Ethiopia, 1999

On behalf of my delegation

and on my own behalf, it is with great satisfaction that I

wish to extend to you, Sir, our congratulations on your

well-deserved election to preside over the General

Assembly at its fifty-fourth session, which is coinciding

with the end of a momentous century. It is indeed a

source of immense pleasure and pride to my delegation

and myself to see you presiding over this forum where

you, as the representative here of the South West Africa

People’s Organization for many years, waged an

unrelenting struggle for the independence of your country,

Namibia, which was crowned with success in 1990. Your

assumption of this high office is a fitting tribute to the

struggle of the many sons and daughters of Africa over

the years for the total emancipation of Africa from

colonial rule. I wish to assure you of the fullest

cooperation of my delegation in the discharge of the

heavy responsibilities entrusted to you. I wish also to

seize this opportunity to convey to your predecessor, Mr.

Didier Opertti, our appreciation for a job well done, and

we salute him for all the efforts he has made.

23

I should also like to welcome the new Members of our

Organization: the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of

Tonga and the Republic of Kiribati.

To our Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for whom

my country has great esteem, I wish to renew our

friendship and to reiterate how much we have always

appreciated his wisdom and his vision. His being at the

helm of the world body is indeed one of the few

consolations for Africa, a continent which otherwise has

little voice within the Organization.

This annual occasion, here at this forum, affords us a

unique opportunity to express our views as Member States

on issues that are of concern to us as members of the

human family, as part of specific regions of the world and

in our capacity as nations. The 170 items on the

Assembly’s agenda at this session are clear testimony to the

range of issues confronting the international community as

we approach the coming millennium. It is not, however,

always easy to separate these various levels of concern.

They are obviously interconnected, and all the more so for

countries such as Ethiopia, whose fates are affected,

positively or negatively, by what takes place internationally

and by what the United Nations does and does not do.

It goes without saying that developing countries in

general, and the least developed countries in particular, as

a group, face the most serious problems in all areas of

international life. Problems of poverty, underdevelopment

and the debt burden are among the multifarious problems

the developing countries are grappling with today. As a

least developed country, Ethiopia has its own share of these

problems, the magnitude of which is all too obvious, even

as we are making a determined effort to overcome them.

In this statement I will not try to go into all the

problems facing developing countries today. Instead, I

should like to focus on one issue: collective security,

especially in relation to its impact on developing countries,

those in Africa in particular, and how the United Nations

has failed them in this critical area. For Ethiopia this is all

the more justified and timely inasmuch as we have been the

victim of aggression — not for the first time in our

history — for over a year now.

The United Nations has been important to us, and the

promise contained in its Charter to be our collective

instrument for international peace and security and a vehicle

for international cooperation in all areas of human

endeavour has been a source of hope. But we in Ethiopia

are not so sure that the hope we have is always justified,

both as Africans and as Ethiopians.

From the vantage point of Africa, it is indeed

difficult to assert with confidence that the Organization is

also ours. This must also apply to the rest of the

developing world. But the African case is unique.

Whether it is in the area of economic cooperation or with

respect to peace and security, our continent continues to

be a region of the world which is the least favoured for

effective and meaningful cooperation. The “We the

peoples of the United Nations” mentioned in the Preamble

to the Charter and the lofty aspirations contained therein

continue to be distant dreams for Africa.

This might be regarded by some as an exaggerated

claim and an attempt to shift the blame for a predicament

which is of Africa’s own making and therefore a harsh

judgment on the performance of the United Nations. We

in Ethiopia would be the first to acknowledge the critical

value for us of the very many types of cooperation we

have with the United Nations and its various agencies,

some of which have indeed been very effective. It would

be unfair to the Organization and to many of its dedicated

staff for us to fail to acknowledge this.

In this regard, a balanced evaluation of the

performance of the United Nations cannot fail to take

note of the good work being done by the Organization in

the economic, social and humanitarian areas. This is apart

from the indispensable role that the United Nations and

its various agencies, most particularly its specialized

agencies, play in harmonizing the activities of nations in

various critical spheres.

It is also true that Africa and, in particular, some of

its individual countries, appear to have a unique way of

ensuring that available opportunities are missed for

making progress for peace and development. But still the

African condition can hardly be explained only in terms

of omission or commission by the people of the continent.

It would suffice to refer to the cold war and to the

super-Power rivalry spawned by that episode and to the

havoc wrought by it in Africa to be reminded that

Africa’s pains are not always of its own making.

Whatever the causes for Africa’s predicament,

however, the spirit of common destiny, interdependence

and the ideals of the Charter of the United Nations should

have obliged the international community to be more

forthcoming in rendering effective cooperation to regions

24

such as Africa so that they can overcome the obstacles to

development faced by their peoples.

The fact that there is no international cooperation at

present in the spirit of the United Nations Charter is

nowhere more evident than in the circumstances

surrounding the debt burden, which continues to remain the

most critical factor hindering development and the

alleviation of poverty. There have so far been no effective

steps taken internationally to alleviate this scourge, and

there is no visible remedy on the horizon. This is a telling

testimony to how much the promise contained in the

Charter about international cooperation has remained an

empty slogan. If our vision for the United Nations for the

century we are entering does not incorporate a remedy to

this danger, then for the bulk of humanity the Organization

is bound to be more irrelevant than it is today.

It is not only that the United Nations is about to enter

the next century with little to show in bringing about

genuine international cooperation for combating poverty.

Even more worrying is that it is going to do so with its

credibility very much in tatters with regard to its collective

security system, which at present commands little trust as

a collective instrument of the international community for

world peace and security.

Whether during the cold war or since it, in this area

the United Nations, more often than not, has remained a

custodian not of the collective security interests of the

people of the world, but of the special security interests of

those who count. Here is where double standards abound,

even with respect to the defense of some sacrosanct

principles of international law.

Africa can hardly be proud of the way it has handled

even the very little opportunity it has had for establishing

durable peace and security in the continent. Even after

having granted that the difficult socio-economic conditions

of the region have been the major causes for the African

dilemma in this area, the fact still remains that bad

governance, mismanagement of resources, lack of tolerance

for diversity and human rights violations have indeed

fuelled some of the conflicts in our continent. Therefore we

cannot absolve ourselves fully from taking part of the

blame. In the final analysis, we have to find our own

solution to these problems.

But, on the other hand, the fact remains that Africa

has received little effective international cooperation, in

particular from the United Nations, for sorting out its

difficulties in the area of peace and security. Conflicts in

Africa have had the fate of either being neglected or,

when not neglected, being judged and handled by

different standards. Let me give a couple of illustrations.

The genocide in Rwanda is a source of shame for

Africa, but it was also a reminder of the double standards

to which Africa has been subjected. The fact that Somalia

and its people have been left to their own devices,

regardless of the consequences for the people of Somalia

and for the peace and stability of their neighbours, is yet

another indication of the types of conflicts which elicit, or

fail to elicit, the serious concern of those who count for

galvanizing the efforts of the United Nations for action to

discharge its responsibilities for collective security. Why

should it matter to those who set the agenda for what the

Security Council does if the chaos in Somalia becomes a

breeding ground for terrorism, as long as the threat is

limited only to those who have little voice in the Security

Council?

The conflict in Somalia is indeed complex, but it is

no more complex than other conflicts in other parts of the

world. Somalia is in turmoil and has been for the last

nine years, not because the crisis is intractable, but

because Somalia is neglected. That country has failed to

be on the top of the United Nations agenda, not because

it has no legitimate claim to be a priority for the United

Nations collective security system, but because the

interests of those who count are not affected. This also

applies more or less to Angola and Sierra Leone, and

earlier to Liberia.

In short, the United Nations has failed Africa, and

now stands, one foot into the next century, with this

record. In connection with Somalia, I should like to state

that Ethiopia, the country mandated by the Organization

of African Unity (OAU) to follow up and assist in

resolving the crisis in Somalia, fully supports the

initiatives expounded by Mr. Ismail Omar Guelleh,

President of the Republic of Djibouti from this rostrum

last week in his capacity as current Chairman of the Inter-

Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

The experience of my own country over the last year

and a half and more speaks volumes about how the

United Nations can fail an African country deemed to

have no option other than submit to unjust decisions by

the powerful. In effect, what the United Nations said to

Ethiopia was that Article 51 of the Charter, which

provides for the inherent right of sovereign nations to

self-defence, did not apply to poor nations such as

Ethiopia. That has been our experience in our attempts to

25

ensure the peaceful resolution of the Ethiopian-Eritrean

crisis caused by the unprovoked Eritrean aggression against

us.

Until May 1998, Ethiopia was nurturing the peace that

it had finally achieved after decades of turmoil. The

Eritrean problem — one of the sources of instability for

Ethiopia — was settled, with Ethiopia leading the way in

recognizing the new nation of Eritrea. Ethiopia became a

bulwark of peace in our subregion — a fact which was

recognized by many. By demobilizing half a million troops

and allocating the barest minimum from its budget — less

than 2 per cent of its gross domestic product — to defence,

the country was making it clear in its actions that poor

nations have time to wage war only against their principal

enemy, poverty — poverty and backwardness.

The new orientation of the country did produce

dividends, most of all in terms of economic growth:

average GDP growth of over 7 per cent per year was

achieved, after a difficult period of transition. But then,

tragedy struck and we fell victim to Eritrean aggression.

The unprovoked aggression against us by Eritrea in May

1998 taught us the lesson that peace is not always achieved

by the unilateral decision of nations so long as there are

rogue States that worship the gun and with leaders who

have no domestic limitations on the power they exercise or

on the decisions they make.

Eritrea has become a source of tragedy not only for

Ethiopia but also for its own people and for the countries

of the subregion. No sooner had it achieved formal

independence, in 1993, than it provoked a fight with the

Sudan, to be followed by an unprovoked onslaught on

Yemen in November 1995. Continuing the same pattern of

lawlessness, in 1996 Eritrea again went ahead and claimed,

by use of force, part of Djibouti’s territory — a reckless

attempt which was defused in time, thanks also to efforts

by Ethiopia.

The Eritrean aggression against Ethiopia in May 1998

was therefore part of the same vivid pattern of behaviour as

before, behaviour which has now made the country a major

source of instability for our subregion, particularly in

Somalia, where Eritrea’s destructive activities have caused

even more havoc in a nation with no functioning State at

all. Thus, consistent with its ignoble motive of exploiting

the anarchy and lawlessness in Somalia to advance its

irresponsible policy of destabilizing the countries in the

Horn of Africa, Eritrea is actively collaborating with the

warlords in Somalia by arming and training them and

financing their fratricidal conflict, thereby exacerbating the

already volatile and unclear state of affairs in the country

with all the attendant adverse consequences for peace and

stability in our subregion.

Ever since the onset of the Eritrean aggression

against Ethiopia, people have been asking how one of the

youngest and poorest nations on earth, whose people have

barely emerged from the trauma of a protracted liberation

struggle, can have the capacity to embark upon one of the

most destructive campaigns of destabilization the entire

Horn of Africa subregion — or even the whole of Africa

for that matter — has ever seen. Over and above the

question of Eritrea’s capacity, people have been

wondering what the motive can be that is driving such

acts on the part of a new Member of the family of

nations, acts with serious implications for peace and

security in our region.

The answer to these questions is not difficult to find.

To be a destructive force among nations does not require

any special capacity or resources. Small States can create

havoc and make life difficult for the international

community just as large States can. In fact, an extremist

group on the fringes of international life, with no

elaborate organizational structure, can without much effort

succeed in destabilizing an entire region let alone a

vulnerable subregion like ours. In effect, it does not seem

as if it requires any special capacity to be a rogue State.

Rogue States as such are not born, they become so of

their own volition.

That is what we see in Eritrea today: the Eritrean

Government is now working hand in glove not only with

disgruntled groups in our subregion but also with

international terrorists, training, financing and giving them

all-round support in their ultimate objective of

destabilizing the States of the subregion. We do not

believe the source of this Eritrean behaviour is external.

It is internal: it emanates from the nature of the domestic

political structure in that country. If the domestic political

process in a country has no constraining factors to speak

of on its leadership, this, sooner or later, is bound to have

a negative impact on the peace and security of the States

of that subregion.

In Eritrea this phenomenon is clearly visible today.

A total absence of domestic institutions necessary for a

normal State; the lack of accountability on the part of the

leadership; the non-existence of even a semblance of

checks and balances — in effect the absence of a

constitutional order — are the distinguishing features of

Eritrea today. Pluralism; freedom of association and

26

expression; the right to express dissent — are unknown in

Eritrea. Democratic elections are, of course, unheard of

there. In fact, Eritrea has nothing to do with the

international community in terms of observance of

fundamental human rights and freedoms and good

governance since it is, for all practical purposes, ruled by

the whims of one man. The net effect of these domestic

political characteristics and their impact on peace and

security in our subregion is that more than any other people

it is, in the final analysis, the Eritrean people that are

suffering most, bearing the brunt of the hardship resulting

from their Government’s destabilizing policies and activities

in the Horn of Africa.

No one who has closely followed this tragedy visited

on Ethiopia by the Eritrean leadership can be unaware of

how much effort Ethiopia has made, for over nine months,

to ensure the reversal of the Eritrean aggression through

peaceful means. But it was to no avail. And, most

regrettably, the United Nations failed us. In contrast, I

should like to express my Government’s admiration and

gratitude for the commendable stand taken by OAU and

Africa throughout the crisis in defence of the principles on

which this Organization was founded.

However, despite the efforts of the OAU, Eritrea did

not listen. The United Nations pretended, even though it

knew better, that there had been no aggression. The

Security Council went even further, as did some in the

international community, in a coordinated effort to punish

the victim of aggression, without so much as a word about

the aggression or about the gross violations of international

law committed by a country known to have developed the

habit of acting in a lawless manner.

The members of the Security Council knew full well

right from the outset that Eritrea had committed a naked

and unprovoked act of aggression against Ethiopia. Yet they

chose to characterize a blatant violation of a fundamental

principle of international law as a mere border dispute.

This, to say the least, is an evasion of the primary

responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance

of international peace and security. It clearly signified a

failure on the part of the Council to uphold the most

hallowed principle of international law, namely, the

prohibition of the use of force in international relations,

except in self-defence. It is a negation of the very concept

of collective security in which all States, big and small,

placed their confidence when they subscribed to the Charter

of the United Nations.

As if to underscore its failure to uphold the

international rule of law, the Security Council, in its very

first resolution on the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, adopted

on 26 June 1998, demanded an immediate ceasefire, in

effect rewarding aggression. What better demonstration

could there be of the Council’s failure to take a

determined stand against aggression by demanding that it

be reversed before calling for a ceasefire? What better

incentive could there be for aggressors like Eritrea to

continue with their aggression and reap even more fruits

from their wanton acts?

Even more disheartening and gratuitous was the

statement issued on 23 June 1999 by the Security Council

reminding us of “our primary responsibility to feed our

peoples”, as if poor nations did not have the right to

defend their sovereignty. Or was it meant to imply that

the very notion of sovereignty is of no consequence at all

for a poor country like Ethiopia? That, history will recall,

was what the League of Nations told us, if not in so

many words, more than 60 years ago. But this was not

what we expected from the United Nations today.

To make matters worse, the Security Council chose,

on 10 February 1999, through resolution 1227 (1999), to

urge States to end sales of arms both to the aggressor and

to the victim, while at the same time continuing to

deliberate on how the peace proposal submitted by the

Organization of African Unity, and already accepted by

Ethiopia, could be modified to make it acceptable to the

aggressor at the expense of the victim.

This was again the essence of the informal

deliberations by the Security Council on 24 February

1999. The aggressor country was in effect told to wait

until the victim of aggression gave in to pressure.

The refusal by a poor nation to accept insult, a

nation which happened to be the victim of aggression,

obviously entails certain consequences. The punishment

meted out has had almost no limits. It has included

financial institutions changing the rules of the game in

midstream. In the case of Ethiopia, they saw fit to

abrogate ongoing programmes based on non-technical

considerations that had absolutely nothing to do with the

results of actual performance evaluations. That has been

the experience of Ethiopia with the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), which suspended its cooperation

with Ethiopia on political grounds, although it knew full

well that it had absolutely no cause for that action on the

basis of the relevant criteria.

27

Once the tone was set by the Security Council, others

found it easy to overlook the injustice involved and added

their weight to a stance which made a mockery of

elementary justice. The European Union and other

institutions and countries jumped on the bandwagon,

making it clear to Ethiopia that a poor nation is not entitled

to defend itself and that not heeding this warning would

have its consequences. And it did. Ethiopia’s fault was one

and only one, and that was its insistence that aggression

cannot and must not be rewarded through the use of

whatever pretext, including calls for an unconditional

ceasefire, which was demanded by the aggressor and

thought to be in accord with the interests of those who

count. The sovereign rights of the victim did not count.

That was the implication for our whole region of the

lawless Eritrean philosophy of grabbing land first and then

inviting the victims for talks.

I should not, however, give the impression that

everybody has been inconsiderate to my country in its hour

of need. Indeed, there are countries and institutions that

duly value partnership in development which stood by us,

realizing that discontinuing development assistance to the

victim of aggression would be tantamount to rewarding that

aggression. Those countries have not only continued their

assistance but also, in some cases, increased it. On behalf

of the people of Ethiopia, I should like to express our deep

gratitude to those countries and institutions, whose

demonstration of solidarity we will always cherish.

In the light of this experience, it is indeed difficult to

keep intact our trust in the United Nations and in

international cooperation. It is also difficult to have faith in

the efficacy of the United Nations collective security

system.

The United Nations cannot avoid sharing the blame for

the bloodshed and destruction that followed the nine-month

Eritrean intransigence. The Ethiopian-Eritrean crisis

eventually led to major fighting, not only because the

aggressor was intransigent and refused to give peace a

chance, but also because the United Nations failed to speak

in defence of principles of international law.

With respect to the aggression against Ethiopia by

Eritrea, it is the justified feeling of the Ethiopian people

that the failure of the United Nations to stand up for its

principles is indeed comparable to the injustice done to my

country by the League of Nations in 1936.

But this episode has wider implications over and

above Ethiopia. It raises a fundamental question with regard

to the ability of the United Nations to be a guardian of

the principles of international law — a guardianship

which would have no financial implications when limited

to a mere affirmation of principles. The United Nations

has shown us that it cannot even do this. Why this should

be so calls for a response, which, if given with candour,

should invite drastic measures so that we can have a

United Nations which provides a home to all in equal

measure.

As for Ethiopia’s commitment to peace, that cannot

be questioned, as has been made clear consistently since

Eritrea’s aggression. Ethiopia’s position has always been

consistent. Aggression, we have said, cannot be rewarded.

Peace requires its reversal. That is what every nation

would have demanded if it had found itself in Ethiopia’s

position. Ethiopia has asked for nothing more.

Eritrea now says it is prepared to do what it could

have done a year and half ago — something that the

United Nations never dared to ask it to do. While this in

itself is Ethiopia’s vindication, experience has nonetheless

taught us a lesson: we must ensure that there are no

loopholes in any agreement reached on the withdrawal of

Eritrean troops from Ethiopian territory occupied by

force. This is the nature of the ongoing dialogue we are

now engaged in with the OAU. There is absolutely no

reason why it should be difficult to address the legitimate

concerns of the victim of aggression with regard to the

clarity of the commitments undertaken by the aggressor

country.

Indeed, the principles involved should be protected

in the interests not only of Ethiopia but also of our

subregion and beyond. The lawlessness and contempt for

the principles of international law demonstrated by

Eritrea, which have now poisoned the whole region, must

be contained. This can be done at the minimum by

sending a clear message to its leadership that enough is

enough and that aggression should not pay. This is all the

more necessary with respect to those who, in the absence

of even a semblance of institutions of governance in the

country, are above the law and have little accountability.

That is why we have insisted, and continue to insist, that

Eritrea must be allowed to gain nothing from its

lawlessness. That is why we have insisted, and continue

to insist — not without sacrifice — that there should be

no loopholes in agreements concluded so that the

principle that aggression should not be rewarded is

underlined clearly and with no ambiguity. We thus remain

hopeful — hoping against hope — that Ethiopia’s

concerns will be addressed adequately, thereby making it

28

easier to put behind us the nightmare created by the

Eritrean aggression.

The United Nations is at a crossroads. It cannot limp

along and enter the next century with all its weaknesses

unattended. Reforms are necessary. The Security Council

cannot remain as it is, unrepresentative and unresponsive to

the interests of the majority. It is still not too late to restore

confidence in the collective security system envisioned in

the Charter of our Organization more than half a century

ago. The credibility of the United Nations needs to be

revived. How can the United Nations command the trust of

all Member States and their peoples? That is one of the

questions with which the United Nations will have to

grapple as we enter the twenty-first century.