Kosovo may declare independence Sunday

A report just now from the Agence France Press says that “Without giving their sources, several newspapers in Pristina reported Saturday that the declaration would come around 3:00 pm (1400 GMT) on Sunday to the strains of ‘Ode to Joy’, the anthem of the European Union. Street parties and fireworks would follow, although Prime Minister Hashim Thaci’s government — wary of a backlash involving Kosovo’s jittery Serb minority — is appealing for independence to begin with ‘dignity’. ‘Everything is pointing to Sunday’, a source close to Thaci’s government told AFP, as Serbia all but gave up hope of hanging onto the province it regards as the cradle of its culture and Serbian Orthodox religion. Expections are running high in Pristina that the United States and major European nations such as Britain and France will simultaneously recognise Kosovo’s independence from Monday. In Brussels, the European Union officially launched its so-called rule of law mission to help ease Kosovo’s transition to independence — even as the bloc’s 27 members were divided on how to recognize the new state. In the days after independence is declared, the EULEX Kosovo mission will begin a 120-day countdown to taking over policing duties from a United Nations mission, which will up stakes and leave. ‘We’ve had an office there (in Kosovo) for this express purpose since April 2006′, one EU official said Friday. A ‘planning team’ of more than 100 people has also been in place in Pristina for several weeks … EU foreign ministers will meet in Brussels on Monday to try to draw up a ‘common platform’ in response to Kosovo’s expected independence, one which does not include the notion of the bloc as a whole recognising the new state. EU leaders committed in December to help with a settlement on Kosovo’s final status, including economic and political assistance and by offering Kosovo the possibility of EU membership some time in the distant future”.

The AFP report also states that “Thaci’s government has reportedly ordered 80 tonnes of fireworks from Bulgaria for the occasion” — despite the fact that it also says “some countries will refuse, at least in the short term, to recognise the new state … Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain are among them, while others like Malta and Portugal would prefer that Kosovo’s future be decided in the UN Security Council where Russia has effectively vetoed independence”.

This AFP report has just been posted here.

The Associated Press reported from Brussels a little later that “The European Union gave the final approval Saturday for the deployment of a 1,800-member policing and administration mission in Kosovo … In a legal text published Saturday, the EU said the mission, EU-LEX, will ‘assist the Kosovo institutions, judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies in their progress toward sustainability and accountability’. It added that the EU’s administrative tasks would help in ‘further developing and strengthening an independent multiethnic justice system and multiethnic police and customs service … free from political interference’.”

The AP report added that “No EU nations objected to the mission, which will take four months to put in place, and is designed to help build a police, justice and customs system for Kosovo free of political interference. The force will include 700 police officers for patrols and who are trained in crowd and riot control. Judges, prosecutors and other legal experts would be sent to offer training and for administrative work. Although Kosovo is technically part of Serbia, the impoverished province of two million people has been administered by the United Nations since a brief war in 1999. The EU force will replace the U.N. mission now in Kosovo. Officials said earlier this week that the EU force could grow to more than 2,000 people besides 1,000 other non-EU experts from the United States and other countries … Cyprus lifted its threat to block the mission last week but along with other EU nations like Spain, Romania, Greece, remains opposed to recognizing the independence of Kosovo. EU Foreign ministers will hold talks on Monday to try to forge a common stance on Kosovo”. This AP report can be read in full here.

A posting on the Borderpoint group on yahoo (whose members discuss territorial and boundary issues) says that the Norwegian newspaper Aftenpost is reporting that “More than 100 countries are supposed to recognize the declaration“. Those who read Norwegian can check this out here.

It is not entirely clear, however, that (as the AFP wrote) Serbia — or at least official Serbia — has “all but given up hope of hanging onto the province”, or that it is prepared to gracefully concede … The AP report, by contrast, stated that “Serbia and Russia are against the EU mission, arguing it has no legal authority from the United Nations to deploy. The two also oppose independence for Kosovo, saying international borders can only be changed with the agreement of all parties involved.”

The McClatchy newspaper group, in a report datelined Pristina, Serbia (still),writes that “Casting a shadow over the country’s birth are the discontent of Serbia, which considers Kosovo to be its cultural and religious heartland, and the province’s Serbian minority, estimated to be about 100,000 strong of the 2 million population. They say they’ll never accept an independent Kosovo. Most Serbs identify with the Serbian Orthodox Church, while most Albanians are Muslims … In Kosovo’s north, the Ibar River divides the city of Mitrovica, a symbol of the deep fault lines that remain and the failure of international efforts to build a multi-ethnic state in Kosovo. Today the city is ethnically divided, with the region south of the river predominantly Albanian and the north almost completely Serbian. North of the river, the Serbian flag flutters over buildings and residents buy thick espressos with Serbian dinars from salaries and pensions paid by the government in the Serbian capital of Belgrade. In the south, the official currency is the euro, and residents carry U.N.-issued travel documents and drive cars with plates issued by the Kosovo government. There are no restrictions on movement in the city. But both Albanians and Serbs say they fear to cross the bridge connecting Mitrovica’s halves, which NATO peacekeepers watch over … If there’s trouble in coming days, it’s likely to be in Mitrovica, where tensions are running high. A small explosion Thursday night shattered the windows in a Serbian house on the north side … Many residents of Mitrovica, in both the ethnic Albanian and Serbian communities, now predict that independence will bring the de facto partition of Kosovo along the Ibar, with the northern area continuing to be administered as part of Serbia. Kosovo Serb leaders warned as much on Friday at a meeting attended by thousands in northern Mitrovica. Nebojfa Jovic warned that the international community could ‘forget about northern Kosovo’ if the declaration of independence went ahead. Serb leaders still hope they can halt the recognition of an independent Kosovo”. This report is posted here.

Nor can Russia cannot be expected to join in the celebrations — though it will let its displeasure be manifest mainly elsewhere and in other ways …

Given the line-up, the UN will be very happy at the eventual prospect of one day having a new member state …

Hariri Tribunal mandate

After the apparent assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus this week, a journalist (Benny Avni of the NY Sun, as it happens) asked if the UN will investigate this death, too. Here is the exchange, from 14 February daily noon briefing at UNHQ/NY — after which an clarification is later issued:

“Question: As to follow up on the question on the others in the Hariri case, which is a Security Council resolution, of course, that other related assassinations should be investigated by the UN. Does the UN plan to investigate the assassination of Mugniyah?

“Spokesperson: I have nothing beyond the statement today, Benny. The Security Council, as you say, the mandate stands. I have nothing further on this today.

[The Spokesperson later clarified that resolution 1757 (2007) states that the mandate of the Special Tribunal is to prosecute persons responsible for the attack of 14 February 2005 resulting in the death of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and in the death or injury of other persons. According to article 1 of that resolution, if the Tribunal finds that other attacks that occurred in Lebanon [emphasis added here] between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, or any later date decided by the parties (Lebanese Government and the UN) with the consent of the Security Council [emphasis added here too], are connected in accordance with the principles of criminal justice and are of a nature and gravity similar to the attack of 14 February 2005, it shall also have jurisdiction over persons responsible for such attacks. This connection includes but is not limited to a combination of the following elements: criminal intent (motive), the purpose behind the attacks, the nature of the victims targeted, the pattern of the attacks (modus operandi), and the perpetrators.]” This briefing transcript is available here.

UN talking tough about Eritrea's treatment of UN peacekeepers

Aletheia Kallos has alerted me to the latest development in “Eritrea’s actually still ongoing farewell bash for UNMEE” (the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea) — Eritrea seems to be blocking the UN peacekeepers’ movement, and cutting off their food catering. The UN SG had his spokespeople issue a statement at today’s regular noon briefing for journalists, and he convened a meeting with troop-contributing countries.

UN spokesperson Marie Okabe told journalists that the UN was “exploring contingency options to supply the mission with the food and fuel necessary to continue with the relocation of mission personnel and assets” — whatever that means. An airlift, or an airdrop? Or what?

In short order, the UN Security Council also convened an emergency meeting on the situation. The Security Council then adopted a statement strongly condemning Eritrea’s actions, and expressing deep concern — and it demanded that the government of Eritrea resume full cooperation with UNMEE.

Agence France Presse reported that “[UNSG] Ban ‘will speak to the Eritreans at the highest level’, said DPKO spokesman Nick Birnback. ‘We are doing everything that we can on our side, but without the consent of the host government it becomes very difficult to envisage a scenario in which our mandate can be implemented’. In a communique, the Eritrean Foreign Ministry said it could not discuss or acquiesce in the ‘temporary relocation’ of UNMEE or some other new ‘arrangement’ that is at variance with the provisions of a peace agreement. Under the 2000 Algiers peace deal which ended their two-year border war, Eritrea and Ethiopia pledged to accept as ‘final and binding’ a verdict by a UN-backed boundary commission on their dispute … In its final ruling, it granted Eritrea the border town of Badme, which Ethiopia has refused to accept, saying it split families between the countries … Asmara says the Security Council has failed to redress the situation and ‘ensure the removal of Ethiopian occupation of Eritrean territories in breach of the Algiers Peace Agreement and the UN Charter’. To show its displeasure, it has placed a number of restrictions on UNMEE, including a ban on UN helicopter flights in Eritrea’s airspace and its expulsion of UNMEE’s North American and European staff.” This AFP report is published here.

Here are the “highlights” (or notes) on the statement made by spokesperson Marie Okabe at today’s regular noon briefing:

* The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by the situation with the relocation of personnel and equipment of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), from Eritrea to designated relocation sites on the Ethiopian side.

* Since the beginning of the movement of UNMEE’s advance units on 11 February, not more than six vehicles have been allowed by the Eritrean authorities to cross into Ethiopia.

* A number of UNMEE vehicles were stopped by the Eritrean Defense Forces and prevented from crossing the border. In one such case, on 14 February, UNMEE personnel were threatened and the equipment seized.

* In a disturbing development, the Eritrean commercial company that provides rations to UNMEE has informed the Mission today that it will no longer be able to fulfill its contractual obligations. The Mission has only a few days of emergency rations left.

* The Secretary-General is in close contact with the Security Council and the Troop Contributing Countries, and the Eritrean authorities are being contacted at the highest level to seek an immediate resolution of this unacceptable situation.

* The Secretary-General calls on the Eritrean authorities to cease their obstruction of the relocation of UNMEE, with their equipment.

* The UN reiterates that this relocation is temporary and that Eritrea must immediately meet its international obligations to cooperate with the mission.

* The Spokeswoman later announced that the Security Council was holding consultations at 3 p.m. today in connection with Eritrea/Ethiopia.

* Asked for more details about developments in UNMEE, the Deputy Spokesperson added that the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field Support had briefed troop-contributing countries (TCCs) on 14 February on the relocation process. They insisted that Eritrea has an obligation to ensure that the peacekeepers relocate in dignity, safety and in an orderly manner, and also has to supply the fuel required for such relocation.

* The UN is conveying this demand to the Government of Eritrea and are exploring contingency options to supply the mission with the food and fuel necessary to continue with the relocation of mission personnel and assets, Okabe added.

* In response to a question, the Spokeswoman said the Secretariat had been given a mandate by the Security Council, which had in fact recently been extended by six months. In the meantime, UN peacekeepers in Eritrea are not able to carry out their mandated tasks, she said.

* In response to a further question, Okabe said the majority of UNMEE troops were stationed in Eritrea.

These “highlights” from today’s daily noon briefing at UNHQ/NY are posted here.

This time I felt it – Lebanon earthquake hit Israel today

I was working on my computer, when suddenly my chair began to swivel. Or it seemed that the room began to sway. Like riding in a car on the roads full of potholes here. Nothing fell out of the cupboards, though. The sensation lasted under a minute. It was 12:37 on my computer clock.

Now the Jerusalem Post has just confirmed my suspicion: “An earthquake was felt in many places around Israel Friday shortly after 12:00 p.m., including The Jerusalem Post‘s editorial office. No casualties were so far reported, Israel Radio said, adding that the quake was felt also in Lebanon”. This JPost report is posted here.

YNet news says it’s the strongest quake to hit Israel in a decade.

Haaretz now reports , with contributions from the Associated Press, that “An earthquake measuring 5.3 on the Richter Scale shook Israel early Friday afternoon and was felt mostly in the Coastal Plain… Tel Aviv resident, living on the second floor, said: ‘We felt the earth move. The bed was rocking, the doors were moving, and the chandeliers were swinging’. In the West Bank, An old house fell onto the main road in Kofin village west of Nablus, blocking it but not hurting anyone. The earthquake also shook Lebanon and Syria. Residents in some areas of Beirut left their apartments and went into the street after the first jolt shortly after midday, which lasted a few seconds. Five people were lightly injured in southern Lebanon, according to police. Residents of Damascus, the Syrian capital about a 2-hour drive away, reported feeling the quake as well. The quake’s epicenter was 15 kilometers northeast of the southern Lebanese city of Tyre. Local television stations reported the main force of the quake hit southern Lebanon where it damaged houses in two villages. Two small quakes shook Lebanon on Thursday night, according to the local media”. The Haaretz story is posted here.

So, just another reminder that we are all in this together.

UNMEE begins "temporary relocation" to Ethiopia

The UN announced that the main body of the UN Peacekeeping Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) has begin a “temporary relocation”, due to Eritrea’s blocade of diesel fuel supplies which poses a danger to the functioning and possibly to the lives of the peacekeepers. This “temporary relocation”, the UN says, is to “designated relocation sites on the Ethiopian side of the border”.

Is that clear?

In a rather sullen and sulky statement released Thursday, the UN rather undiplomatically pointed the finger at Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki.  The statement was issued in the name of UN SG BAN Ki-Moon by his Spokesperson (Michele Montas), and in it the UN also said that “Advance units of UNMEE started moving across the border, by road, on 11 February, while the main body started its relocation earlier today. So far, some of UNMEE’s convoys have been allowed to cross the border without any obstruction, while others have been stopped and later allowed to cross or asked to turn back. Yesterday, the Secretariat discussed with the Permanent Representative of Eritrea the arrangements for the relocation process. UNMEE is also engaging the Eritrean authorities in order to ensure that appropriate instructions are issued to the Eritrean troops in the TSZ [Temporary Security Zone] and officials at the crossing points, to facilitate the movement of our personnel and equipment. The Secretary-General stresses the important conflict prevention role UNMEE plays in promoting regional stability. However, without the fuel needed to conduct its operations, the Mission has been effectively immobilized and rendered unable to carry out its critical functions. The Secretary-General regrets that the relocation has become necessary, despite the letter he addressed to President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea on 21 January seeking his urgent intervention to resolve the situation”.   The full UN press release can be found here.

One of the dangers in the present situation is that Eritrea is being set up as the bad guy. This will only heighten already high tensions in the region. Is that what the UN really wants to do?

First China, now U.S. may shoot down its own space satellite

China shot down one of its own “old” space satellites in January 2007 — apparently with hopes of influencing debate at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, where China has been fighting for years to see work begin on a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).

The U.S. has refused, so far.

Russia has continued supporting China, to the amazement of many diplomats (particularly European), and Russia and China are pursuing their efforts to open discussions on the situation in space.

The two countries apparently fear that the “Star Wars” idea first launched by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan is somehow still behind both the U.S. efforts to deploy an international “Missile Defense Shield”, and the American refusal to discuss this in a disarmament forum.

As condemnation of China’s actions last year coalesced around outrage at the creation of space debris and pollution, China confirmed to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament that it had indeed conducted an anti-satellite test in outer space, and said that a ground-based medium-range missile was used to destroy an ageing Chinese weather satellite. At the time Germany’s Arms Control and Disarmament deputy commissioner Ambassador Rudiger Ludeking, speaking on behalf of the European Union, told the Conference on Disarmament that the EU “is very concerned about the recent test of an anti-satellite weapon. Such a test is inconsistent with international efforts to avert an arms race in outer space.”

One of the amazing things about last year’s Chinese “test” is that was the first time that a ground-based missile was successfully launched to destroy an orbiting satellite, as Asia Times reported at the time.

Now, in a scenario that could be as much a retort to the Chinese “test” last year as the basis for a thrilling disaster movie, U.S. President George W. Bush has apparently given the order to try to shoot down a faltering U.S. satellite that will fall to earth in the coming weeks. The intention, U.S. officials say, is to help avoid a serious accident. But, it also appears that the U.S. cannot resist the chance to try to meet — if not beat — what the Chinese accomplished by their “test” last year

CNN has just reported that “The U.S. military may try within days to shoot down a failed satellite using a missile launched from a Navy ship, officials announced Thursday. Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the window to accomplish the mission could begin in three to four days, and remain open for seven to eight. While much space trash and debris have safely crashed to Earth after burning up in the atmosphere on re-entry, authorities said what makes this 5,000-pound satellite different is the approximately 1,000 pounds of frozen toxic hydrazine propellant it carries. Without any intervention, officials believe the satellite would come down on its own in early March. If it came down in one piece, nearly half the spacecraft would survive re-entry and the hydrazine — heated to a gas — could spread a toxic cloud roughly the size of two football fields, Cartwright said. Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects the lungs and breathing tissue, the general said. The option of striking the satellite with a missile launched from an Aegis cruiser was decided upon by President Bush after consultation with several government and military officials and aerospace experts, said Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey. ‘After further review of this option and, in particular, consideration of the question of saving or reducing injury to human life, the president, on the recommendation of his national and homeland teams, directed the Department of Defense to carry out the intercept’, Jeffrey said. The goal is to hit the satellite just before it enters Earth’s atmosphere and blast it apart so that the hydrazine tank explodes. The smaller debris would be more likely to burn up in the atmosphere. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said there’s nothing the military can do to make the outcome worse. ‘If we miss, nothing changes. If we shoot and barely touch it, the satellite is just barely in orbit’ and would still burn up somewhat in the atmosphere, Griffin said. ‘If we shoot and get a direct hit, that’s a clean kill and we’re in good shape’, he added. Experts said that with three-quarters of Earth covered in water, there’s a 25 percent chance the satellite’s remnants will hit land — and a 1 percent chance they will hit a populated area…” This CNN story is posted here.

Another really interesting part about all this is that CNN reported earlier that “A U.S. official confirmed that the spy satellite is designated by the military as US 193. It was launched in December 2006 but almost immediately lost power and cannot be controlled. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor but the satellite’s central computer failed shortly after launch. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret … The satellite includes some small engines that contain a toxic chemical called hydrazine — which is rocket fuel. But Renuart said they are not large booster engines with substantial amounts of fuel. Video images of the satellite captured by John Locker, a British amateur satellite watcher, show it to be about 13 feet to 16.5 feet across. He believes it weighs a maximum of 10,000 pounds. Locker calculated its size with data on its altitude and location provided by other amateur satellite watchers, using the International Space Station as a yardstick. Satellite watchers — a worldwide network of hobbyists who track satellites for fun — have been plotting the satellite’s degradation for a year. They estimate it is now at an altitude of about 173 miles, and Locker believes it is dropping about 1,640 feet a day. Where it lands will be difficult to predict until the satellite falls to about 59 miles above the Earth and enters the atmosphere. It will then begin to burn up, with flares visible from the ground, said Ted Molczan, a Canadian satellite tracker. From that point on, he said, it will take about 30 minutes to fall”. This CNN story is posted here.

So, this satellite — an advanced spy satellite with a “sophisticated and secret imaging sensor” — was launched just weeks before the Chinese “test”. Hmmm, could there have been any link between these events?

The U.S. is taking a risk — but greatly increasing the entertainment value — by announcing its plans in advance. What if the U.S. fails (where China succeeded)??? And, even if the U.S. does manage the “kill”, what about all the space debris for which China was so roundly berated?

AP is reporting that “The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth … [O]fficials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris — some of it potentially hazardous — over several hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.” This headline AP story is posted here.

For comparison purposes, the earlier CNN report says that “In January 2007, China used a land-based missile to destroy a 2,200-pound satellite that was orbiting 528 miles above Earth. But the impact left more than 150,000 pieces of debris floating above Earth, NASA estimates. The space agency characterizes nearly 2,600 pieces as ‘large’, meaning greater than 4 inches across, which pose a potential threat to satellites and spacecraft. China is responsible for 42 percent of all satellite debris in orbit as of January 1, most of it from that Fengyun-C meteorological satellite. NASA has called it the worst satellite breakup in history”. This CNN story is posted here.

Now that Imad Mugniyeh is apparently killed, is the war on terror nearly over?

None of the commentators who have expressed pleasure at news of the apparent death of Imad Mughniyeh is apparently embarrassed at all to say how happy they are, that he deserved to die as he apparently did in a car bomb explosion (in Damascus), or that the world is now better off for all this.

Most if not all of these commentators would, I assume, also be ardent champions of the rule of law.

So, it seems to me that there is a contradiction here, about which there ought to be a somewhat greater degree of self-consciousness.

How can it be legal to carry out such targetted assassinations? Without any kind of legal proceedings — including impartial investigations and cross-examinations of evidence, and then public trials with guarantees of due process and proper defense — there is nothing to gloat and crow about here.

It might be more convenient, and even more entertaining, simply to off those who are conjured up as the great boogey-men of today, but it is not more moral or legal — or civilized.

We do not even know with any degree of certainty what this man actually did — we only know what unnamed intelligence or security sources passed on to some editors and journalists, who then published it as fact. Maybe Mugniyeh really was a fearsome, cruel and brilliant operative who committed horrible crimes. Maybe he was a nobody. We have absolutely no proof either way.

The only possibly even remotely good thing that could come out of such an ugly and hypocritical spectacle is that this awful so-called “war on terror” could be declared over. We could have annual rememberance days of its end, as we do of the armistices of World Wars I and II. And we could get back to leading much better lives than we did before this awful “war on terror” was declared.

"So the question is …

… [as Aletheia Kallos put it to me in an exchange of emails overnight] will the United Nations in the form of UNMEE (UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea) which was created to monitor and guarantee the Temporary Security Zone which was itself created to insure the separation of forces pending the demarcation also to be provided by the United Nations in the persona of the EEBC (Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission) Tribunal at the Hague even be able to acknowledge let alone enforce its own final and binding United Nations guaranteed demarcation — and if not, then exactly what does the United Nations think it is doing here?”

Well, I’m sure the UN, as usual, thinks it’s helping — it’s trying to keep things calm, cool things down, and hoping that soon the situation will get a lot better, mostly by luck … Other than that, the UN doesn’t usually have a clue. It is an impartial, objective, and neutral body, you see.  And anybody who has an agenda is usually obliged to dissimulate, or resort to subterfuge.

Actually, the UN, as ususal, is just making things up as it goes along, and hoping that everything will work out, because nobody would want to be embarassed by seeming over-the-top., would they? After all, we are all refined, well-brought and over-educated diplomats (without any excess of courage or orginality, and with mortgages to pay and children to put through school) who know exactly how to behave and what to do, arent’t we?

One question I have is: How would going ahead with an actual physical demarcation on the ground make Ethiopia any happier? The EEBC seems to have ruled in favor of Eritrea, and has said its decision on the boundary is final. Apparently because Eritrea refused to go along with a physical demarcation, the EEBC issued its list of geographical points that it says are the boundary.  But Ethiopia says this is just a “virtual” demarcation, and rejects it.  It does not seem to me any less clear or less binding than painting rocks medium-light blue (as in southern Lebanon) or whatever.

Another question I have is: why does the UN peacekeeping mission put Ethiopia ahead of Eritrea in its name? [UNMEE is, again, the UN Mission in (1)Ethiopia and (2)Eritrea]. By contrast, the arbitration proceedings [the EEBC – or Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission] put Eritrea first, apparently going according to correct and perhaps more impartial alphabetical order …?

Badme – a problem between Eritrea and Ethiopia

Upon request, Aletheia Kallos has very kindly gone to the trouble of supplying the following detailed information on the Badme dilemma:

“The Badme situation on another hand is not so easy to oversimplify. As I haven’t yet seen the recent EEBC (Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission) virtual demarcation maps I am still reduced to cribbing from older and coarser stuff like this (here) or questionable stuff like this (here).

But it is also possible to plot the pertinent EEBC turnpoint positions a good deal more accurately than that or than is presently shown at Google Earth, and after running an empirical boundary line segment there in between the pertinent endpoints one can scrutinize the satpic (satellite picture) for indications of exactly where on the Eritrean side of the boundary the main population center of Badme actually falls — and my attachments to the present message endeavor to do just this.

The first attachment pinpoints Badme in relation to the relevant EEBC demarcation turnpoints which are shown there by the red dots spanned by the white boundary line as extracted from this EEBC text here, and the second attachment then zeroes in on the immediate Badme area.

[Click on maps for larger image]

eret-at-badme.JPG

The yellow line in both attachments is the typically crude Google Earth rendering of the boundary.

badme-detail-1.JPG

But the bottom line is downtown Badme which is presently held by Ethiopian forces appears to fall nearly 2 km within Eritrean territory and the imploding tsz [Temporary Security Zone] — and the topological conundrum of this is once the de jure tsz does disappear on the Eritrean side and reemerges de facto behind Ethiopian lines and behind the Ethiopian border Badme will become de facto either an exclave or a salient of Ethiopia into de jure Eritrea and so what will remain to separate the opposing forces in this anomalous yet important if not to say pivotal Badme arena?

But again perhaps I am oversimplifying or overcomplicating …

Reference map if needed here, where the Badme area is near the northernmost point on the boundary”.

Reproduced with many thanks to Aletheia Kallos.

The latest report of the UN Secretary-General to the UN Security Council, S/2008/40, dated 23 January 2008, states that “The military situation in the Temporary Security Zone and adjacent areas remained tense during the period leading up to the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission deadline of 30 November for demarcation of the boundary. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia continued to reinforce their military deployments in the border area … I regret to report that the parties have not complied with the demands of the Security Council contained in its resolution 1767 (2007) of 30 July 2007, as specified in paragraph 43 below. In a letter dated 19 November 2007, addressed to the President of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, the President of Eritrea accepted the boundary demarcation by map coordinates, ‘as an important step torward towards the demarcation on the ground’, and urged the Commission to persist until the erection of pillars, ‘to bring the process to its natural conclusion’. Since then, President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea has repeatedly stated that the border issue has been ‘legally resolved’, and that Eritrea considered the border demarcated. He reaffirmed this position in an interview on the New Year’s Day, which was broadcast on Eritrean television on 5 January.

“Furthermore, in her letter dated 29 November, addressed to the President of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, the Eritrean Legal Adviser to the President acknowledged as ‘both final and valid’ the demarcation coordinates that the Commission has specified, while stressing that Eritrea also considered these coordinates ‘as binding as other Commission’s decisions’. For its part, Ethiopia has maintained its position that demarcation by map coordinates has no legal force or effect. In a letter addressed to the President of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission on 27 November 2007, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia stated that the ‘demarcation coordinates are invalid because they are not the product of a demarcation process recognized by international law’.”

The UNSG told the UN Security Council that the EEBC “reported that the parties have made no progress towards the implementation of the delimitation decision announced by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission on 13 April 2002. Consequently, on 30 November, the Commission sent the maps signed by the Commission members, indicating the demarcated boundary points (coordinates), to the Permanent Missions of Ethiopia and Eritrea to the United Nations”.

The UNSG also informed the UN Security Council that he proposed an actual demarcation — on the ground — of the border area, but that Eritrea is refusing. The UNSG said the President of Eritrea stated “that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission has terminated its functions by completing its work through ‘virtual demarcation’ and that ‘the boundary is demarcated’. The letter also states that ‘UNMEE [United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea] has now been left, after five and a half years, with no option other than ‘maintaining occupation’, and urges the Security Council to compel the evacuation of the ‘army and institutions of the Ethiopian regime occupying our sovereign territories to prevent other unnecessary developments’.” But, the UNSG told the Security Council, “the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia contended that the Commission’s virtual demarcation ‘has no validity in international law’.”

The UN should stop this business of celebrity "Good Will" ambassadors

This says it all.

The UN, or some brilliant minds working in the Department of Public Information, together with some media advisors placed within the Secretary-General’s office (not the present one, though he hasn’t done anything to change this disgraceful system), thought that the way to get “good” coverage of the work of the UN — in other words, good publicity — would be to enlist celebrities who would then endorse the world organization. In exchange, of course, these “Good Will” ambassadors would get their own good publicity, and a few expense-paid trips to interesting parts of the planet.

The real work of the UN, of course, is not always enough to get media attention — and of course, it is complicated, and things don’t always work the way one wants them to. So, the bureaucrats who run the place get scared, and their instinct is to ignore any embarassing problems. This is called a cover-up, in the real world.

These bureaucrats, all over-educated, are then left totally on their own to put out any fires that break out on their watch. (It would not be better, on the other hand, to spend years developing policies and panels to give guidelines etc., because this would simply provide a good excuse to freeze any initiative). The bureaucrats were solemnly told that the UN did not have any journalists working on its staff who could help …

So, let’s hype it up — a brilliant and fun idea, no? The press laps it up, too.

Now, there are well over a hundred of these celebrity types, speaking in the name of the UN, or of its myriad autonomous agencies who depend more directly on donations that spike when there is any news coverage at all…

Then what happens? Angelina Jolie goes to Davos, and the paparazzi can live for months on the proceeds. Mia Farrow was supposed to address the UN Security Council, to berate the members for not sending peacekeepers to Darfur! (This was called off, as cooler heads prevailed …)

And then, as Angry Arab reported on his blogspot, the celebrities think they can call the shots, and become policy makers.

Angry Arab wrote: “Nir Rosen sent me this, and insisted that I post: ‘when angelie jolie visited iraq as a representative of UNHCR in 2007 she also visited the al walid camp on the iraqi side of the border with syria. over one thousand palestinians who had lived in baghdad have fled there for protection from shiite militias. jolie received a call from american democratic senator kennedy telling her not to use the word ‘palestinian’ though. so she told UNHCR that they cant use it in their press about the subject. so the palestinians were referred to as iraqis instead. international officials were surprised that even the word ‘palestinian’ is taboo. UNHCR is very discouraged with her toting the american party line. in the 2007 trip she surprised the UNHCR officials, telling them that she wanted to visit the american soldiers. they were against this because she was there as an official UNHCR representative, and tried to explain to her how it would also endanger their staff in iraq by blurring the line between the UN and the american military. the international committee for the red cross was also upset, because as it is the line between humanitarian aid and the american occupation and military is blurred in iraq. her most recent trip to iraq was not even an official UNHCR trip. UNHCR was not aware that she was invited to baghdad and it was very embarrassing for them’.”