STATEMENT BY HON.
BERNARD K. MEMBE, TANZANIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION DURING THE MEDIATION WITH THE HIGH LEVEL MEDIATION TEAM OF THE
TANZANIA- MALAWI BOARDER DISPUTE
SALUTATIONS:
Your Excellency, President
Joachim Chissano, Chairperson of the High Level Mediation Team,
Your excellences,
I bring warm
greetings from the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania under the
leadership of our President His Excellency Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete.
We would also like
to thank the high level Mediation Team, for the wonderful hospitality that you
have accorded to us since our arrival here in Maputo, Mozambique. My team and I
have faith in you and your esteemed panel and that in the end we hope to
resolve this problem.
Mr. Chair
My colleague from
Malawi, has maintained by the authority of Article I (2) of the 1890
Anglo-German Agreement that the border between our two sister countries is in
the shorelines. Now this is disputable. We have taken trouble to put in writing
a few times to the High Level Mediation Team.
And today, in this
meeting, we will be able to show, demonstrate and prove that in fact the only
logical way to resolve this crisis between Malawi and Tanzania is to put that
boarder on the median line.
….because even
common sense can sense, that this lake was not manmade, it was not made by the
Government of Malawi for its people. It was created by our Almighty God for all
of us, and the word us is Mozambique, Tanzania and Malawi.
There
can be no person on this earth, who can take ownership of, saying all this is
mine, particularly towards the international body of water that divides the
three countries.
You just cannot
have a claim to say all this water is mine. This is a common heritage; it is a
heritage of three peoples from the time of its creation to date despite the
intervention of the 1890 Anglo-German Treaty. It is a common heritage, and if
you want, it is a triple heritage given by God for these three peoples to
enjoy.
They have been doing
so, they are doing so and they will continue to do so. Because it is their
waters.
The best practice
has shown, that the 1890 Agreement Article I (2), were not conclusive,
…..and this team of
expert that I bring with me today will just confirm that the 1890 of
Anglo-German treaty article 1 (2), were not conclusive at all. The only article
that makes conclusion and that must be taken seriously is Article VI…. of the
Anglo German Treaty.
Article 6 raises
the conviction that the two powers must sit, taking into the account the local
conditions…
….And Chair let me
tell you something that you may not know, the debate in 1890 was the hottest
debate of the century. It was not easy to agree on the 1890 article II and I.
It just wasn’t
easy. People had brains at that time. And the only caveat that they put in
order to move forward, was to produce article VI in order to give powers of the
then at that time, and of the current time to be able to sit and make
rectification that fits the local conditions. Hadn’t there been an article six,
we wouldn’t be here.
And this Article VI
had been practiced; it was practiced in 1901, when the Songwe Dispute came
about. It was practiced in 1914 in Lake Jipe, even after the signing of this
treaty, which is controversial.
But elsewhere it
was also practiced; …it was practiced in the 1958 by the Aglo Portuguese
Agreement after the 1890, which shows you that the Article VI is so
fundamental, so fundamental indeed that the powers had to form the joint
boundary commission all the way to rectify the intolerable, and that is
what we need. And this is what we ought to legitimately do.
We would have done
this in the 1960s but how could we have done so when our two leaders of the two
powers, that is Malawi and Tanzania, were caught up in their ideological
liberation wars. While Tanzania was supporting the liberation wars in South
Africa, the leader of Malawi was embarrassing apartheid in South Africa and we
would never have anticipated that the two Presidents would seat together to resolve
this crisis.
And then came the
rhetoric’s, now my brother is quoting President Nyerere emphatically, I will
produce an answer here, but before I do so, let me remind the chair that
President Banda during the very same time, made very very explosive statements
on the boundary not only did he mention the boundary is on the shoreline of
Lake Malawi, far from it, he went beyond it, to even claim Ruvuma, Songea,
Mbeya, Njombe, as his area, as this boundary of Malawi.
We don’t hear them
now say that after this dispute they will now come to really undermine the
statement of President Banda claiming all this area as their establishment.
They don’t mention that. Why? ..because they sat down and said these political
statements can not make boundaries.
The political
statements of leaders cannot make boundaries, but they are very selective they
pick on what Nyerere said, not on what President Banda said. (With chuckles) I
wanted to ask my friend after this, are we going then to ask about Mbeya,
Ruvuma, Songea, or you have negated them?
….But let me come
to the answers to this question, cause the issue here is the statements made by
the political leaders or senior officials both before or after independence,
give title to Malawi of the whole lake. I will read to make this point for my
friend.
Your Excellencies,
The answer to this
question is in the negative, our position and that is Tanzania’s Position, is
established on the principle of international law that unilateral statements
made by senior political leaders are not legally binding upon the parties.
This
principle, was established by the International Court of Justice in the
boundary dispute between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali as it is
reported in the ICJ reports of 1996 in para 40 is relevant.
“Since no agreement
of this kind of conclusion between the parties, the chamber finds that there
are no grounds to interpret the declaration made by Mali’s head of state on the
11th of April 1975 as a unilateral act with legal implication in regard to the
present case.”
Therefore the
Tanzanian position is that boundaries are not affirmed by statements by senior
government officials, they are negotiated and agreed by way of treaties.
The mandatory
procedures, envisaged by the provision of the Article VI of the Anglo-German
Agreement cannot be abrogated by the statements of senior political leaders.
These conditions mandatorily require rectification of the boundary by agreement
and in accordance of the local requirements.
This is the answer
to the statements repeatedly put forward by my colleague with the respect of
the statement made by our late President Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.
…Now…as I have
said, we will put the case, we will reiterate our position of whether the
boundary required rectification as provided for under the Article VI of the
1890 Anglo – German Agreement.
We will put our
case clear of where the demarcation of the boundary was determined by Article
I(2) of the 1890 Agreement.
We will again
emphasize our answers on whether the boundaries is within the shoreline or the
median line and we have said it is right in the middle of the lake...... and
the argument here is very clear.
The 1964 AU
declaration does not stop and let me repeat does not stop any country which is
in dispute with its boarders to pursue this matter just because the declaration
say you must respect individual boarders.
You have more than
21 cases at the AU of boarder disputes …..that the countries must seat down,
and negotiate these issues. So the 1964
kind of declaration does not close the doors to resolve the boarder disputes by peaceful means.
As I have said, we
have a lot to do today, and I end here for my statement with a quote on AU’s
declaration.
Imetolewa na:
Kitengo cha
Mawasiliano ya Serikali kwa Umma
Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa
Kimataifa
No comments:
Post a Comment