 |
| Search |
|
|
 |
|
The Security Council has adopted a resolution that imposes sanction over Eritrea. Following this, media outlets and analysts were busy commenting about the consequence of the sanction on Eritrea. It is amazing not to hear comments that question the legality of the adopted resolution. For practical reasons, however, looking into the legitimacy of the decision is better than worrying about its effects.
By all parameters the adopted resolution is illegitimate as the tabled accusations are baseless. The Uganda-tabled first draft resolution had claimed Eritrea to have supported Somali insurgents militarily, financially and politically. Moreover, the draft resolution has included a long-shelved file that accuses Eritrea of occupying Djiboutian territory. Despite being out of procedure to table different cases as one document, the Council tolerated this break of rule of procedure certainly in an attempt to appease those behind the motion who want to complicate the matter. But the claim “Eritrea arms Somali insurgents” did not last long as there was no evidence of arms shipment from Eritrea to Somalia. As such, although the “perpetrators” could not bring evidence that proves Eritrea’s financial support to “insurgents”, making use of its fluidity, the final draft resolution relied more on matters that suit confusion.
The very concern of the countries which masterminded this resolution was not peace and security. Rather, it was devised to achieve some kind of political goal. Few western nations and their African surrogates have long been devising a mechanism to attack Eritrea not because of what they call “its destructive role” in Somalia’s situation but due to the country’s unprecedented independent political line in black Africa.
The mandate of the Security Council was to serve as enforcing machinery, which international law lacks. But its undemocratic nature mainly attributable to the system of the veto power, and its permanent and non-permanent membership mechanism has complicated world politics. Instead of enforcing justice according to the rules of international law, the world body’s session hall has become a market place where national interests are traded. The final days of the resolution prove this. During those days the Security Council was busy negotiating interests. Some African nations agreed to sell their vote in exchange for bribe or tolerance from the super power for their “wrong doings” in domestic and regional politics. And perhaps some of the countries may have bartered their vote for genetically modified corn. But the major exchange of interests was between the permanent members. There is no doubt that the Five-P have compromised over Eritrea in a bid to narrow their divergent positions on other “major” issues.
By adopting a resolution that imposes sanction on Eritrea, the Security Council has blatantly violated international law. The following are some of the many questions that the world body should ask itself:
• If the Security Council sanctioned Eritrea for unfounded “occupation” of the Djiboutian territory, which, has an 18 months life span, why did it keep silent on Ethiopia that occupied Eritrean territory, which the International Court of Justice has given its verdict upon eight years ago?
• How does the arms embargo correspond with Eritrea’s sovereign right to defend its territorial integrity, and perhaps reclaim its occupied territory? Would not this decision encourage Ethiopia’s act of aggression, and be a threat to international peace and security?
In view of this, the Security Council, which inherently has a law enforcing mandate has itself violated international law. Unless the sanction on Eritrea is lifted soon, the decision will have dire precedence in the Horn of Africa and in the world as well, and may become a cause for further instability in the region.
© Copyright 2001-2009 Shaebia.org
Top of Page
|
|
|
Contributed Articles
recent additions
|
|
