A Call for Unity and Discipline: Ethiopians Fighting Back to Preserve Their National Heritage
By Dr. Teccola W. Hagos (TORONTO SPEECH)
February 9, 2002

My fellow Ethiopians, may I thank you and the patriotic members of the Ethiopian Voices Coordination Committee of Toronto, Canada, for inviting me to Toronto to address you on an extremely important problem facing us all Ethiopians.

There are many Ethiopians who have been writing, organizing, and calling meetings for the last few years. Some had predicted the danger we are facing today in 1991 when Meles Zenawi came into town camouflaged as a �liberator� of Ethiopia from an already crumbling dictatorial government that was recently abandoned by the brutal Mengistu Hailemariam. We all are especially indebted to H. E. Ato Belai Abbai who ceaselessly called our attention to the danger facing us all though not many of us heard him that well. We all are galvanized by the Tigrean International Solidarity for Justice and Democracy for giving a new vigorous life to our struggle by organizing the 12 January 2002 open public forum to discuss �issues surrounding the Algiers peace accord, as well as historical and legal analysis in delimiting the Ethio-Eritrea border." I am also particularly happy to share this forum with an old friend, Berihun Assfaw, the distinguished historian and social critic of Ethiopia. And I feel very fortunate to witness so many Ethiopians working hard to reverse injustice and all pending courses of action that would lead to war and destruction. Ethiopia is very much alive and effective due to its resolute people.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has always been the source of strength, unity, and morality for Ethiopians across the Centuries. I was very much touched and invigorated to see the zeal and commitment of the Church Fathers amply demonstrated at the Vigil held last week at Saint Mary�s Church in Washington DC. Anyone who thinks that Ethiopia is a mother without children is going to have the surprise of his/her life. Ethiopia has children in millions who would take up her cause of justice and freedom at a moments notice. I am confident that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, along with other religious institutions, remains as a bulwark for the stability and continuity of Ethiopia as a free and proud nation.

The boundary issue has been packaged and handled by Meles Zenawi and Issaias Afwerki in a manner that is meant to destroy Ethiopia once and for all. This is a far more serious problem than the one that faced Ethiopia in 1935 war of occupation by Italy. The present aggressive disposition of the Eritrean government if allowed to develop without challenge not only will destroy an independent Ethiopia but also might dismember it into little pieces. The so called Ethiopia/Eritrea Boundary Commission established under the blessing of the United Nations is based on the Algiers Agreement of two years ago that is extremely prejudicial to the interest of Ethiopia. We must reject such agreements and procedure with one voice.

Our attention must not be diverted, and our resolve should never be diluted. At this moment in our history we are faced with several problems but none more serious and pressing as the challenge to our national life. The issue is the preservation of our national sovereignty and territorial integrity. We must focus all of our energy, ingenuity, intellect, resources, and courage for that single purpose. If we allow the alienation of Ethiopian Afar coastal territories and all other territories of Kunama, Irob, Tsorona et cetera, we will be accelerating the total destruction of Ethiopia. The problem should not be framed as a single item issue in terms of Ethiopian access to the Red Sea. The issues are about human rights, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

I have three main points I intend to discuss with you at this conference. Rather than spending time on the types of injustice that we are subjected to, I will be focusing on identifying the immediate threats to our independent existence, the types of hardship we are going to be faced with, the solutions open to us, and how we may prepare ourselves to fight back with formidable enemies all around us. True, it might seem that we are out numbered, out gunned, and even out maneuvered by hostile national governments all around us. However, with unity and focus we will be able to overcome such grave problems.

I. Threat to Ethiopian Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity

The most important first step that every Ethiopian must internalize and acknowledge is the identity of the enemies of Ethiopia. We have had a very vague understanding of our enemies, and often we draw a very limited list of enemies. First of all our weakness is due to our lack of knowledge of the identity of our enemies and lack of appreciation of the gravity of the problem we are faced with. The Second problem is that we tend to read our generous nature in others, which puts us at a disadvantage when dealing with vicious individuals.

Let me illustrate my point. I was born and grew up in Dessie, a provincial capital with one of the most egalitarian democratic societies in the world. There were families from Akale Guzei, Hamassein, Serie, and Keren, as well as Arabs, Italians, and people from the rest of Ethiopia, who settled and raised families. [Some such families, for example, were the families of Amare Tekle, the Eritrean Commissioner for the Referendum of 1993, and Temeleso Kahsi.] During the height of the war started by Eritreans, a number of Eritreans were deported from Ethiopia back to Eritrea for security reason. During one such exercise, communities in Dessie held a farewell party to their much loved and appreciated neighbors who happened to be Eritreans [recently] and were being deported. They had a tearful parting. By contrast Ethiopian families who lived in Asmara, Keren, Massawa, et cetera were harassed, brutalized, and violently assaulted by their neighbors of twenty or more years. One particular incident in Keren was illustrative of the types of degenerate governmental instigation that turned ordinary individuals into monsters. Members of Ethiopian families were slaughtered by their neighbors at night for no other reason than the fact that they were from neighboring Tygrei (Ethiopians). The same happened in Asmara where the bodies of Ethiopians were found in a dump, murdered by neighbors. I always thought of Eritreans I grew up with or came to know in my adult life as brothers and sisters. However, with incidents of such nature, after what I have seen, heard, and witnessed in the activities of Afwerki and his henchmen, my feeling has soured.

There are several evidences that the Government of Haile Selassie and that of Mengistu had committed horrible atrocities on innocent non-combatant individuals or whole communities in Akale Guzai, Hamassein, Barka et cetera. But those same governments have committed similar atrocities all over Ethiopia. In other words the problem was that of oppressive governments rather than brutality committed by individual citizens targeting people because of their ethnic identity.

Now I realized that Afwerki and his regime as agents of our historic enemies such as Egypt, Sudan, Syria et cetera, along with his agents in Ethiopia�s government are bent to destroy Ethiopia directly if they could and indirectly through ethnic conflict and dismemberment. Meles and his associates are poised to deliver the final blow by abandoning Afar Ethiopians, by giving away Ethiopian coastal territories, and by dismantling the Ethiopian armed forces. What I find most disturbing is the fact that fellow black people could gang up with Italians and Arabs to destroy a genuine African civilization that we all should have been proud of. �Eritreans� have no reason whatsoever to conspire with Europeans and Arabs against Ethiopians. If there is anyone to be blamed for the political oppressions suffered by Eritreans in the past, it certainly is not the people of Ethiopia, but anti-democratic governments.

II. Hardship and the Face of Destruction

Assuming that the Boundary Commission enter an adverse ruling against our interest, what would be the extent of damage to Ethiopia�s economy, political stability, and development prospect caused by the loss of Ethiopia�s coastal territories and territories of Kunama, Irob, and Tsorona et cetera? First and foremost and of great concern to us Ethiopians is the forced loss of Ethiopian Citizenship of the Ethiopian citizens living in the alienated territories. This in itself is a violation of numerous international Declarations, Covenants, and Resolutions on human rights issues. It is also a violation of a �peremptory norm of general international law and custom� that amounts to violating fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Appeasement has never worked for us. We tried to appease European governments (forces) in the 19th Century; it did not work. We tried to do the same in the 20th Century; it did not hold water either. In fact, we ended up creating a far more insidious enemy government that fought to destroy us and is still pursuing the same aggressive goals to destroy Ethiopia completely. A landlocked Ethiopia will be very unstable because of economic problems. Ethiopia will not be able to defend itself because it will not be able to import and upgrade its military needs. Ethiopia will be blackmailed easily by rogue national governments, warlords, and foreign terrorists based in neighboring nations. Ethiopia will not be able to develop its natural resources specially its hydro-power (rivers and lakes) without the prior approval of its neighboring nations (Egypt, Sudan et cetera) because the surrounding nations will cut of Ethiopia�s access to the outside world. These are some of the more obvious and pressing problems for a landlocked Ethiopia.

This is our last stand against all those who want to destroy us. Our willingness to accommodate others, our desire for peace and cooperation, and our sense of compassion to our fellow man has been misinterpreted as a weakness or cowardice. All ancient historic enemies and newly minted ones seem to forget that we are the same people who defied all European (Italian, French, British) attempts of colonization whereas others were crumbling as houses of cards all around us. We are the same people who thought a tough lesson to Egyptian and Sudanese adventurous effort to control the Blue Nile Basin. We are the only nation on Earth that has successfully preserved an independent existence in freedom and self-identity for thousands of years.

We are an African civilization, with no pretense of being some other thing. We are not in a mission to convince the world that we have arrived because we never left. We always are. We are a people with long memory. We persevere because we have the quiet courage of a long distance endurance runner. We are tolerant, compassionate, and fair to strangers and stray dogs. Over the centuries we have welcome, sustained, and gave refugee to foreigners who sought our protection and generosity including the Arab followers and Family members of the Prophet Mohammed. We are a people who do not molest, abuse, or take advantage of those who are in need of help. You would seek in vain in reports of international organizations or one-time refugees in Ethiopia for incidents where Ethiopians had violated the code of sanctuary against anyone who sought protection and generosity. And we have opened our borders and our homes over the years to millions of refugees and displaced people.

On the other hand our neighbors have shown to our Ethiopian brothers and sisters who sought refugee in such countries brutality and violence. Just recently a number of Christian Ethiopians were deported back from Saudi Arabia after having been detained under the most inhuman and disgusting condition for over half a year where they were brutally tortured repeatedly. These Ethiopian victims of a brutal and primitive Saudi Arabian government were not criminals. These decent law abiding Ethiopians were subjected to such brutality for worshiping and exercising their Christian faith in their private homes. Other Ethiopian refugees in Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya et cetera are facing daily brutality and violence by primitive and brutal governments.

Civilized behavior is not dependant on technology, advance economic system, or military power. Decency is a quality that is a result of great spiritual strength and human compassion that we Ethiopians have towards strangers. This is the type of quality I urge you to extend to fellow Ethiopians. We have been our worst enemies, violently attacking and dehumanizing our own citizens. Look at the current Government of Meles Zenawi, only yesterday most of the members of his governments were �freedom fighters� but see how they turned out to be. Of course the absence of a democratic tradition in the structure and operation of the TPLF was the main reason for the type of government we have now. However, we must acknowledge also the cultural deformity that is making us act in antidemocratic and violent manner to our own people.

III. Solutions: International and Local K

The first duty of every Ethiopian is to see Meles Zenawi and associates as enemies of Ethiopia and agents of foreign powers who want to destroy or completely control Ethiopia and its destiny. We must start first and foremost by forcefully removing Meles Zenawi and all other enemy agents who have betrayed our nation and us. Sooner than later, these enemies of the people of Ethiopia will face the justice of the Ethiopian people.

1. International law Philosophy: The Self-interest of National Governments

The refusal of successive governments of the State of Israel to observe several resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations is an illustrative example of my argument in favor of natural law and rationalism as the basis of international law and relations. Not every pronouncement that comes out of the General Assembly is a source for international obligation or international law. Israel refused to abide by successive resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations dealing with the occupation of Palestine, and the building of new settlements, and causing demographic change in Palestine. The security interest of the new State of Israel transcends the collective interest of the members of the United Nations.

To relay on the concept of international law as mechanistic and cut out of rules and procedures spelled out in ink on paper an on parchment is a very sophomoric view of international law. We must remember the social and philosophical forces that brought about international norms and standards. Positivism came out of the Utopian goals of social justice and compassion of Saint Simon and his secretary August Comte who coined the word �positivism� to describe their new approach to solving the problems surrounding the consequences of the industrial revolution of the 19th Century. Thus, positivism despite its claim of being �scientific� started out as a concept for social and economic justice and compassion: two concepts identified with natural law and rationalism.

Ethiopia was one of the first forty-seven States that signed the Convention on the Law of Treaties (under Article 81 of the Convention) at the conclusion of the Conference. [Sztucki, Jerzy, Jus Cogens the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal, Wien New York: Springer-Verlog, 1974, 2 - 3.] The process have taken up almost 20 years since the day the International Law Commission was assigned that monumental task by the General Assembly in 1949. Both in the drafting phase by the International Law Commission and at the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties in Vienna more time was devoted on the discussion of the draft provisions dealing with the concept of Jus Cogens than most other provisions.

It is extremely important that we consider these principles seriously and with much attention because we are challenging in this essay the practices of the United Nations itself and its members on how they have dealt with concepts of �self-determination� , �recognition� , �admission to the United Nations� et cetera in the recent past. And most importantly the link between the principle of Jus Cogens and �obligation Erga Omnes� is dependant on the correlation the International Court and jurists acknowledged to exist between �peremptory norm of international law� and the obligations that are incumbent on States. In the Barcelona Traction Case the International Court in a dictum stated the concept of �obligation Erga Omnes,� in addition the Court also used terms that have been interpreted to imply a link between the two concepts. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, ICJ Reports (1970) 32, at paras. 33-34; De Hoogh, Andre, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: A theoretical Inquiry into the Implementation and Enforcement of the International Responsibility of States, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996, 55.The cases the Court referred when discussing the concept of obligation Erga Omnes are also indicative of the link between the two concepts. Moreover, in a separate opinion, Judge Ammoun, one of the judge of the Court, made a direct reference to the concept of Jus Cogens. [De Hoogh, Andre, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: A theoretical Inquiry into the Implementation and Enforcement of the International Responsibility of States, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996. 55.]

2. Jus Cogens: Principle of Great Importance for Ethiopia

Like most international law terms the origin of "Jus Cogens" is Roman law. In Roman law the concept could be roughly seen as the governing principle dealing with the relationship between the State and the individual which is designated as �Jus Publicum� or public law. [Digest II, 14, 38.] Lauterpacht for instance, did not mention this concept of public policy at all in connection with private contracts entered between individuals. [ Sinclair, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 2nd ed. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press, 1984, 205; Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law, 1927, 156.] Moreover, this development was not limited to Roman law. Almost all legal systems since have some principle governing the private acts between individuals that may impact on the community or the state.

Brownlie, an international law jurist of great depth and notoriety, pointed out that principles of Jus Cogens holds that there �are rules of customary law which cannot be set aside by treaty or acquiescence but only by the formation of a subsequent customary rule of contrary effect.� [Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 1975, 515. McNair, The Law of Treaties, Oxford UK: Oxford university Press, 1961, 214.] The difficult task faced by the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties was to draft provisions that would adequately retain the principle of Jus Cogens extracted from customary international law and practices. In fact, McNair asserts that it is easier to �illustrate these rules than to define them.� [McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961, 214.] The first problem was to establish whether there are in fact peremptory norms of general international law. Some jurists consider the concept of Jus Cogens as a recent development of a version of �public Policy� with international dimension. [Elias, T.O. The Modern Law of Treaties, Leiden: A.W.Sigthoff, 1974, 177. In Osca Chinn Case (1934)P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 63, pp134-36, 146-50, the Court introduced the concept of international public policy.] However, �according to some authors, some international public policy has always existed.� [Sztucki, Jerzy, Jus Cogens the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal, Wien New York: Springer-Verlog, 1974, 8.(footnote not included)]

The principle of "Jus Cogens" in itself was not that difficult to draft; however, principles that help define the concept such as �peremptory norms� and �general international law� were extremely difficult to articulate. Thus, it took over twenty years for the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties, with the assistance of an impressive collection of great international jurists at its disposal, to draft acceptable provisions on the principle of Jus Cogens. The International Law Commission in 1949 as its first order of business made recommendations in order to study three international problems dealing with genocide, racism, and the laws of treaties. As indicated above, the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties was instituted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The principle of Jus Cogens was first drafted by the ILC in Article 15 and later incorporated by the Second, and Third Rapporters as Articles 37 and 50. Finally, it was incorporated in a single draft by the fourth Rapporteur of the Convention as Article 53 (Articles 64, and 71 are further expansion of the core principle) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that was adopted on 22 May 1969 by the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties.

"Article 53: Treaty Conflicting with Peremptory Norm of General International Law (Jus Cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purpose of the present convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.�

It is clear that Article 53 provides the basic concept of Jus Cogens with regard to the effect of �peremptory norm of general international law� on future treaties. Other than the attempted cyclical (tautological) definition provided for the meaning of �peremptory norm of general international law� within that article, the provision itself is simple to understand, but extremely difficult to apply. There is a need to review the material leading to the drafting of the provision in order to learn and understand the scope and depth of the debate behind this difficult provision. There are several indicative issues raised and discussed by the drafters of the provision that are relevant to our analysis. [Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law of Treaties: A Guide to the Legislative History of the Vienna Convention, Dobbs Ferry NY: Oceana Publications, 1970.]

"Article 64: Emergence of a new Peremptory Norm of General International Law (Jus Cogens)

If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.�

"Article 71: Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty which conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law: 1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 the parties shall: a) eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and b) bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.

2. In the case of a treaty which becomes void and terminates under article 64, the termination of the treaty: a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty; b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination; provided that those rights, obligations or situations may thereafter be maintained only to the extent that their maintenance is not in itself in conflict with the new peremptory norm of general international law.�

Moreover, Brownlie further pointed out that �[a]part from the law of treaties the specific content of norms of this kind involves the irrelevance of protest, recognition, and acquiescence: prescription cannot purge this type of illegality...However certain position of Jus Cogens are the subject of general agreement, including the rules to the use of force by states, self-determination, and genocide.� [ Brownlie. 516-517.] What is pointed out here is that the principle of Jus Cogens does deal exclusively with formal �treaties� but takes within its scope both procedural and substantive international general customary law.

Of course, there are legal scholars who do not accept the concept of Jus Cogens in international law because it goes against long-standing and extremely important customary international law principle dealing with the capacity of States to enter into agreements and treaties without limitation. [See Heinze, Eric and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Landmark Cases in International Law, London: Kluwer Law International Ltd., 1998] But such traditional conception of the capacity of States is based on the antiquated idea of absolute sovereignty of states. Judge Alvarez in his advisory concurring opinion in the Admission Case in 1948 had addressed the fluidity rather than the rigidity of international law by his emphasis on the progressive developmental aspect of international law and practice. [Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, (Charter, Art. 4) Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1948, p.68-69.] Therefore, with the erosion of the concept of �sovereignty� and the increased interdependence among the nation of the world, it is reasonable to conclude that the progressive development of international law is more in the tradition of natural law rather than positive law.

Thus, we need to look into the contextual capacity of States with real limitations imposed by numerous international treaties, conventions, resolutions et cetera and economic as well as political interdependence of States rather than look into the abstract traditional conception of States. In the modern world not even the most powerful nations could claim absolute capacity to do as they please without regard to their international obligations. Thus, our challenge to the international community is valid in as far as we are fighting for our survival as a viable nation, protecting our fellow citizens from being forced to adopt new citizenship, or from being removed by force from their homes.

3. International Human Rights

One could argue that the whole of international law development since the end of the Second World War revolved around a single topic: human rights principles; and all other matters were contingent on that central matter. The center of this development is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants, and numerous resolutions dealing with human rights. Thus, the issue of the citizenship and territorial rights of Afar Ethiopians is our central issue. It is not a piece of land or sea that must be our moving force, but our covenant to protect and stand by our fellow Ethiopians who are being threatened of losing their identity, homes, and history. No one, not even a god, can force such injustice on a people let alone other fellow human creatures.

The International Law Commission debated whether to include draft provisions dealing with the inheritability of obligations arising out of humanitarian treaties on the respect of human rights principles by future governments of what ever kind. Despite the fact of the existence of an international court decision in the German Settlers case [ German Settlers in Poland, (Advisory Opinion) 10 September 1923, PCIJ Series B, No. 6, at 36], the International Law Commission erroneously did not include such an important principle of international law in the draft of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, in a round about way, in Article 60(5) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is provided that the protection of the human person provided for in treaties with humanitarian characteristics may not be terminated by successor governments.

From our discussion above, it is obvious that human rights principles are one category of peremptory norms that no derogation may be allowed in relation to. However, the problem could be quite challenging. Clear concepts of human rights may have become blurred and the violation of fundamental human rights may be subtle and far-reaching.

4. Self-defense and National Preservation

The United Nations Charter is a very complex document especially the provisions dealing with peaceful co-existence and conflict management. The Charter allows individual nations to preserve their integrity by the use of force. Article 24 (1) entrust the Security Council, as its primary responsibility, with the maintenance of international peace and security. And in Article 24 (2) the Security Council is instructed in discharging its duties that it �shall act in accordance with the Purpose and Principles of the United Nations.� Those �Purposes� and �Principles� are spelled out clearly in the Preamble and most importantly in Chapter 1 of the Charter. When we read the provisions under Chapter 1, and when we consider how the problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea was handled at both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council had acted in an irresponsible manner by allowing a five�man Commission to determine what is essentially a determination not of simple boundary line between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but a backhand serious judgment on fundamental peremptory principles of international norms.

The Boundary Commission is unqualified, and would exceed its purpose if it tries to resolve such complex and grave matter by looking at invalid colonial maps, ignoring all historically relevant documentation, and cultural history of the Ethiopian people, who would be seriously affected by such decision based on some preemptive agreement signed in Algiers. There is collusion, fraud and deceit in the activities of the two leaders of the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea because they are acting to promote a single interest of Eritrea. There is also a serious question of incapacity to enter into any internationally binding agreement, and the violation of several other legal principles that could invalidate such an agreement and decision that may be entered by Meles Zenawi. As stated above, the Security Council has failed in its duty by not looking at the long-term effect of such procedure. Hell will freeze before Ethiopians will give up their fundamental rights of security, territorial integrity, and sovereignty on their coastal as well as other territories in Irob, Kunama, and Tsorona.

I would like to quote here a poignant statement that carry within it the ethos of Ethiopians who met on 12 January 2002 and decided to send a letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I quote: � A) We declare the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 to be null and void as far as we Ethiopians are concerned. The Algiers Agreement was signed by a �government� that is blatantly pro-Eritrea and has constantly worked against the interest of Ethiopia. The boundary decision of the Algiers Agreement does not safeguard the paramount interest of Ethiopians. Therefore, the Agreement has no binding effect on Us Ethiopians or our posterity. B) We find particularly offensive and illegal in the Algiers Agreement for any one to subject us to be held accountable under treaties Menilik II signed with Italians in 1900, 1902, and 1908. Those treaties were abrogated by Italy in 1935-41 when it attacked us, and again in 1947 when it signed the Peace Treaty rescinding all claims and interest it had in Eritrea (the renouncement specifically refers to Eritrea).�

As Ethiopians we are not attacking Eritrea or anybody else, we are the ones who are being attacked. If previous governments have oppressed people, we as ordinary citizens cannot be held accountable for the misdeeds of dictatorial anti-people governments. We too were victims of oppression, and still are by such dictatorial governments. What have we done to deserve this form of collusion of nations against us? Do we deserve to be driven out of our homes on the basis of invalid colonial treaties? Did we not stand up against the colonial ambition of Italy and preserved our freedom? How could any one in his right mind think that we are going to give up our Ethiopian territory on the signature of Meles Zenawi, territory that we did not relinquish even when faced with the might of European colonizers?

Conclusion

This is a call for action. Do not doubt it, we are going to war. Meles Zenawi and associates are our enemies. They have done us great harm and will continue to do so as long as they are in power backed by a confused military. Meles has built himself a house of cards, let us call his bluff. He is sitting on a hip of explosive�the Ethiopian people. The first thing we must do is to clean our own house. We must liberate Ethiopia from Meles and associates, and only then we will be able to attend to our problem with the Eritrean government, the United Nations, and the community of Nations. To quote again the Letter of 12 January 2002, �No opinion, resolution, or treaty will deprive us our right to exist as an independent nation. We reserve our right of self-defense under international law and the Charter of the United Nations to protect our freedom, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Particularly we preserve our right to defend and keep safe our fellow Ethiopians who belong to �Afar ethnic� group whose ancestral home is the Afar coastal territories from Djibouti to the Dahlak Islands, as well as the rights of all Ethiopians in Irob, Tserona, and the Kunama south of the Mereb/Gash river.�

I am making the above statement with a heavy heart. I prefer to see people free from wars, famine, and oppressive governments rather than urging them to go to war. This is a choice that is agonizing and extremely difficult to make. But choose, we must. I have no particular hate for any Arab, Egyptian, Christian, or Moslem. My concern is the welfare of the people of Ethiopia who took care of me when I was a fragile baby, who gave me an identity at great sacrifice preserving my freedom, who made me into a human being with culture and a sense of beauty (and not any creature). The least I could do is to be the voice of so many who are unable to speak because of oppression, and to help all of us come together in our fight for our Ethiopia. Thank you. Freedom and justice for Ethiopia.

Dr. Tecola W. Hagos
February 9, 2002
Toronto, Canada