Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

Point 1: Historical ties of dominationPro has conceded that historical ties can not determine which nations have or have not a right to self-determination.The only historical ties that linked Eritrea and Ethiopia were of domination. It is no surprise that Eritreans, even keeping their "historical ties" in mind, want to make their own separate country.Point 2: Government vs StateMy opponent used the example of North Korea vs South Korea, saying that Since South Korea takes better care of its citizens, it should own all of Korea.My counter is that my opponent is confusing the difference between state and government. A state is a physical thing that can be seen and touched. It is the people who organize and run the administrations. The state is the thing that is visible on the map. A government is a political body that runs the state. The state is the horse, the government is the rider. Governments can come and go, usually through planned and regular elections, thus the rider can swap out for a new rider to take the vehicle of the state in a different direction. But the state is the absolute base.I agree that the Eritrean government is not the best, nor the most legitimate, however the question here is about the fundamental existance of the Eritrean state.Just because a country has a bad govenment doesn't mean that the people no longer have the right to their own country. Imagine, if countries with "better governments" could just outright annex others. That would be like the U.S.A. claiming that since the Mexicans can't deal with their drug trade and organized crime problems and corruption, the U.S. Army is going to take complete contol of Mexico and integrate it into the U.S.A. because America has a better government and can take care of Mexicans better.The Eritrean people have a right to their own country, and no one can take that away from them. If Eritrea's government needs to be replaced, that is an entirely different issue. Point 3: referendumMy Proof that Eritrea wants to be an independent country comes from no where else than the UN report (1)(2)The only sources that contradict the validity of the referendum are of, unsurprisingly, Ethiopian origin.Point 4: self-determinationMy opponent concedes that Eritrea was "justified in the war of independence". If a country has a right to fight for it's very existance, how is that different from the following Ethiopian-Eritrean War, when Ethiopian armies tried to undo the democratically chosen independence of Eritrea? If a nation is going to fight for its very survival, it is not surprising that it would resort to mass conscription. In fact, all total wars in history involved mass conscription on all sides, and not even all participants in total wars were fearful for the very existance of their nation.My opponent is trying to demonize the Eritreans for maintaining a strong stance on self-determination.point 5: on civil war"It would fail too. Ethiopia has 19,000,000 people compared to Eritrea's 3,000,000. Ethiopians have a lot more guns and technology. They already have defences within Ethiopia and Eritrea."This is a logical fallacy that more guns = more victory.Insurrections and guerrila wars have shown that even vastly superior firepower cannot hope to defeat a determined enemy in their home environment. Think Vietnam. Or Afghanistan.Even in an open conventional war, Ethiopia failed to conquer Eritrea, evidenced by the fact that after the peace in the late 90's, Eritrea is still independent.All these arguments still ignore the cost of war. No matter who wins, there will be a massive toll, the brunt of it be bore by Eritreans.point 6: nationalityMy opponent agrees that the region of East Africa is extremelt multiethnic, with many nationalities as evidenced by the statement: "Ethiopia's many ethnicities." What if one or two of these nationalities want their own nation? Are we to deny them? Even worse, are we going to take a sovereign nation that already exists and force them back into a nation they no longer wanted to be a part of?point 7: other argumentsI did not propose war. I proposed that the government should cede it’s territory and be disposed. this would be cause enough for war. The Eritreans would revolt, just as they did to get their independence in the first place.About sources. The pro has called into question my sources on the referendum. It is my turn to call into question the pro's sources on propaganda. In none of the articles provided is there any hint of Eritreans being fed misinformation in order to vehemently hate Ethiopia.Since the pro has provided ample evidence on off-topic human rights issues, I have determined that pro was unable to come up with proper sources proving that Eritrea worked hard to make the people hate Ethiopia and thus brainwash them into wanting to be independent.Since the people were not brainwashed, as the pro would have shown if he could, then their desire for independence is genuine.However, I will make a comment on the frivolities that pro attempted to pass for reputable sources (the first two in his cited section) by admitting that there are in fact some very interesting pop-art portriats of the revolutionaire Che Quevera. How this is relevant to the debate at hand, I can only wonder.On a more serious note, on the subject of sources, I have proven my sources to be impartial and neutral, as they come from well knwon and trusted organizations such as the UN and Freedom House. In return, I ask the pro to explain why we should trust his sources.Concluding StatementsNo matter their form of government, Eritreans have a right to their own state. Taking away their state because of their government is the same reasoning that imperialists have used for centuries, claiming paternalism, that "we are here to help", when in reality their objective is to exploit and oppress. How else would one explain Ethiopian war aggression against Eritrians, including civilian massacres (3), all to hold their grip on power over that land.Pro case: Oppression and the resulting civil wars that would occur.Con case: peaceful and bilateral cooperation for gradual improvement.Vote CONSources:1: http://www.freedomhouse.org...2: http://en.wikipedia.org...3: http://en.wikipedia.org...