The Algiers Agreement and its Aftermath: A View from Addis
By G.W.M.
May 17, 2003

---

In March of 2001, I was invited to the home of a prominent politician in Addis to a regular weekly “gathering” to meet a visiting Ethiopian-American international law scholar who was conducting research in Ethiopia. I accepted the invitation with some skepticism, as I had experienced my share of disappointment from encounters with visiting self-promoting and condescending Ethiopian “scholars” and expatriates. However, like the thirty or so people who were present I felt privileged to meet this articulate, brilliant, and respectful Ethiopian lawyer. In fact, it was dispiriting that Ethiopia could not attract, hire, and adequately compensate such professionals rather than the parasitic self-serving white foreign “experts” to “advise” the Ethiopian government.

During the course of the afternoon, varied topics were visited and discussed. One topic, which is the subject of this article, concerned the Algiers Agreement and the provision to arbitrate the border dispute with Eritrea on the basis of colonial treaties and stipulating to the existence of applicable treaties between Ethiopia and colonial powers. At the time, the subject was of particular interest to me as I was planning to write an article for publication and during the discussion took careful notes. Though the article was never written as hoped, I recently discovered my notes in a pile of other papers. After revisiting my notes and my recollections, I am haunted by the discussions surrounding the Algiers Agreement, and the analyses and accurate predictions made on that sunny March afternoon by this memorable visiting Ethiopian scholar. Two of his predictions have now proved correct; the third is on the horizon.

Revisiting the Algiers Agreement

When the subject of the Algiers Agreement came up the lawyer acknowledged that he was not familiar with the terms of the Algiers agreement. However, after being briefed, he proceeded to present a well-reasoned and convincing legal opinion. He argued that there are no binding colonial treaties between Ethiopia and Italy or Ethiopia and Britain given the legal effect of annexation of Ethiopia by Italy and Britain’s recognition of Italian annexation of Ethiopia by virtue of the Anglo-Egyptian-Italian Accord of 1938. He argued that since (following restoration of the Ethiopian government and the Paris Peace Treaty) Ethiopia was never asked to (re)affirm or (re)ratify treaty obligations abrogated in consequence of Italy’s hostile occupation and Britain’s recognition of Italy as the legitimate and successor government of the extinguished Ethiopian state, Ethiopia had a clean slate to negotiate a boundary treaty with Eritrea. In other words, there was no legal or political imperative to submit to binding arbitration as there are no boundary treaties or agreements, international or domestic delimiting boundaries between Ethiopia and Eritrea or Ethiopia and any of its provinces or administrative regions. Under international law, a boundary for a new state constituted out of an existing state is subject to negotiation and subject to the consent of the Predecessor State. Similarly, the matter of war reparations between the victor and the vanquished state for damage, destruction, and loss would likewise be subject to settlement through negotiation.

The lawyer therefore argued that the provision for binding arbitration based on abrogated and at best vague colonial agreements and accepting and characterizing them, as “applicable” was not well conceived. He outlined the legal pitfalls of the victor submitting to binding arbitration on the basis of defunct treaties when the very fact of the hostility could itself serve the victor as a basis for defining the terms of a legitimate delimitation treaty with Eritrea. Furthermore, arbitration on the basis of colonial treaties would pre-empt Ethiopia’s ability to assert its historic claims, facts on the ground, unique circumstances, and principles of international law to delimit new boundaries (generally favored the victor), and the opportunity to resolve other outstanding problems with Eritrea. He emphasized the uncertain outcome of submitting to vague colonial treaties, prospective outcomes of the binding arbitration, and the legal implications of an unfavorable outcome on the boundary delimitation on claims for war reparations and damage. He felt that in addition to compromising Ethiopia’s existing and any claimed territory in favor of Eritrea, unfavorable boundary decision would also establish and expose the antagonist who will be eventually charged with responsibility for reconstruction and compensation of the destruction and consequences of military aggression..

Lastly, this lawyer expressed the opinion that, as written, the provision concerning the creation of a Compensation Commission to circumscribe the private rights of citizens to independently pursue legal remedy against a wrongful “act of state” was inadequate to protect Ethiopia from private claims by Eritreans. He argued that the government should have negotiated a provision for indemnity for independent private actions and judgements by citizens who would otherwise seek remedies against either government outside the framework of the Compensation Commission. He argued that the provision, as written, would expose the Ethiopian government to countless litigation particularly in the United States in view of the America limitation on state sovereign immunity. His reasoning was simple: 1. a significantly greater number of wealthy Eritreans were disadvantaged by the deportations from Ethiopia, 2. substantially greater war related private property loss occurred in Eritrea, and 3. a significantly greater number of the dispossessed wealthy Eritreans went to the US.

These opinions and arguments are obviously not singular and have been widely published by many other Ethiopian scholars. What is amazing is that the views of such prominent Ethiopian scholars and experts whose where about and expertise are well known to the government and Ethiopian Embassies were not solicited to formulate the Ethiopian legal and political strategy before signing the Algiers Agreement. What is also amazing is that the government, to complement Ethiopian expertise and to “mind” the American lawyers and western “experts” did not invite such scholars to help. In the end, what is sad is that this government will never endeavor to draw on the enormous talent of Ethiopia’s sons and daughters now scattered around the world. Instead, the government prefers to rely on foreign “experts,” foreign “advisers and foreign lawyers and Ethiopian scholars who are willingly to blindly support rather than guide government dictates.

The Aftermath

Even now, rather than galvanizing the collective wisdom of Ethiopian scholars at home and abroad, to help mastermind the next step, we are told by our political leaders to accept the decision of three foreigners quid pro quo and their arbitration decision as a fait accompli. In addition to abandoning sovereign Ethiopian territories, for which thousands died, we are to also ignore and abandon the Ethiopian inhabitants in these “worthless” territories as well, despite their pleas. We are further advised to accept the arbitration decision thereby overtly partitioning and ceding Assab, to the vanquished state of Eritrea without referendum or the consent of the Ethiopian people. To avoid dire consequences of western disappointment, we are informed to quietly accept the bitter outcome without fanfare, cede Ethiopian territories and nationals, in favor of diplomatic “efforts” by the very Ethiopian diplomats and Ethiopian legal experts who failed to protect the national interest in the first instance.

It appears, we must brace ourselves for yet further humiliation because by accepting the arbitration decision we shall soon be conceding that we started a war of aggression against Eritrea over territory that turned out to belong to Eritrea. We shall then be expected to pay war reparations and compensation for reconstruction of Eritrea despite our having been confidently told by our political leaders and legal experts that Eritrea was the aggressor. As the coup de gras a US Federal District Court recently held, Eritrean citizens deported from Ethiopia can file claims for damages, and seek compensation from the Ethiopian government in Federal Courts in the US since the framework of the Compensation Commission fails to offer effective remedies to private parties. The Eritreans claimants can then enforce their US Federal Court judgement by freezing and seizing Ethiopian government assets in the United States.

Rewarding Incompetence

To add insult to injury, the legal and political experts whose advice and judgement the Ethiopian people were compelled to rely upon have been rewarded, rather than dismissed, for failing to competently protect the national interest and misleading and lying to the Ethiopian people. The American lawyers continue to represent Ethiopian national interests. The American lawyers will collect their millions from World Bank loans to the Ethiopian people, while the country continues to suffer excruciating poverty, plagues, floods, droughts, famine, and disease on the road to permanent dependency on Western aid, handouts and manipulation.

In the end what was consummated after the loss of thousands of lives and millions of dollars spent on the American lawyers is nothing more than a dishonest strategy to find an expedient response to western coercion by abdicating the determination of Ethiopian national interest to foreign experts. From reading, the arbitration decision it is also clear that the Ethiopian legal experts did not possess the requisite legal ability to comprehend the complex legal issues involved and to effectively assist their American lawyers. Unlike their Eritrean counterparts, our legal bureaucrats were unprepared for an adversarial arbitral proceeding, and wrongly assumed that the arbitrators would fill their intellectual void. They assumed that the arbitrators would muddle through the clutter, the inconsistencies, and submissions, overlook incompetence, read the Ethiopian mind, weigh political considerations and favor the more powerful in the end. They also assumed that the arbitrators would not reveal the shame of their incompetence in the arbitration decision and that no one would see the transcript of the proceeding. It is true, as of yet, the transcript has not been made public, but enough is revealed in the arbitration decision. Quintessentially, two million dollar legal fees to a fancy Washington DC law firm could not cloud Eritrea’s covenant to its cause, competence, and the talents of a committed Washington DC labor law practitioner. In the final analysis, the arbitration decision only postpones the eventual outcome and its implementation will provoke hostilities and hasten an inevitable bloody second confrontation with Eritrea.

Meanwhile, the infamous Ethiopian legal experts and strategists have moved on to yet greener pastures to represent Ethiopian national interests in the international and diplomatic arenas, leaving the ruins of their incompetence behind.

• Ato Seife, Deputy Head of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a professional bureaucrat who never practiced law and believed that his LLB from Addis Ababa University qualified him to lead Ethiopia’s legal team, has been promoted to rank of Minister Counselor and serves as Ethiopia’s Special Envoy to the UN.
• Ato Fisseha Yimer, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief International Law Adviser to the Derg and a high ranking member of the Workers Party during the Red Terror campaign and another professional bureaucrat who never practiced law believed his LLB from Addis Ababa University and MCL in Introduction to American Law for foreign lawyers from University of Pennsylvania, qualified him to be Ethiopia’s top legal expert and spokesperson on international law serves as Ethiopia’s Ambassador at the UN in Geneva and represents Ethiopia on the Human Rights Commission.
• Ato Girma Amare, the infamous Charge d’Affaires at the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington during the Red Terror campaign and member of the Workers Party of Ethiopia, and Head of Legal Affairs for the Minisry of Foreign Affairs, another professional bureaucrat who never practiced law and believed that his LLB from Addis Ababa University and MA in International Relations from American University, was a match for hardened international litigators has been rewarded and serves as Ethiopian Ambassador to Cairo.
• Dr. Tekeda Alemu, the former soccer player turned professional bureaucrat with a doctorate of dubious origin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and chief political and legal strategist and the man responsible for the debacles in Somalia and Ethiopia’s childlike diplomacy, has been promoted to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
• Ato Seyoum Mesfin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his minder “Jamaica” continue to be entrusted with primary responsibility for administering Ethiopia’s foreign policy and guiding the new “diplomatic initiative” along with the formidable, Dr. Kinfe Abraha, who is employed by at least two known governments, the US National Security Council as well as the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a trusted Senior consultant.

In the grand finale, the Ethiopian people are now told Badme is a worthless piece of territory not worth fighting for. However, these words were not told to the 100,000 people before they were forced to die in the battlefields nor to their families when they were dragged from their homes and farms. To suggest that over 100,000 Ethiopians and Eritreans marched to their deaths in vain over useless territory is not only ruthless but begs the question. Why is a “piece of worthless territory” soaked with the blood of 50,000 to 70,000 destitute Ethiopians and 50,000 to 70,0000 Eritreans whose skeletal remains still garnish the desolate Ethiopian and Eritrean landscapes. The Algiers agreement and the aftermath exemplify a classic case of government incompetence, arrogance, deception, betrayal, and ruthlessness.