On The Eve of 34th AU Head of State and Government Summit

The new Ethiopian allegations that Sudan occupies Ethiopian territory are groundless and a desperate attempt to throw dust into the eyes of the international community. Authenticated facts stand as a testimony that eastern borders of Sudan with Ethiopia have been clearly delineated and demarcated since the year 1903; and that the demarcation of the borders was completely agreed upon between the British government and the then Emperor of independent Ethiopia, Menelik II.

Documents confirming Sudan’s position are deposited with international and regional institutions and organizations. One of the most important and relevant of these documents is a copy of Menelik’s letter of instructions, written in Addis Ababa on November 7th of the year 1902, in which he instructs local chiefs, leaders and subordinates on the border line, to accept the demarcation made by Major Gwen.

Likewise, the new Ethiopian allegation that the previous regime in Ethiopia had secretly ceded Ethiopian lands to Sudan, equally passes no litmus test. In fact, it could appropriately be understood within the context of the protracted frenzied political rivalry between conflicting ethnic groups inside Ethiopia, where the struggle over land, remains its most prominent axis and manifestation.

Therefore, the remarks of the Ethiopian ambassador in Khartoum Yibtalal Amro, last December in which he implicitly accused Britain of having being prejudicial against his country regarding the 1902 agreement, was only an echo and prelude to other official voices openly rejecting the milestone agreement.

That however, embodies a serious paradigm shift on the part of the central government in Addis Ababa vis-a-vis its prior positions with regard to the common borders and perhaps a desperate attempt to disavow its prior obligations towards the otherwise binding agreement of 1902.

Ever since these borders have been drawn and delimitated in 1905, and as the minutes and records of the successive bilateral talks, including the last meetings of the Joint Border Commission in July 2020 do attest, the Ethiopian side has never ever submitted any formal claims or otherwise questioned the subordination of the region to Sudan, whether on bilateral or multilateral level.

On the contrary Addis Ababa i continued to renew its political commitment towards the agreement in different occasions; July-August 1955, June 1957, and July 1972 respectively. In fact, in 2010 the joint technical survey team, took a major step forward in the delimitation and emplacement of the markings of the common borders.

As a matter of fact, until recently, the official position of Addis Ababa continues to disassociate and distance itself from the abuses, havoc and encroachments inside Al-fashaqa area against the interests of Sudanese local population, pointing fingers instead to the elements, it (Addis Ababa) continued to label and incriminate as unruly and outlaw Ethiopians militias.

Such sudden transformation can be construed as an angry retort or a reaction to the successful redeployment operation of the Sudanese army in its eastern borders, liberating a large portion of

usurped Sudanese territories that were under the control of the rogue elements for more than two decades. The said redeployment was mainly driven by the increased encroachment in recent months in the form of armed attacks and ambushes, targeting Sudanese army positions and burning cultivated areas. In December 14^th 2020, a number of Sudanese army officers had been ambushed by “Ethiopian forces and militias” during a security patrol of the border region.

However, the most likely reason for such paradigm shift emanates from the fact that extremist elements amongst the ethnic group neighboring Sudan, have increasingly become more vocal and influential in the current decision-making process in Addis Ababa.

It is worth noting here that the ambitions of these elements in the Sudanese territories, mainly premised on outdate historical and ancestral claims, are not only confined to the current Al-Fashaqa region, but their literature reveals that it ironically extends rather more deep into the Gezira State in central Sudan.

Let there be no mistake, rejecting such a binding agreement arguing that it was signed by a colonial power, is too simplistic and fallacious in the first place, since Britain was then a colonial power in Sudan and not in Ethiopia; on the other hand, Ethiopia was an independent State whose Emperor Menlik II willingly authorized and ratified these maps in 1905 as documents stand out.

It is also necessary to emphasize that the Emperor’s approval and ratification wasn’t a favor for nothing; it came within the framework of a big deal; under which Britain agreed to annex large portion of Sudanese lands to Ethiopia, including the Benishangul region which has been famous for mouthwatering gold reserves and where Ethiopia is currently constructing its giant Renaissance Dam.

Therefore., s appropriate to reemphasize the fact that the authority that existed in Ethiopia at the time of the signing of the border agreement was a national authority represented by Emperor Menelik, while Sudan was a British colony, and the British Officer Colonel Quinn signed on its behalf. Logic and common sense gives Sudan, not Ethiopia, the right to protest the situation that resulted from the 1902 agreement. What an irony!

Sisterly Ethiopia, the AU headquarters State, as it nowadays hosting the thirty fourth Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union cannot continue to act as if, it was not signatory party to Cairo Declaration in a year 1963, which committed all African States to accept colonial borders; cannot continue to act as if it did not ratify the OAU Convention which provided for the acceptance of the borders drawn by colonialism likewise, Ethiopia cannot continue to act as if it has not a member of the African Union, which in 1998 adopted The Statute of African Unity which provided for the acceptance and inviolability of the borders drawn by colonialism.

Addis Ababa cannot have both ways; If it insists on its current intransigent and unconstructive stance, refusing to recognize these colonial agreements, then the principle of transparency and justice requires that it, in turn, give up all Sudanese lands, similarly and equally gained under these very colonial agreements.

The African Union has farsighted enough when it adopted in 2007 " The Border Plan" to facilitate and support the demarcation and marking of African borders, warning at the same time that the lack of delimitation and demarcation in Africa, gives rise to ‘undefined zones’, within which the application of national sovereignty poses problems, and constitutes a real obstacle to the deepening of the African integration process. Addis Ababa as AU headquarters State, is required to lead other member states by example not the otherwise.

Regretfully, that has not been the case; at the diplomatic and political levels, the basic modus operandi of the Ethiopian negotiators with their Sudanese counterparts, for the last two decades or so, have been marked by the elusiveness and keenness to evade long overdue obligations of border delimitation, by means of inter alia buying time, Stalling and delaying.

In the meantime, on the ground in Al-fashaqa, the so called Ethiopian out-lawed militias and bandits, have been systematically wreaking havoc and terrorizing local Sudanese population of Al-fashaqa region, turning their lives into a living hell, forcing them out of their homes and farms in fear of their lives.

In fact, since 1995, Ethiopian farmers have exploited - under the protection of armed militias - about two million acres of highly fertile lands (annually generating hundreds of millions of dollars in export revenues to Ethiopian treasury).

On their turn, the local Ethiopian authorities -in the full view of Addis Ababa- have been active in building many villages or rather settlements sustaining them with services and infrastructure, including electricity and tarmac roads, in its systematic and barefaced quest to impose the fait accompli or a de facto situation on the ground. Opening possibilities for politicians to make these false claims.

It is due to Sudanese leniency, hospitality or say laxity on the part different governments since independence, what has simply begun as a simple infiltration of a handful Ethiopian farmers in 1957, ready to pay their respective agricultural tax to Sudanese local authorities, gradually yet systematically inflated, ending up devouring about 95% of Al-fashaqa region in recent years, rendering it completely isolated and outside the reign of the Sudanese sovereignty.

Looking towards Brighter future, there is no room in modern Africa and even the modern world, for raising such obsolete claims of ancestral historical lands, as a ploy and excuse for the forcible seizure and acquisition of neighbors’ territories. Mixing facts with fiction should come to an end.

Addis Ababa is highly anticipated to follow words with action; meeting its moral and legal obligations in reigning in on elements that continue to disdain official and internationally recognized maps, manifesting disrespect and contempt to AU resolutions binding on all member States gathering today in the beautiful city of Addis Ababa.

Sudan will continue to believe in the historical and eternal relations between the Ethiopian and Sudanese peoples, and the importance of strengthening these ties in all areas of mutual benefits. Sudan believes equally in peaceful solutions of differences without necessarily abandoning an inch of its land. However, there should be no mistake, persistence of these hollow and illegal claims; featuring ancestral lands as title-deeds, shall constitute per se, an impediment to the peaceful resolution of the conflict. The ball in Addis Ababa's court.

Mubarak M.Musa

Former Ambassador