is

engaged in reckless and deplorable acts to drive a wedge

between the refugees and the people of the Sudan, who

have offered commendable hospitality during the long years

of war. And when this policy did not work, the NIF regime

began subjecting the refugees to arbitrary imprisonment,

torture, and banishment after confiscation of their property

by its security authorities. Moreover, young refugees were

forcibly conscripted and given military training to be

deployed in subversive activities across the border.

Organized repatriation of these refugees, the pilot phase of

which has been successfully achieved, is impeded by the

lame excuses the NIF fabricates. All these pressures have

caused the refugees to return home spontaneously at high

risk.

All these acts of hostility perpetrated by the NIF

regime to implement its designs of destabilizing

neighbours should surely be of grave concern to this

Assembly and the international community at large, given

their wider regional security ramifications.

Allow me further to recall the incident that erupted

between Eritrea and the Republic of Yemen in December

1995, following the latter’s occupation of the Eritrean

archipelago of Hanish-Zuqar, at the southern entrance to

the Red Sea. Perhaps due to its sensitivity, the incident

aroused immediate international concern and mediation

endeavours.

The Government of Eritrea, which all along had

sought international arbitration to the dispute, promptly

accepted, with full appreciation, the mediation initiatives

of the Ethiopian and Egyptian Governments, and later that

of the United Nations Secretary-General, which greatly

helped to defuse tensions and paved the way for the

peaceful handling of the dispute. When facilitation by the

French Government was proposed, the Eritrean

Government accepted it wholeheartedly.

These decisions were taken by the Eritrean

Government against a background of mendacious

accusations and irresponsible campaigns by the Yemeni

authorities to escalate the situation. The incident was also

fanned by those in certain quarters who sought to serve

their vested interests in the troubled waters. However,

genuine desires and a sincere political will prevailed.

Ultimately, restraint and careful handling of the

issue, in addition to positive and constructive regional and

international intervention, culminated in the Agreement on

Principles, signed by both parties on 21 May 1996 in

Paris.

In this Agreement, both the State of Eritrea and the

Republic of Yemen unequivocally expressed their desire

to settle their dispute over the Hanish-Zuqar archipelago

by the verdict of a court of arbitration. Developments

since the signing of the document could be considered

generally positive and encouraging. However, allegations

were made by the Republic of Yemen that Eritrean forces

occupied the island of Lesser Hanish on 10 August 1996,

and the matter was hastily referred to the Security

Council. The fact of the matter was that units of the

Eritrean forces were on that island both before and after

the signing of the Agreement on Principles on 21 May

1996. Despite this truth, the Eritrean Government

withdrew its forces as a gesture of goodwill and in the

2

interest of the smooth progress of the arbitration process

and to preserve and promote the peace of the region.

The Eritrean Government has time and again affirmed

its adherence to the Agreement on Principles of 21 May

1996, and expressed its commitment to abide by the

decisions of the court of arbitration. I am pleased to

underline that the subsidiary agreement reached between the

two sides in Paris last week, on 3 October, will now allow

for the proceedings of the court of arbitration to start early

next year.

The agonizing and intractable reality in Somalia

cannot but impel the international community to search for

ways and means of expediting an end to this long, drawn-

out tragedy. The complexity of the situation is too apparent

to require more elaboration here. But it is clear that no

amount of well-meaning external support will succeed in

restoring normalcy to Somalia unless the Somalis

themselves take stock of the senseless bloodshed that has

torn the country apart and produce what it takes to forge

peace and national reconciliation. Admittedly, the countries

of the region could have played a more catalytic part in this

multi-pronged effort. The lack of a consistent and

coordinated regional and international initiative, however,

may entail more preoccupying negative developments.

Indeed, there are indications these days of a growing

involvement of various external actors that seem bent on

exploiting the vacuum to promote their hidden agendas.

Somalia is in fact drifting towards becoming fertile ground

for extremist groups. For the sake of the Somalis, and in

the interest of regional peace and stability, it is vital that

these trends be checked before it is too late and that the

regional initiative be resuscitated.

The recent developments in the Middle East which

appear to have cast some shadows on the Oslo agreement

are naturally a matter of preoccupation to all those who

wish to see an enduring settlement to the conflict between

the Israelis and the Palestinians. Whatever the shortcomings

of the agreement, there can be no alternative to the peace

process. My Government therefore appeals to both sides to

persevere in the process of dialogue and negotiations so that

a lasting peace that ensures the well-being of all the peoples

of the region will be assured.

In conclusion, we share the views of many Member

States on the imperative of restructuring the decision-

making bodies of the United Nations, particularly the

Security Council. The Security Council continues to play a

vitally important role in the maintenance of international

peace and security. It is my delegation’s belief that now

is the opportune moment to revitalize it, make it more

democratic and improve its value, effectiveness and

legitimacy so as to make it reflect the universal character

of the Organization. Powerful and convincing arguments

have been made by many speakers to the effect that, at

present, the Security Council is neither equitable nor

representative. The circumstances of international politics

have altered so fundamentally that there are compelling

reasons for change.

In spite of the broadly shared wish for reform,

discussions so far have not really come close to the

general agreement needed. It is our firm belief that

flexibility and compromise will be necessary. There are

a number of interesting elements in the proposals, to

which thorough attention should be given so that we can

try to bring about the necessary change.