Extract from General Assembly Plenary Press Release GA/9478 36th Meeting (PM) 12 October 1998
Speaking in exercise of his right of reply, FESSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia) said that the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa was a very important topic. Conflicts in Africa really existed, and the current conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea was a reality. Ethiopia had been subjected to unprovoked aggression on the part of Eritrea. The representative of Eritrea had presented the usual litany about the character of the conflict. He had said that it was a border conflict. The reason for the conflict was not the border dispute, but aggression committed by one Member State against another, in violation of the Charter. Ethiopia was a victim of aggression. The aggressor had tried to present itself as a victim in today's statement.
Since 12 May, there had been attempts to solve the problem, he continued, although Ethiopia had never responded to the aggression in kind. A Committee of the OAU had submitted a report and none of its members had ever indicated that Ethiopia had been an aggressor. In fact, it was clear to everybody who the real aggressor was. Today's ploy was very familiar: the aggressor was trying to present himself as a victim.
The border conflict could be solved only through peaceful means. If somebody used force to solve a border dispute, the victim had the right to reverse the aggression. Concrete proposals had been submitted for the resolution of the conflict, but Ethiopia was not going to reward the aggressor, because that was not a path to peace. Ethiopia had never refused a dialogue with Eritrea, but it would engage in dialogue only after the aggression had been reversed. The best course of action would be to accept the suggestions of the third parties, i.e. to return to the status quo before the conflict. Those proposals were supported by the OAU and the Security Council. The OAU had outlined its own process within the framework of its committee on the matter. He called for a reversal of aggression and then the negotiation of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. His country would never succumb to aggression.
Also speaking in right of reply, Mr. MENKERIOS (Eritrea) said he hated to turn the Assembly into a court where declarations were made to an audience which did not have direct access to the truth. He wanted to take the representative of Ethiopia at his word. Instead of repeating the position of his country, he wanted to challenge the Ethiopian Government to agree to an independent investigation to determine who was the aggressor and who was in whose land.
Once again, Ethiopia had misrepresented facts, he said. There had been attempts in the past at reconciliation where political recommendations had been made. Investigation on the ground should take place before concrete proposals could be made. There had been no finalization of recommendations from the OAU. If there had, there would be no reason for the Heads of State of Africa to send a committee to examine the situation on the ground. The Heads of State had just invited the Heads of State of Ethiopia and Eritrea to come to Ouagadougou, where the findings of the OAU committee were to be presented. It was irrational to continue to insist that there had been recommendations which everybody, but Eritrea, had accepted. Eritrea was ready to cooperate with peace efforts by the OAU and African countries. The process was continuing, and he hoped that the Government of Ethiopia was also ready to continue with the process.
Mr. YIMER (Ethiopia) said that his opponent had at least referred to the facilitation efforts and to the OAU committee, as well as to their proposals from the Heads of State of the OAU. That was an improvement. The representative of Eritrea had said that the General Assembly did not have access to the truth. The truth was contained in documents available to the Member States. It was not hard to find. Independent investigation had already been done by the OAU committee, which had submitted its report to the member governments. He hoped it would not be an independent investigation by the Eritrean Government. There was a process, which had not been concluded, but there had been an investigation and conclusions drawn by third parties. The improvement was evident in the statement by Eritrea, but when it came to concrete actions, the Eritrean Government was not doing anything. Ethiopia was prepared to go all the way to solve the problem peacefully, but the aggressor should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his aggression.
Mr. MENKERIOS (Eritrea) drew the Assembly's attention to the fact that he had just heard a threat of the use of force, which had continuously been made by Ethiopia. That country had insisted that either Eritrea retreat from the land clearly within its borders, or force would be used. That was the crux of the matter from the outset. Eritrea rejected the use of force and was prepared for a peaceful solution. It was cooperating with the attempts of the OAU to present a report, but there were no finalized reports from the OAU. The Heads of State still had neither come out with their finalized report, nor given their recommendations.
Eritrea had guns pointed at its head: Ethiopia was threatening to evict Eritreans from their land, he said. Eritrea had been saying that in the interest of peace it was ready to demilitarize the disputed areas on both sides. An international monitoring body should supervise peaceful demarkation of the entire border after the demilitarization. Eritrea had a right and a duty to defend itself. Reliance on the use of force, threats and intimidation by Ethiopia were not creating a peaceful atmosphere.