Let us begin with the problems of sourcing. As is usually done, the accuracy of the information gathered from external sources should be checked and counter-checked by consulting local sources, or the other way. To be able to do that, apart from professional training, one needs mastery of languages as well as of the relevant literature. While there have been outstanding foreigners who wrote about Ethiopian history in a professional manner, there have also been pseudo- intellectuals, who have attempted to re-write Ethiopian history, and whose writing has had no purpose except to advance the interests of those who financed their research. By simply relying on the information collected from the colonial archives, such “scholars” still profess to have written a history of Ethiopia without consulting Ethiopian sources. The Ethiopian viewpoint is not represented. After all, there are two sides to an issue.

In writing the history of the Horn of Africa before the colonial scramble, consulting the Chronicles of Ethiopian Emperors such as Amde Tsion [1312-1342], Dawit [1382-1411], Yeshaque [1414-1429], Zere Yacob [1434-1468], and Sertse Dingil [1563-1597] becomes crucial. What is worthy of note is that some of the chronicles are accessible even in foreign languages. For example, The Glorious Victories of Amde Tsion is available in German [Dillmann, 1884], in French [Perruchon, 1889], in Italian [Conti Rossini, 1900], and in English [Dr Huntingford, 1965]. Yet, let alone examine manuscripts in Geez, Amharic, Tigrigna or other Ethiopian languages, the supposedly “scholarly” works on Ethiopia have not even been provided depth and illumination from the translations. Although they appear in academic format, they are completely superfluous. It is evident that they have been produced to serve other purposes than to help advance knowledge and scholarship.

In historical terms, today’s Djibouti and Somaliland were part of the Ethiopian State centered in Axum. For example, the well known port of Zeila was one of Axum’s major outlets to the sea along with Adulis and Swakin. Since the Ethiopians invaded the Hedjaz and occupied Jeddah in 702 A.D, the Arabs were able to take the Dahlaque Islands and Massawa in retaliation. However, having recovered Massawa from the Arabs in 854 A.D, Ethiopia still controlled Zeila even in 977. It must be noted that the conflict between the Ethiopian highlanders and lowlanders which came later, was not continuous, but rather intermittent. Emperor Amde Tsion utilized Zeila in 1328 when he reduced the major Muslim principalities like Adal, and continued with Ifat, Dawaro, Hadya, and Fatagar, and made them tributary states. Negus Dawit resumed with the task of consolidating what was achieved by his illustrious father and established a system of frontier defence with regard to the principalities. Since Negus Yeshaque expanded the administrative facilities of Zeila, the port remained an important trade centre between Ethiopia and the Middle East even in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. As the Chronicles of Negus Yeshaque testify, the word “Somali” appeared for the first time in his victory celebration songs. What was began by the previous emperors, i.e., the conquest of what is now called the Ogaden, was completed by Emperor Zere Yacob (1434-1468), who defeated Adal and Mogadisho in 1445. As a result, the southern trade routes were secured. Thereafter, commercial centres like Mogadisho, Brava, and Merca became dependent for their prosperity upon the entrepot trade between Ethiopia and the markets of Asia.

Harar was built as a civilization by the Adere – an Ethiopian community, still there, and who speak a language that is very close to Amharic. In 1577, the Emperor Sertse Dingil (1563-1597) led an army of considerable strength and brought an end to Harar as a military power. On his way to the province of Enarya [ today’s Illubabor and Keffa provinces] , the same emperor paid a working visit to Gojjam, Damot, what is now called Wollega, Limu, Jimma, Hadya, Gurage, Kembata, and Bale. Sertse Dingil baptized the Enarya leader, Sebenhi, and his son Bedancho, and according to his chronicle, he gave the son the Christian name of Zemariam. Before returning to his capital, he reduced Enarya’s payment of annual tax by 50%.

With this background, let us turn now to the modern period. The British established themselves in 1887 in what was to become British Somaliland- a country of 180,000 sq. kms with half a million inhabitants, in order to find a source of cheap food supplies for their garrison in Aden, where they had 182 officers. They also wanted to control the strategic Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb, and to keep an eye on the French, who had already established themselves in Djibouti in 1884. Furthermore, the British occupied the Sudan in the 1880s and Kenya in 1890. Largely encouraged by the British, who betrayed Ethiopia, and in a clear breach of the obligations set down in the Adwa Treaty of 1884, the Italians took over Massawa in 1885, and what became Italian Somaliland in the 1880s.

Encircled on all sides by colonial possessions, understandably, the Emperor Menelik felt threatened. Having defined Ethiopia’s historic borders, in his 1891 Circular Letter to the European Powers, he said, “If distant powers come forward to partition Africa, I have no intention at all of being an indifferent spectator.” He meant what he said, when he challenged the Italians at Adwa in 1896. However, the pseudo-scholars have twisted his honourable stand by claiming that he was expressing his intention to participate in the partitioning of Africa. From the point of view of those of us who have studied Ethiopian history, what is remarkable about it all is that Menelik never took an inch of land which was not historically Ethiopian. Ethiopia’s determination and resolute courage to resist the unprovoked Italian aggression, and to be able to defeat Italy at Adwa more than anything else, explains the historical lies, distortions, intimidations, and the constant attempt to re-write Ethiopian history, because of the fear that Ethiopia’s stand will contribute to the anti-colonialist, nationalist, and Pan-Africanist sentiments.

In this respect, the British newspaper, the Spectator of March 7, 1896 wrote: “The Italians have suffered a great disaster, greater than has ever occurred in modern times to white men in Africa. Adowa was the bloodiest of all colonial battles.” France described Ethiopia as a country which could pose political questions of great importance. A French journalist viewed it in a similar fashion when he said: “All European countries will be obliged to make a place for this new brother who steps forth ready to play in the Dark Continent the role of Japan in the Far East.” We should note that Japan had defeated China in 1895 and Russia in 1905.

The Emperor Menelik was an able and far-sighted leader who could keep several irons in the fire. He needed the French to checkmate British ambitions, and the deep and abiding friendship of Russia whom he trusted very much, to stand by his side. Since the British could no longer rely on the Italians as their watch-dog in Northeast Africa, naturally, they had to deal with Ethiopia directly. As a result, all of them, i.e., Italy, France, and Britain felt constrained to make their own boundary arrangements. Hence, a year after Adwa, all of them had to negotiate a series of boundary agreements with Emperor Menelik and to establish boundary lines with Ethiopia.

Ethiopia and Italy agreed upon a boundary 1897 and marked it on two maps. However, it was claimed that the maps had disappeared and it led to serious disputes. In an attempt to settle the dispute, they entered into the Convention of 1908. Article IV of the Convention says, “That all of the Ogaden shall remain dependent on Abyssinia [Ethiopia]. To that end, a joint boundary commission was appointed in 1911 to mark the boundary on the ground. Demarcation progressed well, but because of the breaking of the war with Turkey, Italy did not want to continue with the demarcation of the border. With the coming to power of Mussolini in 1922, Fascist Italy came with a different political agenda, i.e., avenging the defeat at Adwa, and the possible colonization of Ethiopia, for which it was given a free hand by France and England. In 1934, Italy used the unmarked border as a pretext to occupy Walwal - an Ethiopian town situated 60 miles inside Ethiopia. When the Ethiopians fiercely resisted, Mussolini branded them “aggressors” for defending what was internationally recognized as Ethiopian territory. The defence of Walwal was the price Ethiopia had to pay in blood [1934-1941]. Italy used 800,000 soldiers, 600 aircraft, 400 tanks, 30,000 transport vehicles, and the extensive use of mustard gas to bleed Ethiopia to death. Some 40,000 Somalis, including the late Somali President Siad Barre were also mobilized in the invasion of Ethiopia.

In 1941, the entire Horn of Africa came under British Military Administration, except Ethiopia, which lent the Ogaden to the British so that as an ally they could use it as a base for conducting military operations against Germany, Italy, and Japan. The Ogaden was returned back to Ethiopia in 1948-49. When people say the British handed over the Ogaden to Ethiopia, may be they are referring to this situation.

Let me now put in a summary form why, in my view, Ethiopia’s borders with Somalia are internationally recognized and have been confirmed on ten different occasions from 1897 to 1988.

1. On July 28, 1897, when the Anglo-Ethiopian Boundary Treaty was affirmed by the British Parliament and duly ratified by Queen Victoria;
2. On June 16, 1908, when the Italian Parliament ratified the Italo- Ethiopian Boundary Treaty of 1897 and the Convention of 1908. Duly concluded, signed and ratified, it legally binds the signatory parties and their successors, either directly or by right of devolution;
3. In 1923 when the League of Nations registered these treaties (art.1, para.3 and art.18), by the very fact of Ethiopia’s membership to the League of Nations;
4. In 1934, when the members of the League of Nations accepted the 1908 Convention as the legal basis for solving the Italo-Ethiopian boundary dispute, and when Ethiopia went to war with Fascist Italy (1934-1941) in the defence of its eastern province;
5. In 1945, when the United Nations registered these treaties;
6. In 1950, when the United Nations General Assembly approved the Trusteeship Agreement of 2 December 1950, affirming that Somalia’s boundaries with Ethiopia shall be those fixed by international agreements. In so far as they are not delimited, they shall be delimited in accordance with a procedure approved by the General Assembly;
7. In July 1964, when the OAU Heads of State Summit in Cairo adopted the Resolution (AHG/Res.16 (I) on the inviolability of state frontiers;
8. In 1964, when the Non-Aligned Heads of State Summit in its meeting in Cairo also decided that existing frontiers should be maintained;
9. In 1981, when the OAU Heads of State Summit in Nairobi declared that “the Ogaden is an integral part of Ethiopia.”
10. In 1988, when the late President Siad Barre of Somalia singed an agreement in Djibouti with President Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia renouncing Somalia’s claim to the Ogaden.

Ethiopian Somalis who live in the Ogaden want self-determination. To that end, they invoke the December 14, 1960 United Nations General Assembly Declaration on Self-Determination, Res. 1514 (XV). Such a declaration, in the issuing of which Ethiopia was a party, was never meant to be used as a means of challenging the unity and territorial integrity of sovereign states, but to speed up the decolonization process in the African continent. For Ethiopia, therefore, the right of self-determination cannot have preponderance over the principle of sovereignty. Ethiopia should emphasize that Ethiopian Somalis, who live in the Ogaden Province, enjoy the right to govern themselves, to establish their own regional constitution, to elect their own representatives to regional and federal assemblies, and to use their language as a medium of instruction in schools, and in that way, they exercise the right to self-determination. One could add, for example, that if Somalia’s views on self-determination are to be taken seriously, it should be the first to recognize the Republic of Somaliland because the majority of the citizens of that country have already voted for independence.

----
The writer, Dr. Daniel Kinde, can be reached at ddkendie@pvamu.edu