የኢትዮ-ኤርትራ ድንበር ኮሚሽን ሪፖርትና ሌሎች ጥናታዊ ፅሁፎች እንደሚጠቁሙት የባድመ አከባቢ ለረጅም አመታት ሰው-አልባ ነበር፡፡ በአከባቢው ሰዎች መስፈር የጀመሩት ከ1950ዎቹ ጀምሮ ነው፡፡ የባድመ ከተማ በራሷ የተቆረቆረችው በወቅቱ የትግራይ አውራጃ አስተዳዳሪ በነበሩት በራስ ስዩም መንገሻ ድጋፍ ነው፡፡ ከ1950ዎቹ ጀምሮ አከባቢው በኢትዮጲያ ስር ሲተዳደር እንደነበር ብዙ ማስረጃዎች አሉ፡፡ ይህንንም የኢትዮ-ኤርትራ ድንበር ኮሚሽን በዝርዝር ገልጿል፡፡ ከ1950ዎቹ በፊት በነበረው ግዜ በአከባቢው በቋሚነት የሚኖሩ ሰዎች ባለመኖራቸው ምክንያት ባድመ የኢትዮጲያ ይሁን የኤርትራ በግልፅ መለየት አስቸጋሪ ነበር፡፡ ከ1950ዎቹ በኋላ ግን የባድመ አከባቢ ሙሉ በሙሉ በኢትዮጲያ ስር እንደነበረች ተጨባጭ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ ይቻላል፡፡ እ.አ.አ እስከ 1970ዎቹ ድረስ አከባቢው በኢትዮጲያ ሲተዳደር እንደነበረ የሚያሳዩ መረጃዎች እንዳሉ በድንበር ኮሚሽኑ ሪፖርት ተጠቅሷል፡፡ በአጠቃላይ ከ1984 በፊት ሆነ በኋላ የባድመ መሬት የኤርትራ አካል ሆኖ አያውቅም!
ኤርትራ ከተገነጠለች በኋላም ባድመ በትግራይ ክልል የተሓታይ-ዓዲኣቦ ወረዳ (Tahtay-Adiabo Woreda) አካል ሆና ቀጥላለች፡፡ ለዚህ ደግሞ በ1987 (እ.አ.አ በ1994) ዓ.ም በተካሄደው ሀገር-አቀፍ የህዝብና ቤት ቆጠራ የባድመ ከተማና አከባቢዋ ነዋሪዎች ተካትተዋል፡፡ የማዕከላዊ ስታትስቲክስ ኤጀንሲ ሪፖርት እንደሚያሳየው በ1987 (1994) ዓ.ም አጠቃላይ የተሓታይ-ዓዲኣቦ ወረዳ ነዋሪዎች ብዛት 79,832 ሲሆን ከእነዚህ 77246 ትግሬዎች (ተጋሩዎች)፣ 1928 ኤርትራዊያን፣ 1144 ኩናማዎች ናቸው፡፡ በባድመና አከባቢዋ የሚኖሩ ሰዎች 1,089 ናቸው፡፡ የባድመ ከተማ ነዋሪዎች 892 የነበሩ ሲሆን ከእነዚህ ውስጥ 734 ትግሬዎች፣ 157 ኤርትራዊያን እና 1 አማራ ነበሩ፡፡
“BADME AND THE ETHIO-ERITREAN BORDER: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMARCATION IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD” በሚል ርዕስ የቀረበ ጥናታዊ ፅሁፍ እ.አ.አ ባድመ የኤርትራ አካል ሆና እንደማታውቅ ከ1900 ጀምሮ በኢትዮጲያና በቅኝ-ገዢዎች መካከል የተፈረሙ የድንበር ስምምነቶችን ዋቢ በማድረግ ያስረዳል፡፡ ከዚህ በተጨማሪ፣ በ1987 ዓ.ም በኢትዮጲያ የተካሄደው ሀገራዊ ምርጫ የባድመ አከባቢ ነዋሪዎች ድምፅ ሰጥተዋል፡፡ ስለዚህ የባድመ አከባቢ ነዋሪዎች በተሓታይ-ዓዲኣቦ ወረዳ (Tahtay-Adiabo Woreda) ተመራጭ አማካኝነት በኢፌዲሪ የህዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት ተወክለዋል፡፡
ስለዚህ ሁለቱ ሀገራት “በድንበር ይገባኛል” በሚያደርጉት ክርክር መቅረብ ያለበት ማስረጃ ከ1950ዎቹ ወዲህ ያለው እውነታ ነው፡፡ በተለይ ደግሞ የአፄ ሃይለስላሴ መንግስት እ.አ.አ በ1947 ከኢጣሊያ ጋር ያደረገው የሰላም ስምምነት፣ እንዲሁም ኤርትራ በተባበሩት መንግስታት ስር በነበረችበት ወቅት የተላለፉ ውሳኔዎች፣ እንዲሁም በተጨባጭ መሬት ያሉ ማስረጃዎች በዋቢነት ሊጠቀሱ ይገባል፡፡ በአጠቃላይ ከ1950ዎቹ በፊት በነበረው ግዜ አከባቢው ሰው አልባ ምድረ በዳ ስለነበር የኤርትራ ይሁን የኢትዮጲያ ተጨባጭ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ አይቻልም፡፡ ነገር ግን፣ በውጪ ጉዳይ ሚኒስትር ስዩም መስፍን የሚመራው ልዑካን ቡድን የአልጄርስ ስምምነትን ተከትሎ ለተቋቋመው የኢትዮ-ኤርትራ የድንበር ኮሚሽን ያቀረበው የድንበር ይገባኛል መከራከሪያና ማስረጃ እ.አ.አ በ1900, 1902, እና 1908 ዓ.ም በአፄ ሚኒሊክ ዘመን የተፈረሙ የድንበር ስምምነቶችን ነው፡፡ ከዚህ በተጨማሪ፣ ከላይ በተጠቀሰው መሠረት ከ1950ዎቹ ጀምር ባድመና አከባቢዋ በኢትዮጲያ መንግስት አስተዳደር ስር እንደነበር የሚያሳይ ተጨባጭ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ አልቻለም፡፡ ሌላው ቀርቶ ከኤርትራ መገንጠል በኋላ በተካሄደው የህዝብና ቤት ቆጠራ የባድመ ከተማና አከባቢው ህዝብ በኢትዮጲያ ስር የተቆጠረ መሆኑን ማስረጃ አላቀረበም፡፡ ከዚህ በተጨማሪ፣ የባድመና አከባቢው ነዋሪዎች በ1987 ዓ.ም በተካሄደው ሀገራዊ ምርጫ ተሳታፊ እንደነበሩ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ አልቻለም፡፡ የኢትዮ-ኤርትራ ድንበር ኮሚሽን ሪፖርት እንደሚያሳየው በአቶ ስዩም መስፍን የሚመራው የኢትዮጲያ ልዑካን ቡድን ባድመ የኢትዮጲያ አካል መሆኗን የሚያሳይ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ ባለመቻላቸው ለኤርትራ እንድትሰጥ ተደርጏል፡፡ ሌላው ቢቀር ከኤርትራ መገንጠል በኋላ የባድመ አከባቢ ህዝብ በኢትዮጲያ ሀገር አቀፍ ምርጫና ህዝብ ቆጠራ ተሳታፊ መሆኑን የሚያሳይ ማስረጃ ከማዕከላዊ ስታትስቲክስ ኤጀንሲና ከምርጫ ቦርድ ማቅረብ በፍፁም አዳጋች ሊሆን አይችልም፡፡ ከዚያ ይልቅ፣ ባድመን ለኤርትራ አሳልፎ የሰጠው አቶ ስዩም መስፍንና ሌሎች የህወሓት ባለስልጣናት ናቸው፡፡ እነዚህ ባለስልጣናት በሀገር ክህደት ወንጀል መጠየቅ አለባቸው፡፡
የኢትዮ-ኤርትራ ድንበር ኮሚሽን ጉዳዩን በሚያጣራበት ወቅት የኤርትራና ኢትዮጵያ ውጪ ጉዳይ ሚኒስትሮች ያቀረቡትን መከራከሪያና ማስረጃዎች፣ እንዲሁም ይህን መሠረት አድርጎ ውሳኔ ያሳለፈበትን ሂደት ለማሳየት ከኮሚሽኑ ሪፖርት ውስጥ የሚከተለውን ቀንጭበን ወስደናል፡፡ በዚህ መሠረት ኮሚሽኑ አቶ ስዩም መስፍን ባድመ ከ1950ዎቹ በኋላ የኢትዮጲያ አካል እንደነበረች የሚያሳይ ማስረጃ እንዳላቀረቡ በግልፅ አስቀምጧል፡፡ ስለዚህ ባድመን የሸጣት ስዩም መስፍን መሆኑን በእርግጠኝነት መናገር ይቻላል፡፡
1.19 Hearings were held at the Peace Palace in The Hague from 10 through 21 December 2001, during which oral arguments and replies were heard from the following:
- For Eritrea: His Excellency Ali Said Abdella, Foreign Minister of Eritrea, Agent
- Professor Lea Brilmayer, Co-Agent
- Mr. O. Thomas Johnson
- Professor James Crawford, SC
- For Ethiopia: His Excellency Seyoum Mesfin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, Agent
- Mr. B. Donovan Picard
- Mr. Ian Brownlie, CBE, QC
- Mr. Rodman R. Bundy
- Ms. Loretta Malintoppi
- Mr. Dylan D. Cor
1.20 In the course of the written proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties:
On behalf of Eritrea,
in the Memorial:
For the reasons set out in this Memorial, which Eritrea reserves the right to supplement and develop further in subsequent pleadings and oral argument, it is respectfully submitted that the boundary between the two parties is that depicted in Figure 2.1 above and in Map 1 in Eritrea’s Atlas.
in the Counter-Memorial:
For the reasons set out in this Counter-Memorial, which Eritrea reserves the right to supplement and develop further in subsequent pleadings and oral argument, it is respectfully submitted that the boundary between the two parties is that depicted in Figure 2.01 in Eritrea’s Memorial and in Map 1 in Eritrea’s Memorial Atlas.
in the Reply:
For the reasons set out in this Reply, which Eritrea reserves the right to
supplement and develop further in subsequent pleadings and oral
argument, it is respectfully submitted that the boundary between the two
parties is that depicted in Figure 2.01 in Eritrea’s Memorial and in Map 1 in Eritrea’s Memorial Atlas.
On behalf of Ethiopia,
in the Memorial:
On the basis of the facts and legal arguments presented in this Memorial; and Considering that Article 4 of the 12 December 2000
Agreement provides in the relevant part of paragraph 2 that
The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law;
and in paragraph 10 that –
With regard to those portions of the border about which there appears to be controversy, as well as any portions of the border identified pursuant to paragraph 9 with respect to which either party believes there to be controversy, the parties shall present their
written and oral submissions and any additional evidence directly to the Commission, in accordance with its procedures;
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, while reserving the right
to supplement or amend these Submissions in the light of further
pleadings in the case, respectfully requests the Commission to adjudge
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1900 is constituted by the line described in Chapter 4, paragraph 4.7 above;
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1902 is constituted by the line described in Chapter 4, paragraph 4.8 above;
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1908 is to be delimited and demarcated on the basis of the modus operandi described in Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.216 to 3.223 and Chapter 4, paragraph 4.9 above.
in the Counter-Memorial:
On the basis of the facts and legal arguments presented in Ethiopia’s
Memorial and Counter-Memorial; and
Rejecting the Submissions of Eritrea set forth in her Memorial;
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, while reserving its right to supplement or amend these Submissions in the light of further pleadings in the case, respectfully requests the Commission to adjudge
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1900 is
constituted by the line described and illustrated in Chapter 2 of
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1902 is
constituted by the line described and illustrated in Chapter 3 of
this Counter-Memorial; and
– That the boundary in accordance with the Treaty of 1908 is
constituted in accordance with the methodology and considerations described and illustrated in Chapter 4 of this CounterMemorial.
in the Reply:
On the basis of the foregoing, and rejecting Eritrea’s contentions to the
contrary, Ethiopia confirms the Submissions as set out at the end of her Counter-Memorial.
In the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties:
On behalf of Eritrea,
at the hearing of 20 December 2001:
It is respectfully submitted that the boundary between the two parties is
that depicted in map 1 of Eritrea’s memorial atlas, the coordinates of
which are more fully described in the 1:50,000 map that Eritrea has
deposited with the Secretary.
On behalf of Ethiopia,
at the hearing of 21 December 2001: The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia respectfully requests the
Commission to adjudge and declare, first, that the boundary, in accordance with the treaty of 1900, is constituted by the line described and illustrated in chapter 2 of the counter-memorial; secondly, that the boundary in accordance with the treaty of 1902 is constituted by the line described and illustrated in chapter 3 of the counter-memorial; and, thirdly, and finally, that the boundary, in accordance with the treaty of 1908, is constituted in accordance with the methodology and considerations described and illustrated in the oral hearing
4) The Position after 1935
5.91 The Commission has examined the major elements in the course of events since 1935: the Italian invasion of Ethiopia; the outbreak of the Second World War; the British military occupation of Eritrea; the post-war developments including the treatment of the political future of Eritrea; the creation of the federation between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and the eventual termination of that federation. However, the Commission can perceive nothing in that chain of developments that has had the effect of altering the boundary between the Parties. The boundary of 1935 remains the boundary of today.
5.92 However, there is one specific body of material to which the Commission has given careful consideration, namely, the Ethiopian evidence of its activities in the area west of Eritrea’s claim line. The Commission notes that no evidence of such activities was introduced in the Ethiopian Memorial. The evidence to be examined appeared only in the Ethiopian Counter-Memorial. It was not added to or developed in the Ethiopian Reply.
5.93 The places in which Ethiopia claimed to have exercised authority west of the Eritrean claim line are all, with two exceptions, clustered in the northeast corner of the disputed triangle of territory. The most westerly location is Shelalo. The Commission observes that the area of claimed Ethiopian administrative activity comprises, at the most, one-fifth of the disputed area. The area of claimed administration does not extend in any significant way towards the Ethiopian claim line.
5.94 The Commission observes, secondly, that the dates of Ethiopian conduct relate to only a small part of the period that has elapsed since the 1902 Treaty. There are some references to sporadic friction in 1929-1932 at Acqua Morchiti. Apart from those, the material introduced by Ethiopia dates no further back than, at the earliest, 1951 – a grant of a local chieftaincy to an Ethiopian general. Even this grant, in specifying the places sought by the general, namely, Afra, Sheshebit, Shelalo, from Jerba up to Tokomlia, Dembe Dina and Dembe Guangul, described them as “uninhabited places” which the general wanted to develop. The evidence of collection of taxes is limited to 1958 and 1968. In 1969 there is a reference to a table of statistics about the Adiabo area, but of the places mentioned in the table only two appear to be marked on the Ethiopian illustrative figure of the claimed region. One item dating from 1970 refers to the destruction of incense trees. There is some evidence of policing activities in the Badme Wereda in 1972-1973 and of the evaluation of an elementary school at Badme town. There are, in addition, a few items dating from 1991 and 1994.
5.95 These references represent the bulk of the items adduced by Ethiopia in support of its claim to have exercised administrative authority west of the Eritrean claim line. The Commission does not find in them evidence of administration of the area sufficiently clear in location, substantial in scope or extensive in time to displace the title of Eritrea that had crystallized as of 1935.
5.96 The Commission’s conclusions regarding the 1902 Treaty line as a whole will be found in Chapter VIII, paragraph 8.1, sub-paragraph A.
CHAPTER VIII –DECISION
8.1 For the reasons set out above, the Commission unanimously decides that the line of the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is as follows:
A. In the Western Sector
(i) The boundary begins at the tripoint between Eritrea, Ethiopia and the Sudan and then runs into the centre of the Setit opposite that point (Point 1)
(ii) The boundary then follows the Setit eastwards to its confluence with the Tomsa (Point 6)
(iii) At that point, the boundary turns to the northeast and runs in a straight line to the confluence of the Mareb and the Mai Ambessa (Point 9).