December 23, 2009 is another day in Eritrean history "which will live in infamy" as far as the United Nations goes. The UN, at the behest of the U.S.,
once more has chosen to punish Eritrea to appease the minority regime in
Ethiopia.
On December 2, 1950, the same UN had passed another callous and
unjust Resolution 390 A(V). That Resolution declared "Eritrea shall
constitute an autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the
Ethiopian Crown." More than 65,000 Eritrean freedom fighters and four times
as much civilians had to pay the ultimate price to undo that UN injustice.
The current resolution has also clearly shown that to the Security Council
resolving the "border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea" is of far more
importance than the 12-year old Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue. A border
conflict that took thousands of lives. A border with a virtual demarcation
that Ethiopia has yet to implement. According to numerous Security Council
resolutions, Ethiopia was required to accept and agree too an "expeditious
implementation" and "without conditions" the final and binding Decision of
the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). However, the Ethiopian
regime, thanks to the veto-shield it acquired by duping U.S. Africa diplomats,
has refused to abide "promptly by all EEBC Orders." Eight years of refusal
is no "prompt" but the Security Council hasn't said a word. Talk of double
standards and glaring injustice! It is also a clear manifestation of how the
United Nations does its business; definitely it is not there serving the
interest of the majority of innocent inhabitants of our planet. Of course,
the Security Council voting system is at the heart of it all. According to
one power index calculation (the Shapley-Shubik), the theoretical power of a
permanent member of the Security Council is "roughly100 times the power of
a nonpermanent member." When one permanent member is the lone superpower
of the world, as the U.S. is today, even the other four permanent members
have no practical power. It is with this in his mind that former U.S.
Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, unapologetically expressed the prevailing
reality of the United Nations.
The UN: Tool of the Powerful
----------------------------
"The point that I want to leave with you in this presentation is where I
started. There is no United Nations! There is an international community
that occassionally can be lead by the only real power left in the world; that
is the United States, when it suits our interest, when we can get others to
go along. And I think it would be a real mistake to count on the United
Nations as if it is some disembodied entity out there that can function on
its own.... This kind of mindless creation of the United Nations as something
different than what is in the United States interest is not going to sell
her or anywhere else..... The United States makes the UN work when it wants
it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only
question, the only question for the United States is what is in our national
interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact."--
John Bolton, Speech at The Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3, 1994.
Emphasis mine.
Many of those who opposed John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador
to the UN were not troubled as much with the above statements as they were
with a couple of sentences from the same speech: "The Secretariat Building
in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn't make a
bit of difference." Why? Democrats or Republicans, liberals or
neoconservatives, the role they want the UN to play is the same: it should be just an
instrument of their foreign policies. No body should blame them. The real
question is: is this kind of behavior in the long-term interests of the U.S.?
Will bullying UN members to toe the line of one or two diplomats help the
U.S.? This is the irony of it all. The talk from Washington is one of
engagement, reconciliation, and partnership, what is being observed at the UN on
the other hand is the opposite. If you thought unilateral decisions, and
intimidations is a Republican trait, think twice! The way Boutros Boutros
Ghali was booted from the United Nations is a prime example of how the
liberals behave at the UN.
The "too Independent" Boutros Ghali
-----------------------------------
The Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali was denied another term in office,
according to President Bill Clinton because Boutros-Ghali was "a good
Secretary-general but too independent." (Unvanquished, p. 290). According to Edward
Gnehm, Madeline Albright's Deputy at the UN at that time, what the "U.S.
had against Boutros-Ghali" was that "He would not do what we wanted him to do
as quickly as we wanted him to do it." (Ibid p. 291) Boutros Ghali was
not an independent man by any standard. He "has done nearly all the U.S.
wanted—even if he squawked about it," was how the Washington Post put it. His
problem was that he had given the appearance of independence in talk though
not in practice. He was also foolish enough to gently ask Secretary of
State Warren Christopher and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeline Albright the
following:
"Mr. Secretary, Madame Ambassador, I am deeply aware that the U.S. is the
major actor on the world scene. I know that I must have U.S. support if I am
to succeed. I will always see and try to deserve that support. But please
allow me from time to time to differ publicly from U.S. policy. This would
help the UN reinforce its own personality and maintain its integrity. It
would help dispel the image among many member states that the UN is just the
tool of the U.S. ... I was sure that Christopher and Albright would
understand my point of view. I was completely wrong. My words appeared to shock
them. Christopher and Albright looked at each other as though the fish I had
served was rotten. They didn't speak. I was horrified and quickly changed
the subject." Ibid p. 198
His major transgression, however, was that he had released a UN report on
the "Qana shelling of the UN compound" defying the wishes of Clinton
officials who wanted to see no report at all. The "Qana shelling" was an incident
where "a UN member state had launched an attack on a UN peacekeeping post,"
and more than a "hundred refugees were slaughtered in the attack." The UN
investigation found that this attack was premeditated. Boutros Ghali had to
pay for this transgression. It mattered less that he had 14 Security
Council members backing him; the nature of the Security Council didn't allow any
better solution. He was red-carded. He was "too independent" to get
another four years. Earlier, to give the appearance that Africans were not for
him, the U.S. had put an "all-out pressure on African countries to
repudiate" his candidacy for a second term during the Yaoundé OAU Summit. Contrary
to U.S. wish, the Summit endorsed Ghali's candidacy for a second term. Since
the decision of Africans was not in U.S. interest, the "African
initiative" was ignored. That is, the UN Security Council was blocked from acting on
"an African initiative." Even today, the UN Security Council did not act on
another "African initiative"; that of suspending the warranty against Omar
Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. Why? Because it didn't coincide with the wishes of
those who muscle the UN into compliance. In other words, paraphrasing
Bolton one can also say "There is no African Union! There is an African
community that frequently is didctated by the United States, to serve its
interest. The United States makes the African Union work when it wants it to work,
and that is exactly the way it is. I'm sorry, but that is the fact."
As it is in 2009, so it was in 1950
-----------------------------------
The U.S. authored 1950 UN declaration dishonestly told the world that it
recommended its unjust solution: "Taking into consideration (a) the wishes
and welfare of the inhabitants of Eritrea..." For the record, the wish of a
super-majority of Eritreans was for independence. This means the UN decision
had nothing to do with "taking into consideration the wishes and welfare
of the inhabitants of Eritrea." The UN Resolution also said it decided to
federate Eritrea with Ethiopia taking into consideration "the capacity of the
people for self-government." Let it also be remembered that Ethiopia was
in no better position to govern itself let alone governing Eritrea. Eritrea
had more than enough ability to govern itself. In fact, Eritreans were the
ones who hammered Ethiopia's modern diplomacy into shape. Furthermore, no
other African colony was denied independence or forced into federation with
its neighbor, like Eritrea was condemned to be, because of lack of
"capacity of the people for self-government."
The other UN consideration was: "(c) The rights and claims of Ethiopia
based on geographical, historical, ethnic or economic reasons, including in
particular Ethiopia's legitimate need for adequate access to the sea.
Recognizing that the disposal of Eritrea should be based on its close political
and economic association with Ethiopia." This is a ludicrous argument repeated
ad nauseam to this very day. Ethiopia is surrounded by five countries
(British Somaliland, Djibouti, Italian Somaliland, Kenya, and the Sudan )
besides Eritrea that can give Ethiopia "adequate access to the sea," countries
to which Ethiopia can have equal "geographical, historical, ethnic or
economic reasons." How come Kenya was not federated with Uganda, Tanganyika with
Rwanda-Burundi, or the Sudan with Chad so that the landlocked colonies of
Africa can have "adequate access to the sea?" What this showed then was that
"access to the sea" for landlocked countries was not the real reason.
There are several landlocked nations in Europe and several of the "Stan"
nations of the former USSR are landlocked, however, the Security Council didn't
recommend federating them with their neighbors at the time they asked for
their independence. On the other hand, when it came to Eritrea, this lame
reason is raised time and again. In my opinion, the whole Eritrea-Djibouti
dispute is a sham designed to help Ethiopia capture Assab through Djibouti. I
believe this is all what the fuss, including the action of the Security
Council is all about. The sponsors of Resolution 1907 don't want Eritrea to
guard its border with Djibouti. They know if Ethiopia is to occupy Assab, it
would not be easy through the Bure plains. They had witnessed the effective
resistance the indomitable Eritrean Defense Forces showed June of 1998, as
well as June of 2000. If it can be done, they calculated, they have to do
it through an undefended border. The plan is for Ethiopia to try through
Djibouti, and when and if it succeeds, they will provide it with a veto
shield at the Security Council.
The real reason as to why the UN was forced to offer Eritrea as a
sacrificial lamb in 1950 was shamelessly declared in clear words, words that every
Eritrean have been reciting verbatim for years. The infamous words of John
Foster Dulles:
"From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people
must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interests of the
United States in the Red Sea Basin and considerations of security and world
peace make it necessary that the country [Eritrea] be linked with our ally,
Ethiopia."
Eritrea: "too Independent" of a Nation
--------------------------------------
The "Masters of the Universe" cannot stomach countries that are seen to be
"too independent." Any country or leader who shows any trace of
independence is a target. Eritrea's dilemma was this from the very beginning. It was
"too independent" for the Americans, the Soviets, the Arabs, or even the
Africans. That was why Eritreans had no one but themselves to champion their
cause. The 1998-2000 war was also declared on them because they were seen
marching on their own independent path. In other words, Eritrea was not
going to be allowed to be "a Threat of a Good Example" for the region. In such
a case the choreography is clear. The first army to descend on such a
nation is the hired media; media that reports not on news it discovers on the
ground, but news it invents. NGOs whose very existence is threatened by "too
independent" nations are also there to help stir the pot. After these, every
player is directed, one by one, to dance to the tune called by the
"masters." The Somalia and Djibouti issues vis-Ã -vis Eritrea's involvement was
classically and precisely conducted along this line.
The map on the right hints to what the evil dream of those who see Eritrea
to be "too independent" is. It is from the Atlantic Monthly form
January/February 2008. This map was the cover page of that issue and the reader can
still see it at: _http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast_
(http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/goldberg-mideast) .
The above map clearly shows what Ethiopia's allies design for the Horn of
Africa is. The design for Somalia (breaking it up it into Somaliland,
Puntland, Somalia, ...) is fait accompli; that for the Sudan (partitioning it
into Sudan (North) and New (South) Sudan) is almost there; it is a matter of
few months. What is remaining and proving hard to accomplish is the
reoccupation of Eritrea by Ethiopia. As can be seen, the map has labeled Eritrea as
"Ethiopian-Occupied Eritrea." The author tells that this map was the
result of his conversation with several experts, not the result of his pure
imagination. Is Resolution 1907 designed to make this map a reality? Preventing
this map from becoming reality is what Eritreans are fighting for.
SUSAN RICE 2.0's in OS Bolton
-----------------------------
Susan Rice, after engineering an unjust UN Resolution, which according to
the Libyan Ambassador to the UN (whose country is the current Chair of the
African Union) was "unrealistic and too hasty", shamelesly told the world,
in words eerily similar to the justifications of the 1950 injustice, "We
did not come to this decision with any joy – or with anything other than a
desire to support the stability of peace in the region. The United States
stands with the people of Eritrea who have fought long and hard for their
independence and to build a country in which we have great hope for the
future." What a shame! Susan Rice is not ignorant of history. She knew very well
that Eritreans "fought long and hard for their independence and to build a
country" because, like today, at another UN session, another U.S. diplomat
like her, had engineered another unjust resolution that condemned Eritreans
to war and destruction. Just as in December 1950, "the wish of the
Eritrean people" was invoked to impose an unjust decision, in 2009 Susan Rice was
disingenous enough to declare: "This was an African initiative." We have
seen above how an African initive is convieniently dismissed everytime it
didn't serve the whim of U.S. diplomats at the UN. To speak as if the
resolution was the consequence of a decision taken by the African Union is of
course hypocrcy of the highest kind. More than anyone else, Susan Rice knows the
UN Resolution had nothing to do with the African Union initiative, or the
Somali crisis. Beginning to end, this is U.S. Africa Diplomats project:
from Susan Rice, to Jenday Frazer back to Susan Rice. Let it be noted that
Susan Rice was the person who in 1998, as the Assistant Secretary for African
Affairs, "left a trail of death and destruction" in the Horn of Africa.
According to Peter Rosenblum of Harvard Law School:
"The ‘new leaders' of American policy, particularly Susan Rice and Gayle
Smith, could be as brash and peremptory as their African homologues. ...
Some of their detractors referred to them as ‘Thelma and Louise,' recalling the
characters from the 1990 film by the same name who liberate themselves
from the world of male dominance and leave a trail of destruction before they
drive off a cliff together ...Privately, much speculation remains about
what actually happened to render the Rice-Smith intervention so politically
disastrous.... ‘Susan had misread the situation completely,' according to one
State Department insider who observed the conflict with Albright. ‘She
came in like a scoutmaster, lecturing them on how to behave and having a
public tantrum when they didn't act the way she wanted."-- Irrational
Exuberance, Current History, May 2002.
What we are witnessing now is then SUSAN RICE 2.0 back in OS Bolton
(Operating System Bolton) for more death and destruction in the Horn. She thinks
the UN is there to implement her project; it matters less whether it serves
U.S. interests or not. Why President Obama is allowing her to get away with
this is a cardinal foreign policy question all those who voted for Obama
in hoping for change should ask. Is what Rice and her team doing at the UN
in the best interest of the United States of America? I think not. Of
course, SUSAN RICE 2.0 and her Ethiopian friends have mastered the art of making
others own their dirty packages. In this case Uganda, who was only handed
the dirty package, is shamelessly taking the credit as if conspiring to
victimiz another African country is worth a dime of credit. Ugandan officials
are loudly claiming: "We petitioned for sanctions on behalf of IGAD and it
is gratifying that members of the UN Security Council adopted the
resolution. We are going to demand for more stringent sanctions from the
international community against that country. It's a spoiler." One can only imagine
how much the leaders of the minority regime in Ethiopia are laughing at the
Ugandans. The leaders of Ethiopia are experts at handing a dirty package to
people and making them think they own it. As one of their own, Tesfaye
Ghebreab, exposed them in his "yegazieTeNaw mastawesha" (Diary of a
Journalist), the Ethiopian Prime Minister and his Minister of Information are in the
habit of writing articles and making gullible ministers put their photos and
names on the articles claiming authorship of articles; articles they had
nothing to do in authoring them. Such is the case with Uganda. Such behavior
henceforth should be called "the Uganda Syndrom." As for this author, all
what I can say is "Eritrea, forgive the likes of Uganda; for they know not
what they are doing." Viewers can also watch for themselves the December 23
UNSC proceedings
(_http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2009/sc091223am2.rm_ (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2009/sc091223am2.rm) ) to
observe others "who know not what they are doing" making fools of
themselves. Particularly watch the speech of the Ambassador of Djibouti. He used
French, when he was addressing the problem in Somalia, and suddenly switched
to English, at about the 30:49 minute mark of the video, to address the
Eritrea-Djibouti issue. Could it be he was reading from a script handed to him
by his handlers and he didn't get time to translate it into French? Is there
any doubt why Eritrea insists calling the problem with Djibouti, an issue
manufactured by Eritrea's traditional enemies? The whole issue is designed
to give Ethiopia an advantage to occupy another sovereign Eritrean
territory; this time a port. Otherwise, the Security Council cannot ignore the
Elephant in the room (the unresolved Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue) while
rushing with a threat of a sanction over the border issue with Djibouti.
As in December 2, 1950, so it is with December 23, 2009. The United
Nations has once more been used as a tool to hand another unjust package to
Eritreans. Surely, December 23, 2009 has joined December 2, 1950 as another day
that shall "live in infamy." Another December, another U.S. packaged UN
injustice against the people of Eritrea!
No comments:
Post a Comment