YouSaid · the spoken record

Seyoum MESFIN

lines on the record: 255
first: 1994-09-24
most recent: 2010-09-24
sittings or episodes: 14
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

“The effort we have been making for peace in Somalia within the framework of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development is being made in that spirit. It is also in that same spirit that we shall continue to do our share for peace and national reconciliation in the Sudan. Most of all, we draw satisfaction from the fact that we have managed to come out of a war that was imposed on us. For our part, we are determined to leave behind the crisis we had with Eritrea. We shall remain committed to the peace process until its conclusion. It has always been our conviction that it is in the vital interest of Ethiopia to nurture peace in our subregion. That is required by the war we have to wage against poverty, which is the only real enemy we have. But the promotion of the cause of peace in the Horn of Africa has not been that easy.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Coddling unaccountable Governments would not promote peace in the long run and would not bring about durable stability. Ours is a region which has suffered so much, among other things because of strategic considerations which made expedient the propping up of unaccountable and authoritarian regimes. The result of all that has been disastrous for the region. Peace and stability in the Horn of Africa, as is true in all parts of the world, is dependent in a critical manner on the creation of conditions for good governance. This is a value which ought to be universally applied, including in our subregion. Durable peace demands it. The welfare of the people of our subregion makes it imperative. Ethiopia will leave no stone unturned for peace in our subregion and in Africa as a whole.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Ethiopia subscribes fully to the NEPAD framework. We are indeed at present in the process of implementing the principles and ideas promoted by the initiative. We will continue to be committed to carrying out our obligations for good governance, for creating enabling conditions for economic development and for eradicating poverty. All the efforts we are making to ensure success in the fight against poverty are bound to fail without peace and durable stability. Here as well, Africa, including our subregion, the Horn of Africa, requires the effective support of the international community. What we need is enlightened support which is transparent and targeted at ensuring durable peace and stability. What we require is support not compromised by tactical considerations which are short-sighted and likely to aggravate already existing problems.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“The logic of globalization makes it obvious that no part of the globe is immune to the negative influences emanating from its other, less fortunate parts. Realistically speaking, we swim or sink together. It would be unwise to believe that the growing marginalization and decay of Africa will have no significant adverse implications for the stability and viability of the globalizing world. It is this common interest that we all share which is the basis for our mutual obligation for the success of NEPAD. I must state here that we have been encouraged by the preliminary response to NEPAD by many members of the international community, including the G-8 countries and others. We are still hopeful that even greater support and enthusiasm will be demonstrated by the international community to ensure that NEPAD will be workable.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“It is a realistic initiative that specifies and underlines the obligation of African countries in all areas relevant to the creation of conditions conducive to economic and social development. Good governance is one such vital obligation to which the initiative accords the necessary importance. It is a major step for Africa and one whose significance should be underlined. The commitment to democracy and good governance has major implications for Africa not only in economic development but also in creating conditions for nurturing peace and stability. Nonetheless, NEPAD cannot succeed without the cooperation of Africa's partners and the international community. And succeed it must, not only because NEPAD's success is in the vital interest of Africa but also because it is in the interest of the world in general.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“It is primarily our responsibility to put our houses in order and to take the lead in rejuvenating Africa. That is where in fact today there is a new development in Africa. Many in Africa are more prepared than ever before to take charge of their destiny. There is a new thinking in Africa today and a realistic resolve to ensure the regeneration of the continent. I am referring to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). It is an initiative by Africa which demonstrates the readiness of the continent to take charge of its future. It is a concrete 18 commitment by Africa to take the necessary steps in both the economic and political areas towards creating enabling conditions for economic and social transformation.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Many might have felt that the Johannesburg Summit failed to rise to the occasion and that its achievement was not commensurate with the gravity of the challenges faced by the peoples of the world in a variety of areas, most of all, in areas most relevant to the eradication of poverty. But there was one thing which was unambiguously evident at the Johannesburg Summit. Those from both the North and the South stressed with one voice that the global apartheid we currently have is unsustainable. How can one implement that vision? This is what continues to elude the international community. It remains the case despite some progress that has been made, including at Monterrey. The eradication of poverty in Africa, and in my own country, is not primarily the responsibility of the international community.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Many in Africa, including my own country, Ethiopia, are unlikely to meet the internationally agreed poverty-related targets and goals, including those set by the United Nations Millennium Declaration, without greater readiness on the part of the international community to contribute more to Africa's fight against poverty. The eradication of poverty is not only Africa's challenge or only that of the developing world. As was reiterated at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world. The despair and hopelessness engendered by poverty have implications for the world in general — not only for the people of the South but for those of the North, as well.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Our continent, Africa, and its peoples, continue to face enormous and daunting challenges. This is not new. This is something that has been going on for the last few decades, with the general economic and social situation in the continent deteriorating even further. The general trend has been one of an ever-faster marginalization of Africa. The continent has yet to see the benefits of globalization. Africa still awaits the creation of an enabling international economic context for progress in its efforts to wage war against poverty. That effort is unlikely to succeed without greater international cooperation.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“First of all, I wish to extend to Mr. Jan Kavan congratulations on his election as President of the fifty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly. I also wish to take this opportunity to commend his predecessor for his invaluable contribution to what was achieved at the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly. Allow me also to express our appreciation to our Secretary- General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for the effort he has been making to ensure that the United Nations becomes a more effective instrument for tackling the very many challenges faced by the international community. My delegation would like to join others in welcoming the admission of the Swiss Confederation to the United Nations. It is a country that has, indeed, contributed so much to the Organization over the years.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Ethiopia will continue to do this faithfully. Ethiopia is also equally determined to respond to real threats, and reserves its right to act in self-defence. There should be no doubt about Ethiopia’s commitment to peace and stability and to carrying out its responsibilities to the best of its abilities on matters that affect the international community as a whole ─ first of all in its own subregion and in Africa. Its commitment to the United Nations endures. Ethiopia is a country that has always been true to principles of international law and to their scrupulous observance. We are proud of this tradition and we cherish it. This is a tradition we will continue to be guided by.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The Eritrean authorities might have felt that tension along the common border is useful in the light of domestic political necessities. It might serve a purpose for diverting popular attention from the domestic front, but it is manifestly reckless and dangerous. Under the circumstances, we call on the United Nations, as a co- guarantor of the Algiers Peace Agreement, to shoulder its full responsibility to ensure that the Agreement is scrupulously followed. The Security Council should send an unambiguous message to Eritrea to immediately desist from all actions that endanger the peace process. UNMEE needs to wake up and take Ethiopia’s real concern seriously. Let there be no doubt about Ethiopia’s continuing commitment to the scrupulous observance of the Algiers Agreement and to the peace process.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Eritrea has continued to refuse to maintain the integrity of the Temporary Security Zone as a demilitarized buffer area between the two forces. Regrettably, this violation is taking place under UNMEE’s nose. We have continued to complain, but in vain. UNMEE might have felt that Eritrea’s compliance would eventually be secured through appeasement and by ignoring Ethiopia’s legitimate concern. But our experience has made it unmistakably clear that appeasement has never worked with Eritrea. And it is not working now. What we have started witnessing lately is an ever-increasing mobilization of troops by Eritrea along the common border. Under these circumstances, lack of vigilance on the part of UNMEE and its policy of appeasement appears to be making another round of fighting close to inevitable.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“This is how we intend to continue in the future. We want the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) to succeed. However, success in this or in any other conflict situation cannot be achieved by the efforts of one of the parties alone. This describes the situation we are facing in the peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Prudence dictates that we call a spade a spade. Eritrea is not complying with the Algiers Agreement, an agreement which we believe is fair and in the interest of both parties to protect. The Temporary Security Zone established by the Algiers Agreement is required to be a demilitarized zone separating the two forces. This is the most critical provision of the Algiers Agreement, whose violation would logically unravel the whole peace process.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“We are also prepared to do our level best to assist in the process of national reconciliation in Sudan. We plan to be more active in this undertaking as well. We believe that to bring the peace process forward, the will and determination of the parties is critical. But they need to be assisted, and assist we will, in good faith and with all the necessary responsibility. With regard to the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the implementation of the Algiers Peace Agreement, it is neither prudent nor proper for me to conceal from the international community both our disappointment and, more importantly, our growing concern. But let me, right from the outset, lest I be misunderstood, make one important point absolutely clear. Ethiopia is committed to the peace process and to 24 the scrupulous implementation of the Algiers Agreement.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The parties to the conflict have to sit down without preconditions to establish a broad- based Government. That is what was called for by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development at the meeting at the summit level in November 2000. This has to be implemented. This is the most viable alternative. To do less would amount to abandoning Somalia for international terrorists to wreak havoc there and in the subregion. The establishment of a broad-based Government in Somalia that includes all the major political forces in the country is a crucial step towards peace-making in Somalia, for which there is no substitute. Ethiopia intends, along with other members of the IGAD subcommittee on Somalia, to play a more proactive role for the realization of this objective.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Our strategy in fighting poverty touches on everything we do — in politics, diplomacy and the economic domain. We want to succeed in the fight against the HIV/ AIDS pandemic affecting our country. This major scourge must be defeated. We are determined to fight against corruption, and our record is unambiguous in this area. We are committed to pursuing this without any let-up. I would now like to turn to the political and security situation in our subregion, which, for obvious reasons, is critical for us, as it should be a source of concern for the international community. The problem in Somalia needs to be resolved as speedily as possible. There is no reason why the situation should be allowed to continue festering, to the detriment of the people of Somalia and of the subregion in general.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“This new African initiative thus calls for a complementary obligation on the part of the international community. I would like to point out the importance of this mutual obligation. Without it, we cannot look forward to the future with confidence; without it, the consequences are bound to be grave. This is the challenge that we face in Africa. The international community must confront it with renewed vigour and dedication. On the subject of our national effort to seize the opportunity presented by the prevailing peace in my country, I have the pleasure to inform the Assembly that we are now back on track in terms of playing our proper role for peace and investing all our energy and resources in fighting poverty at the national level. This is a war, and we count on our partners to stand with us in waging it.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“African leaders have taken the conclusions of the Millennium Assembly a step further and have come up with the New African Initiative, now called the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). They have drawn a broad plan on how to bring peace, security and development to a continent that has been plagued by conflict, overwhelmed with insecurity and mired in underdevelopment. The main thrust of the initiative is that we in Africa have duly acknowledged the responsibility for our continent’s fate. Hence, we fully accept that peace, security, democracy, good governance and sound economic management are essential conditions for economic growth and sustainable development. At the same time, we are fully aware that Africa at present lacks the required resources and capacity to implement this initiative.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“23 Over the long term, terrorism will be defeated when the ideological cover it is wearing is removed and shown to be empty. But this can be achieved only when those who are capable of perpetrating heinous crimes are not only denied safe havens, but also deprived of any alibi. This is where, among other things, the fight against poverty becomes all the more critical. The fight against poverty is not as elusive as the fight against terrorism. For the former, we know the causes, and we know how to fight it and which tools to use. What we lack is the global political will to act. The grimness of conditions in Africa in this regard is obvious. There is no need for me to go into detail regarding the statistics on the situation in Africa.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“It is now over two months since the terrible events of 11 September. What happened on that day touched not only the people of the United States but also the whole world. Not only because scores of countries lost nationals, but also because New York, the seat of the United Nations, is in many ways the capital of the world. The terrorists might have succeeded in committing this unimaginable and barbaric crime, but we have no doubt that they have failed to extinguish the hope and vitality that New York symbolizes and embodies. Terrorism is not new to Ethiopia. For the past 10 years, we have been victims of terrorist attacks, and we have combated it. That is why we remain committed to doing our utmost to enhance the international effort to root out terrorism.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“At the outset, allow me to express my sincere congratulations to the President on his election to lead the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly. I am fully confident that under his presidency, we will have productive discussions and reach a fruitful conclusion. I would also like to convey my appreciation to the outgoing President for his conduct of the work of the last session. Let me also take this opportunity to once again convey my Government’s warmest congratulations to our Secretary-General on his appointment to lead our Organization for a second term. Indeed, his re-election is well deserved. We are also delighted that the United Nations and the Secretary-General were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this year. It is a testimony to and a recognition of the important work the United Nations has been doing.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“That is one of the questions with which the United Nations will have to grapple as we enter the twenty-first century.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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?”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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?”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)
“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.”
1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)