DECLARATION ON THE SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF ETHIOPIA AND VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.WHEREAS there comes a time of national crises of such enormous magnitude that the very existence of a nation is at risk; at this point in our history, our beloved and ancient country is a nation straddling an abyss of poverty and pestilence from within, dismemberment and annihilation from without. Ethiopia is at a historic crossroads. In few days the Ethiopian-Eritrean Boundary Commission at The Hague will announce its opinion that will determine our future as an independent nation. It is not without reason that tens of thousands of Ethiopians in the Diaspora and those within Ethiopia have clearly stated in demonstrations, petitions, public forums, scholarly publications, national and international newspapers and magazines, electronic media, and other mass media the single concern of the survival of our nation; WHEREAS starting with the illegal secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia and its subsequent “independence” and membership in the United Nations, the Algiers Agreement of 20 December 2000, and all subsequent actions taken under that Agreement, including the establishment of the Ethiopian-Eritrea Boundary Commission at The Hague, and the involvement of the United Nations in facilitating and giving the cover of legitimacy to an illegal interference of the World community in the “internal affairs” of a sovereign state are all steps taken against the interest of Ethiopia; DEEPLY CONCERNED that the human, political, and economic rights of the people of Afar, Bure, Irob, Kunama (Adiabo), Zaleambesa and other regions have been put in jeopardy and threatened by the imminent decision of the Boundary Commission at The Hague that would result in the forceful denial of their fundamental rights of citizenship, habitat (country), culture, security, and economic and social development, which they are entitled to under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several other related international legal and other instruments; WHEREAS Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his government are in collusion with the leadership of the Eritrean government and do not represent the interest of Ethiopia in any of the international agreements, signed or being processed, that affect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ethiopia; CONDEMNING the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 as an illegal imposition on the people of Ethiopia whereby long dead and void colonial annexes, conventions, and notes are selectively resurrected as valid international treaties against the long standing dictates of fundamental norms of international law and practices; INSISTING that if one is to bring back to life long dead and void international instruments, it is only equitable and fair that not only annexes, conventions, notes be resurrected but also every treaty, agreement, understanding, exchange of notes et cetera, such as the 1896/1900 Treaty, between Ethiopia and Italy must be part of the decision making process by The Hague Boundary Commission, the United Nations Security Council, or any other entity; DISMAYED by the fact that the United Nations, reversing its own decisions of over fifty years, is now participating in an international deceit by rewarding a violent “liberation” movement with international recognition, independence, and Ethiopian territory; FULLY SUPPORTING the many demonstrations held in Ethiopia, and by Ethiopians worldwide, including the United States, Canada, and Europe, protesting the activities of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission at The Hague, and the involvement of the United Nations in the dismemberment of Ethiopia; INSISTING that the most important function of the Security Council of the United Nations is to keep and preserve world peace and not to create situations where conflict and violence becomes inevitable due to the illegal imposition on Ethiopia processes that would result in further dismemberment of Ethiopia, thereby leading to an unstable landlocked nation with over sixty five million people without their historic coastal territory and their territorial coastal waters of the Red Sea; EMPHASIZING that Ethiopia has unencumbered rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the people of Ethiopia reserve their rights of self-defense to protect their national security against anyone trying to impose conditions on their independence, redraw their historic boundary, or impose any form of limitation whether such interference comes from the United Nations or any of its members; NOW THEREFORE we the privileged few, who had been given great opportunities to learn and advance our knowledge through the enormous sacrifices of our families and the people of Ethiopia in general, and out of our great love and devotion to our nation and in humble gratitude towards all, have issued the following STATEMENTS and DECLARATION thereto in full solidarity with our fellow Ethiopians everywhere:
I. REGARDING THE ALGIERS AGREEMENT Viewed form the perspectives of good governance and democratic principles, values, and norms, it should be the expressed will of the people of Ethiopia and not a non-representative transitional government, which took power by the barrel of the gun, that should have the ultimate say as to whether Eritrea has ever been a colony of Ethiopia. The people of Ethiopia never regarded Eritrea as their colony, nor did they treat Eritreans as their unequal let alone as inferior to them. It was therefore a matter of absolute intellectual dishonesty on any body's part to allege that Eritrea had been a colony of Ethiopia. Eritrea has been an integral part of Ethiopia as evidenced, for example, by tax documents that were looted during the British expedition in 1868 from Meqdela. Those documents revealed that the inhabitants of the Karen area, what is now western Eritrea, as well as that of the main highland districts of Seraye, Hamasen, and Akala Guzay paid taxes to Atse Tewodros, as was the case prior to that period. Moreover, as evidenced by the 1884 Treaty between Ethiopia and Britain and Egypt, specially in its preamble, it is stated that not only the signatories, but also their "heirs, and successors" were bound by the terms of the Treaty that provides for the return to Ethiopia of the territories (that had been illegally occupied by the Egyptian aggression in the 1870s) in the Keren (Bogos) area. Thus, the Treaty of 1884 is a testament that Ethiopia had sovereignty over that region. Thus, the "independence" of Eritrea was a result of secession and not due to decolonization. It is well documented that the leaders of the rebels who headed the transitional government of Ethiopia in 1991-1995 had fought for many years adamantly supporting the secession of Eritrea. Moreover, it is now common knowledge that the former transitional government of Ethiopia, which has transformed itself into a "regular" government since 1995, has turned out to be an Eritrean agent. Thus, the creation of the new “Eritrean state” was not a process of decolonization but rather a secession fully supported by the people who are now in power in Ethiopia. Thus, all consideration of any claim of “self-determination” by any rebel group in Ethiopia must be distinguished from claims of “self-determination” made by people elsewhere who were under external oppression. The concept of “self-determination” leading to secession and independence is not a valid claim within a legitimate political structure such as the State of Ethiopia. The Eritrean rebel’s claim of colonization by Ethiopia was a propaganda ploy in order to garnish sympathy and support from the world community. The new leaders in Addis Ababa in collusion with their Eritrean counterparts have accepted that form of revision of historical facts in order to facilitate the dismemberment of Ethiopia and the independence of Eritrea. The new leaders in Addis Ababa exceeded their power because they were only a part of a transitional government at the time, and had no mandate from the people of Ethiopia to enter into any kind of international agreement that may have long lasting effect on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. The Algiers Agreement is one of the latest examples of the illegal activities of the current leaders in Addis Ababa. Furthermore, the OAU Summit resolution (AHG/Res. 16(1)), which was adopted in Cairo in 1964, is not applicable to the case of Eritrea because at the time the resolution on “colonial boundaries” was passed, there was no colony called “Eritrea” under either Ethiopia or Italy. That Resolution is not applicable to the case of Eritrea. Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement specifically mentions the "1900, 1902, 1908 treaties" as instruments on the basis of which there were to be a demarcation of borders between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Considering the precise nature of these "treaties" the Algiers Agreement is clearly disingenuous, and prejudicial toward Ethiopia, thus invalid and an unacceptable document to the Ethiopian people. The Algiers Agreement was thus fundamentally flawed because not only it was based on void, decadent and defunct colonial "treaties" and maps (vide infra), but also because it did not address several fundamental issues pertaining to:
The Algiers Agreement is also illegal for two other reasons: (a) It reverses the Peace Treaty signed by Italy on February 10, 1947. Italy renounced by that Treaty its right and title to Eritrean territory. The illegality of this action will also be raised later in the context of the 1896/1900 Addis Ababa Peace Treaty. (b). It reverses the United Nations Resolution of 1950 by which any colonial boundaries ceased to exist. It also reverses the principle the United Nations General Assembly recognized in its resolution 390(V), that is, the need to take into account the geographical, ethnic or economic consideration and in particular Ethiopia's legitimate right to have a sufficient access to the Red Sea; Thus, for all the reasons stated herein above, WE HOLD THE FOLLOWING TO BE TRUE:
II. REGARDING THE IRRELEVANCY OF COLONIAL TREATIES The reason why Ethiopians in the past fought bitterly against repeated foreign aggressions and against colonialism was to defend Ethiopia's sovereign right and its God-given natural wealth and resources. Between 1824 and 1896 alone, there have been registered about twenty seven foreign aggressions against Ethiopia. Ethiopian emperors had persistently repealed foreign governments’ attempts to colonize Ethiopia. In late 1800s, Emperor Johannes fought several wars against foreign governments who attempted to establish themselves in the Northern part of Ethiopia, the present day Eritrea. However, later on the European colonial powers adopted new strategy to partition systematically the African continent among themselves. They adopted duress, blackmail, deceit, and the signing of the so-called friendship ‘treaties’ that were later abrogated by European colonial powers, and used as a justification to takeover African territories. The scramble for African land was sanctioned by the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, which considered territories ruled by Africans as lands without an owner. Thus, the dispossession of Africans of their lands by European powers has manifested itself in a series of documents, collectively known as ‘colonial treaties’ that provided the basis for present day Africa’s political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily. Italy presumably concluded a number of treaties with Ethiopia in an attempt to gradually erode the country’s independence and sovereignty which Italy was forced to acknowledge when its plan to occupy Ethiopia by force failed in 1896 following its humiliating military defeat at the Battle of Adwa. With the exception of the 1900 treaty, the so-called colonial 'treaties of 1902, and 1908', mentioned in Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement, are not treaties at all. The 1902 'treaty' is an annex whereas that of 1908 is a convention. Both of them cannot stand alone without the parent treaty, i.e. that of 1896/1900. Independently, the two make no sense unless in reference to the main 1896/1900 parent treaty. Moreover, both the annex and the convention are disingenuous, and fraudulent unilateral papers that were never ratified, and thus with no binding power. Nonetheless these so called ‘colonial treaties’ of 1896/1900, and annex/convention of 1902 and 1908 that Italy was supposed to have concluded with Ethiopia were not intended to be binding instruments but they were disingenuous plans by Italy meant to coerce Ethiopia to cede more territories. In this way, Italy attempted to attain legally what she failed to achieve militarily. That Italy’s intention was not to be bound by these treaties is proven beyond any doubt by a series of subsequent actions that Italy undertook independently or jointly with other European powers, as evidenced by the following facts:
The 1935 Italy’s naked aggression and brutal occupation of Ethiopia, committed in violation of the 1896 Addis Ababa Peace treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenants of the League of Nations, and Italo-Ethiopian Twenty Years’ Treaty of Peace and Friendship, both signed in 1928, had made these treaties null and void. Furthermore, in Article 23 of the 1947 Peace Treaty that it signed, Italy had renounced all right and title to Eritrea, thus formally annulling the colonial treaties that were already invalidated by its wanton aggression. We, therefore, do assert in no uncertain terms that the so-called colonial treaties, which the United Nation Border Commission at the Hague decided to use as a basis for demarcating the border between Ethiopia and its former province Eritrea, have no binding power of any international agreement. In Africa their purpose was to provide the European powers a legal justification for the scramble of the continent, as sanctioned in the Berlin Act of 1884-1885. In Ethiopia, their objectives were by no means different: they were mechanisms by which Italy unsuccessfully attempted to fulfil its long-long-standing imperial aspiration to colonize Ethiopia. These treaties had become useless not only because of their continuous violations by Italy, as when it entered various secret and open agreements with the surrounding colonial powers, Great Britain and France, but, most importantly, by its 1935 invasion of Ethiopia in violation of the existing international laws and treaties. We want to inform hereby the United Nations our complete rejection of the demarcation of the border between Ethiopia and its secessionist Eritrea on the basis of defunct colonial treaties which had also become irrelevant by Italy’s repeated violations. In addition, the following events make colonial treaties further untenable. III. REGARDING THE ERITREAN SECESSION We recall that the 1993 secession of Eritrea has been in violation of the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. The secession has been implemented in total disregard to the same “colonial treaties” that the United Nations Boundary Commission upholds but which it selectively applies for the demarcation of the border in dispute. Eritrea has always been an integral part of Ethiopia before the arrival of European colonialists. It is on the basis of this understanding that the 1896/1900 treaty between Ethiopia and Italy demanded the restitution of the Eritrean territory to Ethiopia should Italy decide to relinquish it. This important piece of colonial treaty failed to materialize when, by the Peace Treaty of 1947, Italy renounced all its African colonial possessions. This goal was eventually attained, however, when Eritreans at their own free will decided to be reunited with Ethiopia in 1952 in a federation that had been sanctioned by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 390 (V), adopted the 2nd of December 1950. It is to be emphasized that this same resolution of United Nations General Assembly ended the decolonization of Eritrea, which was in abeyance since the signature of the Italo-Ethiopian peace treaty of 1947, and sealed once and for all Eritrea’s future destiny. Since then the United Nations had recognized Eritrea as an integral part of Ethiopia. Pursuant to Resolution 1514(XV) of the General Assembly of 1960 which recognizes the right of every state to territorial integrity, it passed various resolutions, repeatedly rejecting the demand of Eritrean rebels for the recognition of Eritrea as a colony of Ethiopia, and considering the Eritrean problem as an internal Ethiopian issue. The territorial integrity and independence of a state are declared inviolable by article 1(D) of the ANNEXE to Resolution 2625(XXV) of the General Assembly of 1970. Yet the Ethiopian transitional government, whose responsibility was limited to the writing of a constitution, has allowed Eritrea to secede from Ethiopia. As a government made up of rebel group which took power by sheer force of arms, the transitional government was unrepresentative. Therefore, it has acted ultra vires when it took, without any mandate, decisions prejudicial to Ethiopia's paramount national interest, such as the recognition of the independence of Eritrea. Therefore, we reject categorically and condemn strongly the arbitrary decision of the transitional government of Ethiopia to consider the1993 Eritrea's independence as decolonization after Eritrea had been officially decolonized over forty years ago by the United Nations resolution and, following the wish of the vast majority of the Eritreans, sanctioned its federation with Ethiopia. IV. REGARDING THE
ETHIOPIAN GOVERNMENT/PARLIAMENT We hold that the Ethiopian Government and Parliament, as institutions, have failed in their duties to protect and promote the interests of the people of Ethiopia. We hold further that the Members of the Ethiopian Parliament individually are responsible to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. We also acknowledge the fact that the Members of the Ethiopian Parliament, in almost all instances, were not elected through a democratic process. They were functionaries of the TPLF/EPRDF dominated political structure. They have acted as a rubber-stamping body with no autonomy. Nevertheless, they are still responsible for all of the problems of dismemberment, civil strife, and human rights violations that have been taking place in Ethiopia from 1995 to date. V. ETHIOPIA'S RIGHT
OF OWNERSHIP TO HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS TO SEA. Historically, the importance of, and the need for access to the sea have been well recognized even by colonial powers that ruled African states. For example, the prorupted form of boundary formation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) provides precedence to this fact. The boundary of Belgian controlled Congo, now DRC, was extended westward for about 500 km (300 miles) by the Belgians to provide DRC, the third largest nation in Africa, a permanent access the Atlantic Ocean. The projection extension divides the Portuguese colony of Angola, now independent Angola, from its northern territory of Cabinda, with a corridor of 50 km (30) miles wide. However, this measure taken in the 20th century has not affected the bilateral relationship between Angola and DRC. Similarly, in 1890, the Germans controlling South West Africa, now Namibia, carved out a 500-Km (300 miles) proruption to the east. The purpose of this proruption, known as the Caprivi Strip, was to provide access to the Zambezi River, one of Africa's most important rivers. Even after Namibia's independence from South Africa in 1990, the proruption has not caused a boundary conflict between independent Nambia and its neighboring countries of Zambia, Botswana and Angola. If the European colonial powers went to such an extraordinary length as to make an arrangement that would benefit their colonies, it is mind boggling that the current Ethiopian regime would give away Ethiopia’s natural sea coast. In the case of Ethiopia, not only the Afar region is the natural and rightful possession of Ethiopia, it is a historical fact that the Assab region formed part of the Ethiopian province of Wello during the reign of Atse Haile Sellasie. Moreover, the same region had become the Assab autonomous administrative region during the military government. Thus, when Eritrea became de facto independent in 1991, the Assab administrative region was not part of the province of Eritrea. It should be noted that the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Mr. Meles Zenawi, gives the unratified "1908 treaty" (vide supra, Section II) as his reason for abandoning the Afar region to Eritrea, thereby landlocking Ethiopia and violating the fundamental rights of the people of Afar. This is a travesty, and a naked attempt to dispossess the Ethiopian people of their God-given possession. WE THEREFORE HOLD THE FOLLOWING TO BE TRUE:
VI. THE UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE HORN REGION
We presume and hope that the primary function of the United Nations, an august body founded on nobly articulated principles and declarations enshrined in its Charter, is the maintenance of peace and stability in all the regions of the World. We further presume that there can be no durable peace and stability in the Horn of Africa, particularly between Ethiopia and Eritrea, when there is blatant injustice committed, as was the case in the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000. This Agreement was constructed on the basis of colonial "treaties", annex and/or convention that were based on fallacies and wrong doing, and we submit there can be no international legal opinion, nor any other moral, social or political ethics, that would justify the essence of that Agreement. The United Nations
itself is not above the law. It is also a subject of principles of
international law and custom, as well as the Charter that created it. Most
importantly, it must respect fundamental norms of international law and custom. The
principles of Jus Cogens and obligation erga omnes are equally
valid to all nations and international organizations. No State or international
organization on its own can change "fundamental norms of international law
or custom" such as principles of human rights (citizenship), sovereignty
and territorial integrity of states et cetera. Thus, we call upon the
United Nations to abide by and be governed by international law principles and
custom.
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, far exceeding his role as the Secretary General of the United Nations, facilitated the secession, independence, recognition, and admission of Eritrea into the United Nations. As any person may observe in a document that was prepared by the Secretariat of the United Nations issued in 1996 titled THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF ERITREA, it is clear that the Secretary General was involved in the distortion of facts, misrepresentation of history, and outright lies in order to facilitate the independence of Eritrea by dismembering Ethiopia. His activities go far beyond the independence of Eritrea, and were aimed at the destruction or marginalization of Ethiopia. It is clear that the Secretary General was not acting as a public servant of the United Nations, but as an agent of special interest group of nations that have been in the forefront of assisting Eritrean and other rebel movements with money, training, and weapon against Ethiopia. Thus, for all the legal and historical reasons raised above, it is with our utmost conviction that WE LET THE WORLD KNOW that: The United Nations' principles and functions have been compromised on the Ethiopia-Eritrea issue. But we firmly believe it is within both the moral and legal authority of the United Nations to handle the current Ethiopia-Eritrea problem fairly and judiciously. WE are deeply saddened that the good offices of the United Nations were misused to facilitate an anti-Ethiopia collusion in violation of all its past resolutions regarding the Ethiopianess of Eritrea. WE are in particular anguished that the United Nations has decided to sanction a border demarcation on the basis of defunct and void colonial treaties whereas it had in the past consistently rejected all demands to consider the Eritrean problem as a question of colonialism. WE believe that by accepting the demarcation of the border on the basis of defunct and void colonial treaties, the United Nations is not only backtracking on its past principles regarding colonialism which was considered as a European adventure in the Third World, but also it is illegally giving its imprimatur to the illegal and immoral waiver of Ethiopia's sovereign right of access to the Red Sea and the violation of the fundamental right of Ethiopians to continue to live in their ancestral homes. We are therefore resolutely opposed to this international collusion against the ancient and only independent country in Africa to force her to abandon its paramount national right and independence. We make it clear that such an illegal act against a founding member of the United Nations will never be binding on the Ethiopian people. We warn the United Nations that such a blatant injustice against Ethiopia is a time bomb for Future Ethiopian Generations will not be bound by any such impositions. We believe there can be no peace where the United Nations becomes an accomplice of an injustice committed against sixty five million Ethiopians. B. DECLARATION WHEREAS a great majority of Ethiopians have asserted that there are no "colonial treaties" that are morally acceptable and legally defensible; and WHEREAS they have asserted that the Algiers Agreement and its lamentable lack of transparency, and its attempt to selectively resurrect "colonial treaties", annexes and conventions that had been either nullified, or were rendered defunct or never existed/ratified should not be imposed on them; and WHEREAS despite these assertions, it has been reported that the settlement agreed upon is to be finalized outside of the court of justice, without any regard to jurisprudence; and WHEREAS by this stipulation the justiciability of Ethiopia's natural right of access to the sea has been compromised; and, the rights of the Ethiopian people to justice has been violated; and WHEREAS the violation of these rights to justice and the ultimate settlement, if based on the Algiers Agreement, is bound to deny the people of Ethiopia their economic, social and cultural rights, and in the final analysis, their fundamental rights to development; and WHEREAS in the face of such violations of fundamental sovereign and human rights even the non-representative and single-party-dominated (and what turned out to be anti-Ethiopian) “government” – both the executive and the legislative - should have had the moral obligation and responsibility to defend the interests and sovereignty rights of the country; and WHEREAS especially, in the face of such violations, it should have been the moral, ethical and constitutional obligation and responsibility of the single-party-dominated Ethiopian "Parliament" not to rubber stamp an AGREEMENT that was unjust and detrimental to Ethiopia’s national well-being, interests, security, and, above all sovereignty rights; and WHEREAS so far, even the single-party dominated legislative branch of the government – except for a handful minority -- has failed to defend the sovereignty rights of the nation and the human rights of its people; WE ARE THEREFORE
MORALLY, ETHICALLY AND SOCIALLY OBLIGATED TO DECLARE: That Ethiopia's natural right of access to the Red Sea is a common and God-given right of every Ethiopian citizen -- for which Ethiopians have paid extreme sacrifices over an extended period of foreign aggressions – and that this sovereign right cannot be decreed away by some irrelevant "colonial treaties". The Afar seacoast is Ethiopia's natural wealth and resource. Furthermore, because Ethiopia's seacoast is vital to its development and national security, Ethiopia's natural right of access to the Red Sea is an economic-social-cultural rights issue. And, given the fact that civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are interdependent, and the fact that economic, social and cultural rights are indivisible from civil and political rights, Ethiopia's predicament is inarguably a human rights issue. Moreover, we further declare: THE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ETHIOPIAN PEOPLE ARE INALIENABLE AND INVIOLABLE. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE AFAR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE THE INHABITANTS OF THE AFAR REGION EXTENDING TO MASSAWA, AND, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF BURE , IROB, KUNAMA (ADIABO), ZALEAMBESA, AND OTHERS TO REMAIN PART OF ETHIOPIA ARE INALIENABLE AND INVIOLABLE RIGHTS. It is a fact that any state, as an international person, is primarily constituted by its population and not by its government alone. When this principle is applied to the Ethiopian State as an international person, it is clear that the Ethiopian people, whose civil and political rights, and hence their human rights, have been violated by their own non-representative government, had not been represented at the deliberations leading up to the Algiers Agreement and at the deliberations of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission. Even worse, because the modus operandi of the International Court of Justice is apparently set up to hear grievances only from the so-called State, it has been already indicated by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission that it would not accept any grievances from any individual or group other than the Ethiopian non-representative "government". The overwhelming majority of the Ethiopian people have therefore been denied the right to present their grievances and therefore their right to plead for justice. We therefore declare to the citizens of the World: THAT ANY DECISION OF THE ETHIOPIA-ERITREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION CANNOT BE BINDING ON THE ETHIOPIAN PEOPLE. Furthermore, we also hereby appeal to the United Nations Security Council in particular, and the Members of the United Nations in general: TO UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLES AND DECLARATIONS ENSHRINED IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTERS SO THAT THE SOVEREIGN AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ETHIOPIAN PEOPLE ARE RESPECTED; and, TO LIVE UPTO THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO SUSTAIN DURABLE PEACE WITH JUSTICE. NOTE: Those who did not have the opportunity to be signatories of this Declaration may contact the Coordinating Committee at yesethiopia@yahoo.com to do so.
Back to main page! |