This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ADDIS ABABA 003747 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR AF/E AND IO 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/01/2015 
TAGS: PREL MOPS KPKO ET ER UNSC EE BORDER
SUBJECT: ETHIOPIA CALLS FOR UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO TAKE 
PEACE-ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ERITREA 
 
REF: A. ADDIS ABABA 3725 
 
     ¶B. ADDIS ABABA 3711 
 
Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES VICKI HUDDLESTON.  REASON: 1.4 (D). 
 
¶1. (C) On November 1, Mr. Grum Abay, the MFA's Director 
General for Europe and America, presented Charge and P/E 
Counselor with the text of a letter dated October 31, 
addressed by Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin to the members of 
the UN Security Council and to UN SYG Annan.  Grum 
underscored the need to focus on Eritrea's restrictions on 
the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea's (UNMEE) and argued 
that UNSC consultations may be addressing the wrong issues. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In its letter, the GOE asserts that Eritrea's 
"provocative activities" are violations of the June 2000 
Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities and the December 2000 
Algiers Accord, and "a serious breech of an arrangement on 
the basis of which Ethiopia agreed to redeploy its troops." 
Eritrea's actions should therefore serve as "a valid cause 
for triggering the invocation of Chapter VII of the Charter 
against the violator."  In contrast, the GOE notes its 
continued support for and cooperation with UNMEE, and notes 
the Council's obligation to assist UNMEE and prevent its 
withdrawal.  The GOE reiterates its commitment to seek 
dialogue with Eritrea "for the implementation of demarcation" 
of their disputed border.  While pledging that Ethiopia "will 
not allow itself to be easily provoked by Eritrea", the GOE 
warns that "Ethiopia will nonetheless continue to be vigilant 
to protect its territorial integrity and to take all 
necessary steps in this regard". 
 
¶3. (C) COMMENT:  One such step the GOE is taking is the 
deployment of additional reserves.  On October 27, Ethiopia 
PM Meles Zenawi informed Charge that over the next ten days, 
Ethiopia would deploy an additional 30,000 troops to the 
border area, in response to concerns that UNMEE no longer 
served as an effective tripwire (ref B).  END COMMENT. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Full text of the GOE's October 31 statement to the 
UNSC follows below. 
 
BEGIN TEXT. 
 
October 31, 2005 
 
Mr. President, 
 
I have the honour to write to you to lay out my Government's 
view on the latest development in connection with the 
violation of the State of Eritrea of the Cessation of 
Hostilities Agreement of June 18, 2000 between our two 
countries.  The State of Eritrea has absolutely no 
justifiable reason for violating the integrity of the 
Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) and no valid justification for 
frustration over the status of the peace process.  The 
prevailing stalemate, despite Eritrea's protestation to the 
contrary and its feigned indignation, is its own creation, 
not that of Ethiopia. 
 
Ethiopia, Mr. President, has done everything in its power to 
ensure the full and expeditious implementation of the Algiers 
Agreement.  It is no secret, we were not pleased with the 
decision of the Boundary Commission.  That view, we will 
never change.  It would be mendacious on our part to state 
the contrary.  The decision was unfair, unjust and can be 
defended by no one familiar with the situation and who at the 
same time took his/her responsibility seriously. 
 
But all this, Mr. President, is behind us now. No matter how 
initially we may have been indignant, we have now, in the 
interest of peace and having weighed all relevant factors, 
decided to accept in principle the decision of the EEBC.  We 
have repeatedly stated that accepting the decision in 
principle does not mean going back to the drawing board, and 
it does not imply that we are introducing a pre-condition. 
Moreover, Ethiopia's request for dialogue in connection with 
the implementation of the demarcation is consistent with the 
international demarcation practice. 
 
The rationale for the Ethiopian position can be set forth in 
simple terms.  The crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea did 
not grow out of the dispute over the boundary.  Accordingly, 
it is either naive of dishonest to claim that normalization 
and durable peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea could be 
achieved with the completion only of the demarcation process. 
 There are some more weighty issues between Ethiopia and 
Eritrea which need to be addressed and which were at the root 
of the crisis between the two countries.  It is this 
conviction that prompted Ethiopia to present a comprehensive 
peace proposal which is still on the table. 
 
Ethiopia is committed to dialogue between our two countries 
for the implementation of demarcation, to achieve 
normalization and to address all issues that have been at the 
root of the crisis and which will not go away with 
demarcation of the boundary only.  We want to reaffirm to the 
Security Council our preparedness for dialogue with Eritrea, 
including at the highest level.  Dialogue, Mr. President, is 
not a favour that each of us make to the other, or to the 
international community.  In so far as both of us have 
primary responsibility for the demarcation of the boundary 
and for normalizing our relations, dialogue is an obligation 
that falls on both of us. 
 
It is seen in this light that the present tension 
deliberately created by Eritrea is so unfortunate and 
regrettable.  It is also fraught with danger. 
 
Eritrea, Mr. President, has always been confrontational and 
provocative.  The Algiers Agreement enjoins the two parties 
in Article 1, paragraph 1 "to refrain from the use or threat 
of force".  This obligation is the foundation of that 
Agreement and all other provisions set forth therein.  But 
Eritrea has repeatedly violated this key provision of the 
Algiers Agreement, the latest violation having taken place in 
the course of the general debate during the 60th Session of 
the General Assembly when the head of the Eritrean delegation 
used the General Assembly podium to put out a declaration of 
war against Ethiopia.  We did not respond in kind. 
 
But Eritrea's provocative activities have not been limited to 
issuing declarations of war.  It has not been only Sudan as 
well that has been at the receiving end of Eritrea's 
gangster-like activities.  Eritrea has been organizing, 
training, and then sending into Ethiopia all sorts of 
gangsters and terrorist elements to cause havoc in our 
country and to cause political instability.  Eritrea has been 
doing this without let up throughout the peace process. 
However, apart from doing all that is in our power to stop 
the infiltration from Eritrea, not once have we responded in 
kind to this war-like Eritrean behaviour. 
 
Eritrea has now taken its irresponsible behaviour to a new 
height.  The latest steps taken by Eritrea to cripple UNMEE 
and degrade its capacity for monitoring the TSZ, constitute a 
gross violation of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. 
 Here again, it is not for the first time that Eritrea is 
violating the integrity of the TSZ.  Eritrea has been 
bringing into the TSZ its regular army under the guise of the 
police and the militia beginning from the very establishment 
of the TSZ.  But the latest development represents a 
violation of greater magnitude, for what Eritrea has embarked 
upon is a massive violation of the integrity of the TSZ to 
the point of making the zone meaningless as a line of 
separation of the two armies.  Moreover, what is manifestly 
clear in all this is the Eritrean attempt to get the Security 
Council to do its bidding by holding UNMEE personnel hostage. 
 This should not be allowed to succeed. 
 
The Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities is unambiguous with 
respect to the obligation of the Security Council should one 
or both parties violate the commitment made to respect the 
ceasefire.  In Article 14(a) the Council along with the 
African regional organization (the OAU then, now the AU) have 
agreed to commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this 
commitment by the two parties through, as the Agreement puts 
it succinctly: 
 
measures to be taken by the international community should 
one or both of the parties violate this commitment, including 
appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the 
United Nations Charter by the UN Security Council. 
 
Accordingly, the violation of the ceasefire Agreement by 
Eritrea cannot be a valid cause for UNMEE to withdraw.  It 
should rather be a valid cause for triggering the invocation 
of Chapter VII of the Charter against the violence. 
One thing should be clear in this regard, Mr. President.  The 
TSZ is an area created, upon the redeployment of Ethiopian 
 
SIPDIS 
troops, and handed over to UNMEE by those same Ethiopian 
troops.  As such, the protection of the integrity of the TSZ 
has no substitute for peace.  As things stand now, let alone 
ensuring the integrity of the TSZ, UNMEE has been bereft of 
the capacity even to protest the security of its own 
personnel.  Notwithstanding all this, Ethiopia has taken no 
retaliatory action.  We have continued to co-operate fully 
with UNMEE.  We wish to seize this opportunity to reassure 
the Troop Contributing Countries and the Security Council 
that we will continue to do whatever is humanly possible to 
support UNMEE fulfill its obligation.  Ethiopia is fully 
aware of its heavy responsibility, and will not allow itself 
to be easily provoked by Eritrea. 
 
However, while always cognizant of its obligation, Ethiopia 
will nonetheless continue to be vigilant to protect its 
territorial integrity and to take all necessary steps in this 
regard.  We have both the capacity and determination to 
defend our legitimate rights and our peace.  We have been and 
we will continue to be patient and hopefully this would not 
be viewed as a sign of weakness.  But Ethiopia's effort 
should be supported by the Security Council.  The Council's 
responsibility for international peace and security makes 
this imperative.  We are at present in a situation where the 
TSZ has been undermined, and UNMEE's monitoring capacity is 
 
SIPDIS 
totally degraded.  The Council cannot ignore that this is a 
serious breach of an arrangement on the basis of which 
Ethiopia agreed to redeploy its troops.  UNMEE has an 
obligation to monitor the TSZ and the Council has an 
obligation to help UNMEE carry out its mandate.  It is also 
unwise and inappropriate to allow Eritrea to think that its 
attempt at blackmailing the Security Council by holding UNMEE 
personnel hostage, would work. 
 
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest 
consideration. 
 
SEYOUM MESFIN 
FOREIGN MINISTER 
 
END TEXT. 
HUDDLESTON