[ad_1]
Addis Ababa, February 18, 2021 (Walta) Since November 2020, the question of borders has become a major issue in shaping bilateral relations between Ethiopia and Sudan. As officially confirmed by the Sudanese authorities, this was instigated in the wake of the Sudanese army’s military incursion into Ethiopian territory. In this regard, the Sudanese authorities stated that “Sudan has regained its territory that has been occupied by Ethiopia for the past 25 years. To avoid any confusion on the subject, it is necessary to correct the record and provide accurate information on the boundary between the two countries.
Sudan invaded lands that are part of the territory of Ethiopia. In its indefensible conduct, the Sudanese army demolished Ethiopia’s administrative institutions, seized military camps, killed and displaced residents, and destroyed their crops and property. Sudan acted in flagrant violation of international law against the use of force and the border redemarcation treaties.
The border between Ethiopia and Sudan was delimited by the 1902 Treaty signed between Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia and Great Britain, the then colonial power of Sudan. The assertion by some Sudanese officials that Ethiopia does not accept border demarcation under the 1902 treaty is unfounded.
While the Joint Commission made up of Ethiopian and British representatives needed to demarcate the boundary line as foreseen in the 1902 Treaty, in 1903 a British surveyor, Major Gwynn, unilaterally demarcated the boundary. The Surveyor acted in the absence of the Ethiopian representatives and without the authorization of the Ethiopian Government. Furthermore, Major Gwynn ignored the 1902 Treaty and made discretionary adjustments to the treaty line. As a result, the Ethiopian government rejected the demarcation of Major Gwyn.
After Sudan gained its independence in 1956, Ethiopia and Sudan held a series of consultations on the issue and adopted the 1972 Exchange of Notes. In this Exchange of Notes, Ethiopia and Sudan agreed to re-demarcate the border. They also agreed to use Major Gwynn’s demarcation as the basis for joint re-demarcation work. Obviously, Major Gwynn himself intended his demarcation work to be the basis for future deals between the two governments.
One may wonder the reason for Ethiopia’s basic acceptance of Major Gwynn in 1972 after sixty-nine years of rejection. In this regard, the most fundamental factor is the agreement between Ethiopia and Sudan to re-demarcate the border by rectifying the Gwynn demarcation.
The rectifications are planned in two respects. First, the Exchange of Notes rectifies the boundary line of the Greater Gwyn demarcation south of Mount Dagleish to ‘traverse the ridge points rather than the base of the hills of Halawa, Umdoga, El Mutant and Mount Jerok’ , which Major Gwynn, contrary to the 1902 Treaty included in the Sudanese territory. Second, the exchange of letters requires that, before redrawing the border, a study of the problem resulting from settlements and crops north of Mount Dagleish be considered with a view to finding an amicable solution.
Therefore, the rectifications of the border line north of Mount Dagleish will be jointly determined by the two countries.
The adjustment to the demarcation of Major Gwynn south of Mount Dagleish was made as reflected in the 1972 Exchange of Notes. For the sector of the northern limit of Mount Dagleish, the two countries agreed to establish a Joint Special Committee that would conduct field studies and would propose an amicable solution. Consequently, the Joint Special Committee was established in 2002 and has held eight rounds of meetings so far and is expected to present a proposal containing a friendly settlement.
It should also be stressed that, according to the 1972 exchange of letters, both Ethiopian and Sudanese nationals cannot be displaced from their properties. These farms are registered by the Joint Select Task Force (JSWG) from March 2004 to January 2005. Ethiopia and Sudan agreed to maintain the status quo until resolution of the case by agreement.
Therefore, the military incursion of the Sudanese army into Ethiopian territory in the first week of November 2020 is illegal and provocative. First, it violates the basic international principle against the threat and use of force provided in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and the peaceful settlement of disputes stipulated in Article 33 of the UN Charter. Second, it undermines the joint boundary mechanisms that have been established and the progress made so far in fulfilling the task of redemarcation.
The Sudanese military incursion was carried out following the redeployment of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces in the first week of November 2020 to apply police measures in the Tigray region. The Sudanese army killed Ethiopians residing in the area, looted and destroyed their hard-earned property, and created fear and chaos in the border area. Taking advantage of the internal situation of a friendly country and a close neighbor is deplorable and threatens the good neighborliness between the two countries. This unjustified action by the Sudanese army opened the space for suspicion and complicated the search for a peaceful and lasting solution to the border dispute.
Therefore, it is necessary to reverse the aggression of the Sudanese army with a view to creating an environment conducive to the functioning of the bilateral mechanisms. In the event that Sudan does not comply with international law and bilateral agreements, Ethiopia reserves the right of self-defense recognized by international law.
Ethiopia and Sudan enjoy a strategic partnership and deeply rooted relationships in the social, economic, security, economic, and various other fields. They also have concerted mechanisms to solve the border problem. The invasion of the Sudanese army and the military confrontation are useless. Even if Ethiopia and Sudan resort to military confrontation, the redemarcation of the border will require discussion and diplomacy. Therefore, it would be unwise and contrary to the will of the peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan to engage in unnecessary warfare.
(Source: ENA)
