YouSaid · the spoken record

Ali Said ABDELLA,

lines on the record: 60
first: 2001-09-24
most recent: 2004-09-24
sittings or episodes: 3
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Furthermore, representation in the Security Council must satisfy the criteria of reasonable regional representation and equity, as well as of the equality of sovereign nations, as enshrined in the Charter.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“It is therefore essential that major Powers in the international community see the problem for what it is and assess it on the basis of what it portends. In conclusion, I would like to restate the position of my Government on the relevant ongoing debate about the reform of the United Nations system. It is clear to us, as a matter that has been reinforced by our recent experience, that, despite many achievements, there are areas of critical shortfall that require reform and restructuring. We also believe that parameters and considerations that were relevant when the United Nations was established in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War need to be revisited and adjusted, in accordance with contemporary realities.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Our approach has always hinged on supporting the Somalis as they try to find their own solutions and on preventing the fragmentation and Balkanization of Somalia, which have been driven by external, rather than internal, tendencies. The magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan is too well known to merit explanation here. But as the international community focuses on what is currently taking place in Darfur, what is often missed is the larger picture of regional destabilization and incalculable human suffering that the fundamentalist extremist regime has been fomenting for almost 15 years. Furthermore, the ramifications of the National Islamic Front’s policies, which are based on extremist ideology, have not been confined to the Sudan but have affected several neighbouring countries, including my country.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Ethiopia cannot be above the law; Eritrea should not be denied its protection, and the United Nations must employ its enforcement capacity for the rule of law by fulfilling its treaty obligations. Before concluding, I would like to outline briefly the views of my Government on other regional problems. My Government warmly welcomes the progress made over the past few months in promoting reconciliation and lasting peace in Somalia. Although we are handicapped by the war imposed on us by Ethiopia, we have nonetheless continued to make modest contributions to a durable and peaceful resolution of Somalia’s internal problem.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“It is therefore essential to note that any stalemate in the demarcation process is a stalemate not between Eritrea, which has accepted the decision without any reservations or conditions, and Ethiopia, which has rejected it, but between Ethiopia and the United Nations, which has guaranteed implementation and provided for punitive action, under Chapter VII of the Charter, against the party that refuses to implement the Commission’s decision. The United Nations has the duty of enforcing the rule of law. This is a violation of the rule of law and demonstrates the collective failure of the United Nations to uphold the law and to instil respect for it in our fellow men and women.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The people and the Government of Eritrea would like to thank him for that statement, which they subscribe to in its entirety and endorse without reservation. Eritreans continue to be victims of the violation of the rule of law as a result of Ethiopia’s 13 rejection, with impunity, of the final and binding decision of an arbitration commission sanctioned by the United Nations and other organizations, as well as by other States. Eritreans also fully agree that the rule of law begins at home, including at the United Nations. It must not be forgotten that the implementation of the Commission’s decision was guaranteed by a treaty obligation signed by the Secretary-General on behalf of the United Nations.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The cost of inaction by the international community to regional peace and stability will be enormous, and my Government sincerely hopes that the indifference that we have witnessed over the past two years will be rectified in time. Eritrea has shown maximum patience and restraint, even though its sovereign territories remain occupied by force. But patience has a limit — particularly given that the humanitarian burden is of great importance and that the situation in that regard has been unsustainable for a long time. Indeed, over 60,000 of our citizens continue to live in makeshift camps, unable to return to their home villages. In his address to the General Assembly on 21 September 2004, the Secretary-General made a passionate appeal for respect for the rule of law at home and abroad.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Eritrea has no problem with the idea of fully normalizing its relations with Ethiopia and reviving good-neighbourly relations. We are neighbours, destined to live together and in harmony. But we cannot possibly put the cart before the horse and discuss economic or security issues, or other issues relating to cooperation, while Ethiopia is forcibly occupying our land in blatant breach of the Algiers Peace Agreement and the decision of the Boundary Commission. Indeed, Eritrea will not need the good offices of an intermediary in order to resume normal bilateral ties with Ethiopia once the critical border issue is resolved legally and peacefully. I must stress that the border issue cannot be the subject of sterile dialogue such as that sought by Ethiopia. That is legally untenable and practically impossible.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“We sought unambiguous clarifications with regard to the mandate and functions of the Special Envoy through various communications, emphasizing that we could not possibly contemplate renegotiation of the decision in any form. Unfortunately, our efforts did not bear fruit, and the lack of clarity of the responses we received only reinforced our original suspicions. My Government has therefore informed the Secretary- General that it considers that the issue of the Special Envoy — which has eclipsed the key issue for almost a year now — to be a closed chapter and appealed to the Secretary-General to refocus international attention on Ethiopia’s violations of the Algiers Peace Agreement and the rule of law. In the same vein, the issue of bilateral dialogue with Ethiopia should be viewed and can be understood only in its proper perspective.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Such notions are not only extraneous to the Algiers Peace Agreement, but, if they were to become operational, would actually subvert and derail the peace process and significantly contribute to tension and conflict. Here, I am referring to the related issues of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the “dialogue” to renegotiate the final and binding decision of the Boundary Commission. I would like to stress that the appointment of the Special Envoy occurred only a few weeks after Ethiopia had formally and officially rejected the Boundary Commission decision requesting the Security Council to create a new mechanism. While my Government did not see any benefit or rationale for that course of action, it did not reject the proposal outright.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Full-fledged economic sanctions may not have been necessary, but the debt cancellation, budgetary support and other substantial injections of economic and humanitarian assistance extended to Ethiopia have not been linked to a positive performance in the peace process. As far as Eritrea is concerned, therefore, the problem is not Ethiopia’s bad-faith conduct in the border dispute, but international silence and acquiescence with regard to its violations, which has, in turn, encouraged its intransigence. It is regrettable that the United Nations Secretariat and some Powers have introduced — and continue to dwell on — tangential issues, instead of taking concrete action to push the peace process forward.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“All in all, more than 90,000 Eritreans, and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, were expelled from Ethiopia in 1998 because the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared that “Ethiopia has every right to expel any foreign citizen if it does not like the colour of their eyes”. How can Ethiopia now invoke the possible dislocation of a few thousand settlers to prevent demarcation of the boundary and jeopardize regional peace? In spite of Ethiopia’s violations of the Peace Agreements, major Powers within the international community have not taken critical steps to persuade Ethiopia to uphold the rule of law and abide by its treaty obligations. On the contrary, Ethiopia is continuing to obtain massive humanitarian, economic and military support from major Powers.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Furthermore, boundaries in Africa, and for that matter elsewhere in the world, are not always carved out of natural rivers and ravines to exclude contiguous villages lying on either side of the boundary between two countries. In the case of the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary, in 1998 Ethiopia expelled 14,500 Eritreans who had inhabited 39 villages on the eastern part of the Badme line since the 1920s. Those people have spent the last several years in makeshift camps in western Eritrea. An additional 58,000 Eritreans remain displaced because Ethiopia continues to occupy our sovereign 12 territories.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“In a sense, Ethiopia’s rejection has more to do with the conduct of the international community rather than any intrinsic problem of the decision itself. Critical and encouraging factors in Ethiopia’s rejection were the sympathetic dispositions towards it and the “winks and nods” of certain countries and some foreign missions in Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s current arguments and excuses on the need to factor in human and physical geography and bogus concerns as to population dislocation or separation of villages and homes are so fallacious as to not even merit discussion. The legal basis for delimiting the boundary is unequivocal, and Ethiopia cannot inject new elements after the fact.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Apart from its treaty obligations, the fact is that Ethiopia has won, by its own admission, extra territories that never belonged to it. Those were the words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Council of Ministers on 13 April 2002, when the Boundary Commission announced its decision. Ethiopia’s belated and calculated rejection of the decision was an afterthought. It was tentative and cautious at first, but gained boldness and audacity when it realized that it could do so with impunity. The Prime Minister’s letter informing the Security Council that Ethiopia totally rejected the decision of the Boundary Commission was written 16 full months after the decision was rendered.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“That is why my Government has been cooperating, and continues to cooperate, fully and unreservedly with the Boundary Commission in all its delimitation decisions and demarcation instructions. Ethiopia, on the other hand, has categorically rejected the decision of the Boundary Commission. In a letter to the Security Council on 19 September last year, the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared that the work of the Commission was “in terminal crisis”. The Prime Minister dismissed the decision of the Boundary Commission as totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible, and requested the Security Council to set up an alternative mechanism to demarcate the contested parts of the boundary. Ethiopia, of course, has no reason whatsoever to reject the Boundary Commission decision.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“That legal decision was reached after 15 months of litigation, following the exchange of numerous memorandums and a two-week verbal hearing. The decision is final and binding in accordance with the aforementioned Peace Agreement. Furthermore, the decision is based on the fundamental African principle of the inviolability of inherited colonial boundaries, which are not of our making but which we can only respect unless we wish to open the Pandora’s box of an endless cycle of bloody border conflicts. My Government has accepted in good faith the Boundary Commission’s decision, not because it has won in the litigation, but because we firmly believe that the only way to secure an enduring peace is through respect of the rule of law and the integrity of the arbitration decision.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party.” Thirdly, regarding punitive measures that should be taken against the violating party, paragraph 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (S/2000/601, annex) states: “[The] OAU and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the two parties until the determination of the common border … This guarantee shall be comprised of a) Measures to be taken by the international community should one or both of the parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations by the United Nations Security Council.” It has been more than two years now since the Boundary Commission announced its decision on the basis of the Algiers Peace Agreement.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“First, regarding the establishment and powers of the Arbitration Commission, article 4.2 of the Agreement states: “The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty boundary based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law. The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono.” Secondly, as concerns the final and binding nature of the decision, article 4.15 states: 11 “The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Had the international community respected its obligations and seen the process through with the requisite seriousness, the border would have been demarcated long ago. Today could have been an auspicious moment for our peoples to celebrate, from this rostrum, the resounding success of the United Nations peacekeeping effort. Instead, the dark clouds of war are once again gathering over my country because of Ethiopia’s intransigence and the acquiescence of major Powers as concerns Ethiopia’s violations of international law. Allow me to recall some of the most salient tenets of the Algiers Peace Agreement (A/55/686, annex).”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“The Algiers Peace Agreement, signed by the two parties in December 2000, was drafted and brokered by the United States, the European Union, the African Union and Algeria, among others. Furthermore, the international community has spent more than $700 million to date to maintain the peacekeeping force. More than 37 countries have contributed military personnel, which are involved in UNMEE in various capacities. We are indeed grateful for those contributions. But, while we applaud those valuable contributions, we are duty-bound to express, with equal candour, our regret and dismay at the lack of resolute action by the international community at this critical time, when the entire process is on the brink of collapse.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Allow me at the outset to join previous speakers in congratulating you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its current session. In light of the restraints on our time, I shall omit several acknowledgements and tributes that I should have liked to make and delve directly into matters of vital importance to my country, to the region of the Horn of Africa and, by extension, to all Member States of our global community. My Government, of course, recognizes and is grateful for the vital contributions of the international community, including the United Nations, to promote peace in the aftermath of the war that Ethiopia declared against my country, using a place called Badme as a pretext for invasion.”
2004-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 59 (2004)
“Eritrea has always been, and will continue to be, committed to such peace. It is now up to the international community, and in particular the Security Council, to uphold those principles and values. In essence, Ethiopia is no longer in conflict with Eritrea, but with the Charter, which the Security Council must uphold as it has done in several similar cases.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“They will impinge on the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations and mock its core values, if only because they violate the hallowed injunction that States, big and small, need to 20 observe the basic principles of international law and the sanctity of legal agreements, and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. In conclusion, the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia have been denied peace for three decades. That has had a devastating effect on their economies. They deserve peace and development, which are now recognized as human rights. Yet such peace can be guaranteed only by respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of agreements and the sovereignty and territorial integrity established by arbitration decisions made on the basis of legal agreements.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“That is an affront not only to Eritrea but also to the international community as a whole, and in particular to the United Nations and the Security Council. In his report (S/2003/257) to the Security Council earlier this year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his concern that the Eritrea-Ethiopia peace process was “at a critical stage”. The situation can now be considered explosive, paving the way — as Ethiopian leaders seem to wish — to renewed conflict, with its attendant horrific consequences, unless the international community acts promptly and decisively. The harmful effects of Ethiopia’s lawlessness will not be limited to Eritrea.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“In this spirit, the Eritrean delegation appeals to the General Assembly and to the international community to take necessary and timely actions to ensure that peace and security prevail in our region. The obligations of the international community are clear, while the measures at its disposal are expressly spelled out in the Algiers Agreement. Despite international guarantees, Ethiopia has chosen to blatantly violate international law and its solemnly signed treaty obligations. Since 19 September, when Ethiopia wilfully crossed a red line, it has set in motion an irreversible process to scuttle altogether the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The international community has already invested too much — in financial and in political terms — to help bring about a legal and peaceful resolution of the dispute. The political and financial leverage of the international community, as well as the instruments of persuasion at its disposal, are also substantial, as Ethiopia continues to receive lavish development assistance from multilateral and bilateral partners. Yet, while all the ingredients and safeguards of success are there, the danger of failure of the peace process is now distinct due to the failure of the international community to take seriously its obligations under this agreement and to take effective preventive measures. Unless appropriate action is taken now, before the situation explodes, crisis management will be too late and will not be worth the effort.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement states clearly, inter alia, that “OAU and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the two parties until the determination of the common border on the basis of pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law … This guarantee shall be comprised of: “(a) Measures to be taken by the international community should one or both of the parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations by the United Nations Security Council”. Should not the United Nations and the international community now take these actions in the name of justice and the Charter of the United Nations?”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Ethiopia has now reached the apex of its record of lawlessness, contempt for the rule of law, treaty obligations and the Charter of the United Nations by rejecting the final and binding decision of an Arbitration Commission. How long will this culture of impunity continue? When is the world going to say, “Enough is enough” and invoke article 14 of the Algiers Agreement?”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“In our view, Ethiopia’s leaders have assumed their lawlessness and aggressive invasion policy because they have been emboldened by past patterns of unjustifiable tolerance by the international community. No action was taken against Ethiopia when it violated the moratorium on air strikes brokered by the United States and launched its second offensive in February 1999. No action was taken against Ethiopia when, in violation of the technical arrangements forged by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and considered final and binding, it launched its third offensive in May 2000.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Fourthly, Ethiopian leaders also argue that “the people of Ethiopia will not accept the decisions of the Boundary Commission [and that] Ethiopia will be embroiled in a political crisis and civil war if we accept the decision”. 19 These hackneyed arguments have been used by previous Ethiopian leaders to justify their wars of aggression. The truth is that the people of Ethiopia have enjoyed internal harmony only when they were at peace with Eritrea. Whenever it has been at war with Eritrea, Ethiopia has become a source of instability in the region, and its people the victims of recurrent famines and pestilence. Also, such declarations must ring an alarm bell, because they are similar, if not identical, to statements made by those leaders who embroiled Europe in the Second World War.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Ethiopia is, in fact, guilty of a litany of obstructions and violations that have in the past prevented expeditious demarcation. It cannot now shed crocodile tears or preach to the international community on ways and means of reducing financial costs. If this is a thinly veiled threat meant to convey to us its intentions of unleashing war, our response is that Ethiopia will be the sole party responsible for endangering regional peace and stability. As the main guarantor of the Algiers Peace Agreement, the Security Council has legal treaty obligations to prevent war. Indeed, in accordance with article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, the Security Council should urgently consider Ethiopia’s flagrant violations of the Algiers Peace Agreement and take appropriate measures under Article VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Ethiopia’s ludicrous suggestion of “recognizing the southern boundary of the Temporary Security Zone” as the boundary between the two countries” thus represents a flagrant violation of the Algiers Peace Agreements and relevant Security Council resolutions. Thirdly, UNMEE’s mandate shall terminate when the delimitation-demarcation process of the border has been completed, pursuant to article 5 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. Ethiopia will again commit a gross violation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement if, as it has intimated in its letter, it requests UNMEE to leave before completing its task. Obviously, Ethiopia’s primary concern is not the financial burden that UNMEE’s prolonged presence would entail for the international community.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Secondly, the Temporary Security Zone was never intended or set up to create a provisional boundary. Article 10 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement specifically states that this will not prejudge the final status of the contested areas, which will be determined at the end of the delimitation and demarcation of the boundary. In this regard, it is instructive to note that the Boundary Commission had notified both parties, in its delimitation decision of 13 April 2002, to recognize and respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as determined by the delimitation decision pending demarcation on the ground. The boundary is thus already determined. This is reinforced by Security Council resolution 1507 (2003), which calls on both parties to recognize and respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“First, article 4.2 of the Algiers Peace Agreement unambiguously states that: “a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on the pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902, 1908) and applicable international law.” Article 4.15 further states: “The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding. Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party”. Therefore, Ethiopia cannot thus arbitrarily and unilaterally discard these key provisions of the peace agreement or urge the Security Council to set up a new mechanism.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The Prime Minister’s letter contrasts sharply with the public statement of his Government when the Boundary Commission announced its decision on 13 April 2002. At that time, Ethiopia urged the international community to put intense pressure on Eritrea to accept and implement the decision of the Boundary Commission fully and faithfully. It declared full legal victory and even bragged about its “successful litigation strategy that hinged on a maximalist approach” of exaggerating its claims to include territories that never belonged to it. This blatant revelation, which is in fact true, was repeated by both the Prime Minister and his Minister for Foreign Affairs in a report to the Ethiopian Parliament as recently as last month. Let me now briefly address some of the issues raised in the Ethiopian letter.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The Prime Minister heaped insults on the Boundary Commission, dismissed its judgement as “totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible” and called on the Security Council to set up “an alternative mechanism” to demarcate the contested parts of the boundary. He further suggested that UNMEE should pack up and leave, and pleaded for international recognition and endorsement of Ethiopia’s occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories. Ethiopia’s provocative letter represents nothing less than an unprecedented assault on the fundamental principles of international law and the key tenets of the Algiers peace agreements, as well as Security Council resolution 1507 (2003). It is full of blatant lies and distortions in its account of the legal principles and 18 findings that the Boundary Commission invoked in determining the location of Badme.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Thus, its rejection of the entire decision and its denunciation of the Commission follow a series of major violations of the Algiers Agreements, including the illegal deployment of troops and the building of settlements in sovereign Eritrean territory, the aggravation of the suffering of over 60,000 Eritrean citizens, who remain displaced from their home villages in the temporary security zone, and the delay of demarcation because of obstructions caused by its tactics to prevent preparatory field work. That has resulted in huge financial cost to the international community. As most Members will have been informed by now, the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared, in a letter of 19 September to the Secretary-General, that the boundary demarcation process is “in terminal crisis”.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“After a cycle of senseless and bloody military clashes, reason prevailed, with the signing of the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Algiers in June and December 2000, respectively. A Boundary Commission, empowered to be the final arbiter for the boundary claims, was subsequently created. The Commission announced its final and binding decision on 13 April 2002. Badme was confirmed by the Commission’s decision as being sovereign Eritrean territory. In spite of its treaty obligations to respect and duly implement the final and binding decision of the Boundary Commission, however, Ethiopia has chosen to flout international law and practice.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“In a message communicated to the Secretary-General, on 19 September 2003, Ethiopia officially rejected the decision of the Boundary Commission and threatened to unleash another war of aggression against Eritrea if the terms and conditions it had set were not met. It should be recalled that Ethiopia declared war on Eritrea in 1998 because it claimed ownership of the sovereign Eritrean town of Badme. At that time, we made every possible diplomatic effort to prevent an unwarranted and unjustifiable war — prior to and in the aftermath of Ethiopia’s official declaration of war. Unfortunately, that sent the wrong signal to Ethiopia and prompted the regime in power to pursue — with impunity — its policy of belligerence, and to unleash successive military offensives that that resulted in a great loss of life and the destruction of property.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Eritrea pays tribute to and thanks the facilitators and guarantors of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and its partners, the troop- and observer-contributing countries, as well as donor countries, for the assistance they generously extended to ensure the success of the peace process. It also urges them not to be discouraged by the recent negative developments and to continue their assistance, which is essential for the achievement of peace and security in our region. Eritrea would like to bring to the Assembly’s attention the dangerous developments that are threatening to destroy the peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“I should like to begin by extending to Mr. Julian Hunte sincere congratulations on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session. The Eritrean delegation is convinced that, under his wise guidance, this session will address, with vision and courage, the challenging issues that are confronting the world. My delegation would also like to take this opportunity to express appreciation and thanks to his predecessor, Mr. Jan Kavan, President of the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session, for the wisdom and skill he displayed in leading the session to a successful conclusion. We also pay tribute to the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, for his steadfast commitment to the cause of peace and development — the twin pillars of the United Nations Charter.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“To this end, we believe that the United Nations must proceed with a process of change and reform that will reinforce the principle of equality among all its Members and guarantee its impartiality and neutrality. Hence, we fully endorse the position of the Non-Aligned Movement on membership of the Security Council and the question of a periodic review of its structure and functions. We are confident that much will be achieved under the visionary leadership of Mr. Kofi Annan during his second term of office.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“These terrorists are often joined by Ethiopian troops and militias in their heinous crimes against innocent civilians. We urge the international community to condemn these barbarous acts and to demand that the Ethiopian Government cease its activities and hostile acts as soon as possible. 8 In conclusion, despite its regrettable experience with the United Nations in the early days, Eritrea is fully convinced that the Organization has played a crucial role in the maintenance of international peace and security and has contributed immensely to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as to economic development and social progress. Eritrea is fully and unequivocally committed to strengthening the United Nations.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The Government of Eritrea wishes to extend sincere appreciation to, and applauds the effort of, the peace partners, particularly the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of African Unity and the Governments of the United States and Algeria. It also extends its profound thanks to the friends of UNMEE for their immense contribution to the peace process. At the same time, it urges the international community to exert extra effort to persuade the Ethiopian Government to fulfil its legal obligations under the Algiers peace Agreement and the United Nations Charter without delay. Eritrea has always been consistent in its condemnation of terrorism, irrespective of the perpetrators or victims. It has itself become the victim of terrorist attacks by elements organized, financed, trained and armed by the Ethiopian Government.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The last round of deportation occurred on 25 June 2001 and was strongly condemned by the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Under these circumstances, it is surprising that Ethiopia has recently accused Eritrea of placing its army on high alert and of deploying its troops along the common border. This baseless accusation, refuted by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Eritrea and Ethiopia, is designed to hide Ethiopia’s plans and intentions to sabotage the peace process by provoking hostilities. The Government of Eritrea has consistently undertaken, in good faith, to comply fully with the provisions of the Algiers Agreement, in spite of the intransigence of the Government of Ethiopia and its violation of it.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“However, I should like to inform the Assembly that key provisions of the peace Agreement remain unimplemented because the Government of Ethiopia has failed to comply with its obligations. It has, to date, obstructed the establishment of the temporary security zone and the establishment of a direct air route between the capitals of the two countries. Moreover, it has refused to submit operationally useful information on its minefields in the temporary security zone and to release civilian detainees and war prisoners. It has also resumed the deportation of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, in blatant violation of the comprehensive peace Agreement between the two countries.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The world welcomed the signing of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, a comprehensive peace Agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It has expressed the hope that the implementation of the Agreement will proceed smoothly and will lead to a durable peace. Both countries owe it to their people and to the entire international community to establish a durable peace as soon as possible. We face the challenge of meeting the hopes and great expectations of our people and of the international community. Eritrea solemnly reiterates not only its abiding commitment to the peace Agreement and its speedy implementation, but also its undertaking to fully cooperate with all its partners in the peace process. The peace process has made significant progress.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“In this context, my delegation wishes to extend special thanks to President Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and President Ismail Omar Guelleh of Djibouti for their dedicated, unbiased and untiring efforts to bring peace to the Sudan and Somalia respectively. The search for durable peace, security and stability must be the collective commitment of all member States of IGAD and it must be anchored solely in the welfare and best interests of the peoples concerned. Peace in Somalia is vital, and it should not be held hostage by any Government under the pretext of preserving its national security. History and the Somali people will make them responsible if they become an obstacle or try to hinder peacemaking efforts in the region.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“It behoves them to earnestly promote, protect and consolidate cooperative relations on the basis of mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, renunciation of the threat or use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, good-neighbourly relations and peaceful coexistence. Since its independence in 1993, the State of Eritrea has espoused national security and development 7 policies and programmes based on the premise that our security and development interests are closely linked to regional security and prosperity. To this end, it actively engaged itself in the revitalization of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the propagation of IGAD’s new mission. IGAD is now fully engaged in peacemaking and conflict resolution and coordinating cooperative efforts among its member States.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)