Address by H.E. Mr. Andebrhan Woldegiorgis to the ACP/EU.....on 2002 Text of the relevant ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly Resolution The motion refers to the arrest of the 11 former officials, whom it depicts as representatives of the opposition, as a violation of human rights. But, they were not arrested for their advocacy of democratic reform or their opposition to the Government They were arrested for reasons of national security. ADDRESS BY H.E. MR. ANDEBRHAN WOLDEGIORGIS Mme. Co-President, Honourable Delegates, I wish to take this opportunity to brief the JPA on the state of the peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to make brief remarks about the motion for resolution on Eritrea. There has been significant progress in the implementation of the Algiers Agreements between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The key issues still outstanding vis-à-vis the implementation of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities would be superceded by the decision of the Boundary Commission due next month. Delimitation would spell a definitive legal resolution of the conflict. It will, in juridical terms, settle the issue of territorial sovereignty. What would remain thence would be the more technical task of demarcation. Eritrea would be looking forward to expeditious demarcation and the full implementation of the Algiers Agreements. At this juncture, I wish to convey, on behalf of my Government and people, my profound thanks to the JPA for its support for and contribution to the peace process. At the same time, I wish to urge it to continue to extend its support for and solidarity with the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia in their difficult endeavour to fully secure the peace, heal the wounds of war and rebuild their economies. Now, let me turn to the motion for resolution on Eritrea. Certain MEPs have tabled a motion for resolution on East Africa that, in the main, targets, maligns and blackmails Eritrea. To begin with, I wish to inveigh against the assumption of moral high ground, or moral superiority, the constant moralizing about what ought to be done in Eritrea. Obviously, a modicum of mutual respect, due regard to the facts on the ground and a level playing field need to be nurtured for meaningful and constructive dialogue on matters of mutual concern between ACP and EU countries. The motion on Eritrea has been tabled without making the minimum effort to ascertain the real situation in the country. It is biased and replete with false information. In fact, it seems to have been driven by the expulsion of the Italian ambassador to Eritrea. As you are probably aware, the expulsion of the Italian ambassador has been the subject of so much cry and hue for the last six months. The issue has been manipulated to assume a European dimension quite contrary to the facts surrounding it. The ambassador was declared persona non grata not for his presentation of the EU demarche on behalf of the EU Presidency but for his persistent interference in Eritreas domestic affairs, facts well known to the Italian Government. The irony of the matter is that concern regarding the ambassadors biased reports was first raised by the Italian Government itself. The issue was consequently discussed by the two governments in June, July and September 2001, respectively. An understanding was reached to withdraw the ambassador. Thus, the Eritrean Government had chosen to address the issue discretely, amicably and constructively with the Italian Government. When the bilateral process got bogged down in procrastination, Eritrea decided to invoke its prerogative. Eritrea, as a sovereign state, has the right to expel any diplomat when his activities are found to be incompatible with his diplomatic functions. This right, which is duly enshrined in Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and sanctioned by diplomatic practice, cannot be the subject of interference or pressure by any third party, including certain MEPs. In this context, the notions condemnation of the expulsion of the Italian ambassador, coupled with the demand for his immediate reinstatement, is unacceptable, as it constitutes an attempt to interfere in affairs of state. In essence, it calls for the contravention of Article 9 of the Vienna Convention. Article 9 provides for the receiving State the prerogative to declare any diplomat persona non grata at any time without having to explain its decision and obliges the sending State to comply with the notification of the receiving State. It appears that the expulsion of the Italian ambassador has become the core issue in the attitude of certain MEPs towards Eritrea. It is also apparent that this attitude has been driven by the Italian Government and, hence, the Italian delegation to the EP, who seem to have perceived Eritreas legitimate diplomatic act as an affront to Italian national pride. It is only in this context that one can understand the Italian Governments mixed signals in dealing with the issue. While indicating to Eritrea that it wishes to resolve the problem bilaterally, there are, at the same, credible reports that it has been lobbying EU member states to help it bring Eritrea to its knees. Thus, the expulsion of the Italian ambassador has been falsely but prudently linked to issues of human rights, political parties, national elections and free press. I wish to reiterate here that Eritreas commitment to the democratic process, respect for human rights, the rule of law and good governance is first and foremost a commitment to its people, to whom it is solely accountable. These are internal issues for the ACP states and peoples to deal with in accordance with their respective historical processes as well as economic, political and social realities. They cannot be objects of imposition or willful interference by third parties. Mme. Co-President, Yes, we are committed to real, equal and constructive dialogue within the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. But, this dialogue needs to be conducted on a level playing field, with due regard to the facts on the ground and in a spirit of mutual respect. Indeed, there is an imperative need to respect the fine distinction between real dialogue and undue interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. In this regard, I wish to highlight the bias and false information underlying the motion for resolution on Eritrea: 1. The motion refers to the arrest of the 11 former Government officials, whom it depicts as representatives of the opposition, as a violation of human rights. But, they were not arrested for their advocacy of democratic reform or their opposition to the Government. They were arrested for reasons of national security. Ensuring national security is a cardinal responsibility of the state. Thus, the detention of culpable officials to ensure the security, stability and integrity of the state can, in no way, be construed as a general violation of human rights. Far from being representatives of the opposition or advocates of democratic reform, the arrested were senior Government officials holding positions of high authority when they engaged in activities harmful to the security of the state in wartime. 2. The motion says that all members of the Eritrean National Assembly (ENA) belong to the ruling Peoples Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). Contrary to this allegation, the NA currently comprises 60 members of the PFDJ Central Council and 75 members elected by the general population at home and the Eritrean communities in the Diaspora. 3. The motion alleges that the Eritrean Parliament has recently decided to prohibit the formation of political parties in the country. This is patently false. The right to form political parties is a right guaranteed by the Eritrean Constitution. The NA has merely decided to postpone the ratification of the draft law on political parties in deference to the express views of the general population at home and abroad. 4. The motion states that the countrys first-ever parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2001 have been shelved indefinitely on the grounds of security concerns. This is again patently false. The fact is that the NA has ratified the Electoral Law and established an independent Election Commission to organize free and fair national elections, expedite the necessary technical preparations and set a timetable for the elections. 5. The motion refers to the indefinite closure of the countrys independent press. The fact is the Government has merely ordered a temporary suspension in response to persistent contravention of the Press Code and the loss of independence under the inducement of foreign funding. The NA has since set up a Select Parliamentary Committee to review the matter and come up with recommendations to lift the temporary suspension. Mme. Co-President, On the basis of such biased and false information, the motion proceeds to condemn Eritrea unfairly and unjustifiably. Such condemnation is coupled with the threat to stop development cooperation. I submit that the case of certain MEPs against Eritrea is one of problems wrongly identified and of solutions wrongly sought, not to speak of legitimacy. This is bound to backfire, as it will generate resistance to the feeling of such MEPs that they have a right to interfere in our internal affairs and dictate terms, like the immediate reinstatement of a duly expelled ambassador. This is unacceptable. I wish to reiterate here that Eritrea will continue to guard the independence of its sovereign decision and resist external interference in its affairs of state. I am confident that we can count on your support. Thank you. ACP-EU JOINT PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ACP-EU 3387/02/fin. RESOLUTION 1on the situation in East Africa The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, - meeting in Cape Town (South Africa) from 18 to 21 March 2002, - having regard to its previous resolutions on East Africa, in particular the Horn of Africa, - noting that the general elections of 10 December 2001 in Trinidad and Tobago ended in a tie (each of the two main political parties in the country won 18 seats in Parliament) - it is hoped that the situation will be resolved expeditiously, - recalling its resolution on the situation in Sudan (ACP-EU 3327/01/fin) adopted at its 3rd Session on 1 November 2001, - having regard to results of the 9th Summit of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD) held in Khartoum on 10 and 11 January 2002, - having regard to Resolution No 7 of the 74th Session of the ACP Council of Ministers on the normalization of relations between the EU and Sudan, - having regard to the decision of the EU to normalize relations with Sudan, A. whereas progress in the implementation of the peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea has been achieved over the past year, but some issues still need to be resolved in order to achieve full implementation of the Algiers Peace Accord, B. whereas the UN Security Council sent a 15-member mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea from 20 to 25 February 2002 in order to address the issues of the peace process between these two countries and discuss the further implementation of the Algiers Peace Accord signed in December 2000, C. recalling the EUs commitment to supporting the implementation of the Algiers Peace Accord, and the important contribution made by the EU Member States to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and to the OAU observer missions, D. noting the positive progress in the EU-Sudan dialogue and the recent improvement of relations with Sudan, particularly the results of the EU Troika mission to Sudan in December 2001, and the decision of the EU to normalize relations with Sudan, E. whereas a cease-fire agreement in the Nuba mountains was signed on 19 January 2002 by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Nuba, which could represent an important step towards achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Sudanese civil war, F. considering the resolution on Sudan adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in November 2001 in Brussels and having noted that improvement has been made in the areas currently covered by the political dialogue - notably human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance, G. considering the increased transparency shown by the Government of Sudan and its support for the fight against terrorism, H. deploring the recent bombing of the food distribution centre of the WFP in South Sudan, but welcoming the agreement signed by the Government of Sudan and SPLA/SPLM under the auspices of the USA to refrain from attacking civilians and civilian targets, I. whereas the Government of Sudan has stopped all supplies to the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), and has conducted an ultimate attempt to get the LRA to enter into a dialogue with the Government of Uganda, but Joseph Kony has refused, J. whereas the LRA has been placed on the list of international terrorist groups, K. whereas the LRA is now attacking villages in southern Sudan, looting food and killing civilians, causing thousands of people to flee, L. whereas abductions, fighting and looting in northern Uganda by the LRA continue up to this date, and that up to 500 000 people in northern Uganda still live in protected villages, their return home being hindered by ongoing activities of the LRA, M. whereas seven LRA commanders have surrendered and returned to Uganda at the beginning of 2002 under the terms of the Amnesty Bill, N. concerned about the continuous conflict in Somalia that has resulted in an exodus of refugees to neighbouring countries and has contributed to illicit trade and proliferation of small arms, leading to insecurity, despite the arms embargo against Somalia imposed by Resolutions 733, 751 and 1356 of the UN Security Council, O. whereas the security situation in Somalia could have a disastrous impact on the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, P. whereas Somalia requires the urgent attention and assistance of the international community, in particular of the EU, in order to consolidate the peace process and assist the transitional institutions in the restoration of the state and the preservation of the national unity and territorial integrity of the country, Q. whereas 75% of the voters in the Comoros were in favour of the new constitution, which guarantees a large measure of autonomy for each island and democratically-run institutions, R. whereas, under the Framework Agreement for Reconciliation, Azali Assoumani has resigned as head of state and army chief of staff to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections, 1. Welcomes the steps being taken by the UN Security Council in forging ahead with possible measures to contribute to the completion of the Ethiopia/Eritrea peace process; 2. Calls on both parties to expeditiously implement the decision of the Boundary Commission on the border delimitation; 3. Reiterates its support for the efforts of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and calls on Ethiopia and Eritrea to enhance fully their cooperation with UNMEE in the implementation of its mandate, which was renewed on 15 March 2002; 4. Welcomes the cease-fire agreement in the Nuba mountains signed on 19 January 2002 by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Nuba; calls on both signatory parties to this agreement to implement all its modalities, in particular Article VII thereof establishing an international monitoring unit to a viable peace process, and encourages positive efforts taken on the same lines in other parts of Sudan aimed at bringing the Sudanese civil conflict to an end; 5. Calls on the international community, including the EU, to capitalise on the political will and window of opportunity prevailing in Sudan by creating a single, multilateral, high-level and sustained peace process building on all current peace initiatives; 6. Calls on the Government of Sudan and the SPLA/SPLM to adhere to the agreement recently signed on the cessation of attacks against civilians and civilian targets; 7. Calls on both the Government of Sudan and the SPLA to allow relief organisations access to the affected areas, including the southern Blue Nile region, and to allow UN human rights observers to monitor the human rights situation in the affected areas; 8. Calls on the EU, its Member States and other donors or potential donors to actively support the operations of aid, relief and rehabilitation projects in the Nuba Mountains region with a view to consolidating the parties stance and commitment to the peace process and aiming at inducing other groups to join the search for peace in the whole country; 9. Welcomes Sudans and the EUs engagement in defining the priorities for programming of EDF support for all Sudan; 10. Welcomes the cessation of support for the LRA by the Government of Sudan; 11. Welcomes the improving relationship between the Government of Uganda and the Government of Sudan with a view to achieving peace in the region; 12. Welcomes the latest mediation attempts by the Government of Sudan, but regrets that these did not lead to a dialogue between the LRA and the Government of Uganda with a view to the dissolution of the LRA and the release of the abducted children; 13. Is gravely concerned about the ongoing abduction of children in northern Uganda and the continued mistreatment of the thousands of children abducted by the LRA, including rape, beatings, killings, denial of medical treatment, forced fighting and looting; 14. Is gravely concerned about the raids by the LRA on villages in southern Sudan, in which civilians are being killed and forced to flee; 15. Calls on the Governments of Uganda and Sudan to consider all necessary measures to dismantle the LRA camps and to ensure the release of the abducted children, provided that any military or security operation is conducted in accordance with the UN conventions and resolutions designed to protect children, women and civilian hostages; 16. Calls on the Government of Uganda to provide all possible support to the Government of Sudan, respecting international laws, and recommends the involvement of international organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross; 17. Calls on the Government of Uganda to continue to offer LRA Members every opportunity to surrender under the terms of the Amnesty Bill; 18. Calls on the EU to consider appointing a special representative to assist and monitor the efforts being made by the Governments of Uganda and Sudan to get the children released and repatriated to Uganda; 19. Welcomes the IGAD decision to set up a technical committee to prepare for a Somali reconciliation conference that would be an inclusive political framework, to include Somalias Transitional National Government and other Somali parties; 20. Calls upon all Somali parties to put aside their differences and participate in the IGAD-facilitated dialogue without preconditions and with a genuine resolve to broaden and complete the national reconciliation process; 21. Calls on the EU to examine ways and means of supporting IGADs efforts to assist the Somalis to achieve peace and national reconciliation and to put an end to a situation which is causing much distress and suffering among the civilian population; 22. Urges the EU to contribute to the enormous financial resources required to finance regional development projects and programmes in the region; 23. Welcomes the implementation of the Framework Agreement for Reconciliation in the Comoros and the establishment of new decentralised democratic structures; 24. Instructs its Co-Presidents to forward this resolution to the ACP-EU Council, the Commission, IGAD, the African Union and the Governments of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. 1 Adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly on 21 March 2002 in Cape Town (South Africa). courtesy of Jelal Yassin.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:25:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015