BY JOSEPH SOBOKA
Peaceful coexistence particularly between bordering countries is most cherished by the citizens of both countries. The peaceful and sometimes the turbulent relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan, dates back to millennia, starting from the Axum kingdom and Merowe.
As the border shared with Sudan is the largest of its kind for Ethiopia, the two countries have a strong people-to-people relationship until the civil wars broke out in southern Sudan in 1955 as well as in Eritrea in 1962. These situations might have triggered the adverse geographical and political conflict as people from one country fled to the other seeking political asylum or as refugee.
Furthermore, Ethiopia being dominantly a Christian country and Sudan Muslim, and yet, Ethiopia homes quite a number of Sudanese, including refugees, and at the same time many Ethiopians reside in Sudan-the sheer indication of mutual interest and good relationship. As a matter of fact, there has been warm and friendly Ethio-Sudan diplomatic relations following Sudan’s independence in 1956.
Since then there has been a relatively warm and friendly diplomatic relations and border trading between them perhaps despite some minor incidents here and there that bump the smooth flow.
Apparently, the border trade between the two countries indicates peace that thrives emanating from the willingness of the people to live together without any political interference. In principle, bordering countries should maintain mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity for each other.
They should also have mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs while they strive for equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. All these principles summed up to the philosophy of living together in peace rather than in constant hostility.
In the face of this fact, unfortunately, Sudan lately seems to have overridden the international basics of co-existence, perhaps by being driven by an external force which is beyond her capacity to fend off and is seemingly carrying out a proxy war to appease the force by penetrating into Ethiopia’s territory, making the biggest historical mistake ever. The long standing frontier-trade between the two countries has been severely damaged by such illegal act.
As aforementioned, the civil wars (the cases of ELF in Ethiopia and SPLA in Sudan) intensified aggravated the situation in both countries. The influx of refugees and insurgents across their common border took place.
In this instance, Ethiopia accused Sudan and Sudan accused Ethiopia for supporting the rebels as they were then referred to. Internal political and socio-economic problems in Ethiopia and the Sudan, together with super-power rivalries in the Horn brought about periods of increasing hostilities between the two countries.
On a tit for tat basis, both the Imperial and military governments of Ethiopia and the successive governments of the Sudan came to encourage and assist cross-border guerrilla forces from either side. Thus, animosity rather than cooperation characterized relations between the Sudan and Ethiopia until the fall of the military junta.
Nevertheless, the current situation is much different from any other time in the past. Sudan blatantly penetrated into the legitimate territory of Ethiopia claiming to own a vast land that does not politically or historically belong to her in any measure.
To settle the dispute, while the rightful owner, Ethiopia, seeks the peaceful approach through negotiation and Sudan, on the other hand, in defiance of international law of the county’s sovereignty, is actually flexing its military muscles by displacing innocent and unarmed civilians and looting about one billion Birr worth of property from the area she has occupied.
For that matter, centuries of friendly relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan is blown into thin air as simple as that. Ethiopia’s negotiation approach might mistakenly be considered as cowardice forgetting her past heroic responses to such circumstances. Ethiopia is intent on undertaking the negotiation only between the two countries without the interference of any third party.
The capacity to evaluate the consequences of war such as threatening physical harm and post-traumatic stress disorder, calls for political maturity. At the same time, the economy may suffer devastating impacts during and after the time of war as a long term effects.
The warring sides pay such bitter prices that set back the progress of social and economic development and send the country back to square one. However, it does not mean that the occupation remains as it is forever.
If worse comes to worst, Ethiopian heroes will move the mountains or die trying when it comes to their territorial integrity. No surrender or no retreat, come what may!
At this sensitive juncture, all of us should bear in mind that a sovereign state is a political entity or real existence that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a demarcated geographic area. No foreign power can and should take away that legitimate right from Ethiopia whatsoever.
During TPLF’s era, there was an undocumented narrative that Ethiopia had accepted the border demarcation agreement signed by Menelik II. According to the narrative, the agreement was confirmed by Haile Selassie and the military junta.
But the truth is that, there is no historical evidence for that at all. Obviously, it does not benefit Ethiopia and under no circumstance she could sign the agreement.
To that effect, since Ethiopia has never been colonized, sometimes her enemies try to make the inexistent agreement conspicuous and sound true.
In fact, the border demarcation has not been made so far. The truth is that the enemies of Ethiopia, who do not want to see her remain as a sovereign country, must have invented the fable. In 1902, Emperor Menelik made an agreement with England which colonized Sudan at that time. The agreement is referred to as “the 1902 Agreement”.
But after signing the agreement, both Ethiopia and England decided to assign delegates who would work on the technicalities of the border demarcation on the ground. In the meantime however, in 1903, in the absence of the Ethiopian representatives, the English Major, disregarding the agreement that had been agreed upon between Menelik and England, only in the interest of the colonial power, he penetrated into Ethiopia and made a borderline.
There were two mistakes made by the Major: first, he carried out the process of demarcating the boundary on the ground in the absence of the Ethiopian representatives; second, he made the map by penetrating deep into Ethiopia’s territory annexing fertile land and strategic mountains as he deemed pleasing to him in violation of the agreement made between Menelik and England in 1902.
Thus, the charter place where Menelik was supposed to put his signature is still blank indicating that he did not involve in the second issue that was maneuvered by the Major nor did he make any agreement at all apart from the 1902 border demarcation proposal with England.
And thus, the issue has lingered to the present. This is the agreement that Sudan clings to insinuate her provocative act to reclaim the land which has never been part of her territory.
While the true picture is such, TPLF, through the instrumentality of Abay Tsahaye, one of its top officials, made many mischievous deals with Sudan including the borderline.
Evidence depicts that the expansionist England at that time had put strong pressure on Menelik II to make agreement with her. But Menelik refused to sign the agreement as the colonialist brought a new version of the 1902 agreement in 1903.
The international media, particularly those owned by some Ethiopians, instead of revealing the truth to the world, are engaged in denouncing the government in full swing which is too bad. Nevertheless, let us bear in mind unless we stand in unison to win back our land that is taken from us by force, we will be faced with irreversible bad consequences.
The Ethiopian Herald February 13 /2021
