Saudi Arabia should be expelled from
the UN & Ethiopia should take Serious
Diplomatic Measures
Ghelawdewos Araia, PhD
IDEA Editorial
November 12, 2013
The rape of Ethiopian women émigré and the physical assault and murder
of young Ethiopian men by Saudi thugs on November
11, 2013 is unacceptable, unconscionable, and
downright the height of brutality and savagery
unparalleled in recent memory. The attack
perpetrated by hundreds, if not thousands, of mob
gangsters against few innocent Ethiopians was
committed under the watch of the Saudi authorities
and the latter should be held responsible for the
injuries sustained by young Ethiopians and the
death of some in the so-called land of the
birthplace of Muhammad.
There is no doubt in my mind that the
Saudis, with the exception of very negligible
percentage of the population, have a deeply
engrained bias and hatred against Ethiopians
because the overall psychological makeup of the
people vis-à-vis Ethiopians is embedded in the
misconception of Ethiopian history and the false
image of Ethiopians and their values the Saudis
have perceived. This bias against Ethiopians is
manifested in many ways, including portraying
Ethiopians as Meseheen (literally,
followers of the Redeemer or Christians), and Al
Habesh Hanesh (Habesha/Ethiopians and snakes
are the same), and if we visualize the Saudi
gangs, who mercilessly attacked Ethiopians,
against the backdrop of the biased outlook, we
could begin to understand why these hooligans were
forcing the Ethiopian victims to verify their
identity. They were asking them in Arabic, “Enta
Habeshi; Enta Etsiobi?” The logical inference we
can make out of the insanity of the Saudi gangs
is, if he or she is Ethiopian, s/he must be
battered, raped, or killed.
Where did the Saudis get this jumbled bias
that made them act like wild beasts and take
unfettered measures against helpless Ethiopians?
One obvious factor that could have contributed to
the Saudis negative image of Ethiopians could be
the fact that Christian Ethiopians were
predominant in the socioeconomic and political
realms for thousands of years. I can’t think of
any other additional factor that could have
contributed to the irrational hatred of
Ethiopians.
However, one major factor that should have
made an input to the positive image of Ethiopians
by the Saudis is the historic connection of Saudi
Arabia with Ethiopia and also the linkage between
Islam and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian faith.
Paradoxically, it looks the Saudis are oblivious
of Ethiopia’s hospitality to the followers of
the Prophet in 615 CE in Askum; and these first
Muslims in Africa were well received by King Armah
of Ethiopia and found haven in the Ethiopian
highlands of the present-day Tigray. The thugs who
gave hell to the Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia are
probably ignorant of the Muhammad-Ethiopia
amicable relationship. Had they known what their
own prophet said, “Respect and protect Aksum and
live in peace with the native Christians,” they
would have restrained themselves from taking such
brutal actions against Ethiopians.
In the final analysis, however, whether the
thugs are knowledgeable of Ethiopian-Saudi
relations and/or are ignoramus in regards to the
ancient connection of Islam and Christianity in
Ethiopia is irrelevant. What matters now is that
the Saudi vigilante citizens who violently
attacked Ethiopians should be held to account to
their own government and the latter, in turn,
should be held to account to the world community
in light of international law.
The Saudi Government should be held
responsible for violating the UN Human Rights
Declaration, especially Articles 3, 5, and 7 as
they pertain to what happened to Ethiopian
emigrants. Article 3 of the Declaration clearly
stipulates, “Everyone has the right of life,
liberty, and security of person”, and Article 5
states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or
punishment.” Similarly, Article 7 declares,
“All are equal before the law and are entitled
without discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against
any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.”
It is abundantly clear that Saudi Arabia
completely trampled over the human rights articles
of the Declaration mentioned above. On top of
violating the UN Declaration, Saudi Arabia is also
known for its antediluvian practices against women
and against suspected criminals sentenced to death
and guillotined every Friday by the so-called Abu
Seyaf (sword man) on a public square. A nation
with backward medieval culture and in constant
violation of human rights should not be a member
of the family of nations at the United Nations.
The Saudis may not be held responsible for
what they do to their citizens, but they should
not walk away with murder when they attack and
brutalize other nationals. For this apparent
reason, the Ethiopian Government should file
charge against Saudi Arabia for the maiming,
assault, rape, and murder of Ethiopian citizens.
Moreover, Ethiopia should seriously reconsider its
diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia. Any nation’s
independence is tested by its performance in
securing the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the nation, and by safeguarding the fundamental
rights of its citizens.
It is understandable that it would become
technically amorphous for Ethiopia to deal with a
complex situation pertaining to the condition of
its citizens abroad, but it could at least ask the
Saudi authorities to bring the perpetrators before
justice (if there is one); it could freeze Saudi
assets (including the agricultural tracts) and
make preconditions to Saudi future investments and
interests in Ethiopia. These are the short-term
measures.
The long-term measures that Ethiopia could
take against Saudi Arabia in cooperation with the
United Nations will depend on the ‘Law of
International Obligation’ in general and
‘Responsibility of Injury to Aliens’ in
particular. In relation to these laws and
responsibilities, hundreds of cases could be
cited, but for the scope and purpose of this
editorial, I will only highlight some important
and relevant cases as discussed by Louis Henkin et
al in ‘International Law’.
For instance, in United States vs. Mexico
(1926), a case of Byron Everett Janes (US citizen)
killed by Pedro Carbajal (Mexican), the Mexican
authorities failed to take proper action. In other
words, Mexico failed to protect aliens and
prosecute people who wrongfully inflict injury on
aliens. In response to Mexico’s failure, thus,
the US sued Mexico and a joint commission was
established to investigate the crime. The
Commission stated some important themes like
‘damages suffered by persons’ and ‘damages
of the stamp of indignity, grief, and other
similar wrongs.’ Supporting these statements,
the Commission stated, “A state is responsible
under international law for injury to the person
or property of an alien caused by conduct that is
not itself attributable to the state.” The
latter statement is further reinforced by the
following two legal parameters: a) the conduct is
either i) criminal under the law of the state, ii)
generally recognized as criminal under the laws of
states that have reasonably developed legal
systems, or iii) an offense against public order
b) either i) the injury results from the failure
of the state to take reasonable measures to
prevent the conduct causing the injury, or ii) the
state fails to take reasonable steps to detect,
prosecute, and impose an appropriate penalty on
the person or persons responsible for the conduct
if it falls within Clause (a) (i)
From the above Commission findings and
holdings, it is quite obvious that Saudi Arabia
failed to take reasonable measures to prevent
injuries of Ethiopians by its citizens, and unless
the country takes measures to rectify and redeem
the criminal act against Ethiopians and we shall
have to wait and see if at all Saudi Arabia is
going to take steps to prosecute the persons
involved in the assault, rape, and murder of
Ethiopians.
One relevant theme that Henkin et al
discuss is the failure of states to apprehend
criminals: “Failure to exercise due diligence to
apprehend, or to hold after apprehension as
required by the laws of the State, a person who
has committed against an alien or any other alien
of the opportunity to recover damages from the
person who has committed the act.” In light of
this latter holding, Saudi Arabia could say, ‘it
was a mob act and it is hard to identify the
persons involved in causing injury and death to
Ethiopians’, but we like to remind the Saudi
authorities that we are in an age of social media
and high tech instantaneous video transmissions to
all over the globe, thanks to the internet. We
have seen the perpetrators, and their faces were
visible in high-resolution camera. If we can see
the criminals, Saudi authorities can identify them
as well!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
that I have mentioned above is the Preamble of the
Declaration, but if one reads the original law of
human rights of the UN Charter, signed in San
Francisco on June 26, 1945, Article 55, c, states,
“Universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all with out
distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion.” This one too is clearly violated by
Saudi Arabia because the mob and the police
actually attacked Ethiopians based on their race,
sex, language and religion. Based on the above
human rights articles and case studies with
respect to injuries of aliens, the Saudi
Government, without doubt, has violated
international law, and according to Henkin,
“Breach of a human rights obligation, like
violation of any international legal obligation,
is an international wrongful act for which the
international legal system provides remedies.”
Ultimately, it is not the paper work of
international law that matters. What matters is
its observance and implementation. All modern
states have produced brilliant and shining
constitutions that guarantee the basic and
fundamental rights of citizens, but in less
democratic societies, for the most part, the
constitutions could not become viable material
forces and as a result human rights are violated
egregiously. Some countries also adopt a paper
work that embodies the UN Declaration on Human
Rights to impress other nations, the UN, and also
for the sake of manipulating their impressive
constitution in an effort to lure donor nations.
Interestingly, in due course of my research, I
came across a good example of a fine human rights
regional charter short of concrete implementation
and that happened to be of the Arab League. Henkin
enlightens us in one of his notes as follows:
“The Arab League Council decided in 1968 (Res.
2443, 3 Sept. 1968) to establish a Permanent Arab
Commission on Human Rights. Its essential aim is
to promote respect for human rights, rather than
to take measures to protect it.”
If Saudi Arabia is not going to redeem the
wrongful act wrought against Ethiopians and
continues to violate international norms and
breach international law in relation to human
rights, the United Nations should consider to
expel the country and terminate its membership
unless and until it honors, respects, and
implements the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and
this by extension should apply to all other
nations that breach international law with respect
to human rights. Meantime, Ethiopia should
craftily utilize its position in the African Union
and mobilize African nations in its endeavor to
garner justice for the Ethiopian victims.
Incidentally, though the majority who were
targeted by the Saudi thugs were Ethiopians, other
Africans have also encountered same plights in the
birthplace of the Prophet.
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © IDEA, Inc. Dr.
Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for
constructive and educational feedback via dr.garaia@africanidea.org
|