Political leaders must steer clear of rhetoric and posturing to give peace a chance, not through saber rattling, but through an honest adherence to the rule of international law. No country, regardless of the political prowess of its Patron State, can be allowed to ignore international law.

Ethiopia and Eritrea have a unanimous international decision on their border. Before they embark on normalization, they have to close the chapter on demarcation, once and for all. Demarcation is a prerequisite for normalization; not the other way around. Demarcating a common border is a legal obligation two neighboring countries cannot escape; normalization of their relations on the other hand is a bilateral issue the two can choose to do. While the first is an obligation under international law, the second is a choice of goodwill: recognition of the need to live and interact in peace with each other as neighbors. A demarcation decision agreed before hand to be “final and binding” is not open to a “give and take” negotiation, while a broad ranging dialogue after a normalized relation is anchored precisely on “giving and taking.” This means the sequence of these three issues is ordered; one cannot permute them and claim they are the same. In other words, Eritrea's stand on demarcation followed by normalization and broad ranging dialogue is not the same as Ethiopia's broad ranging dialogue, followed by normalization, and finally followed by demarcation. The history of Eritrea’s dealing with Ethiopia is one replete with breaches of trust and treaties going back centuries that Eritrea cannot afford a broad ranging dialogue before a normalization of relations, and it cannot normalize its relations without an unconditional implementation of a “final and binding” border demarcation.

There are those who talk about “confidence building” steps, what better “confidence building steps” can there be than to adhere without qualms to the Decision of a neutral Commission set up by the two countries. Therefore, allowing an unconditional demarcation of the border is the minimum “confidence building” step Ethiopia can take towards normalizing its relation with Eritrea.

There those who are calling for "political dialogue between the parties" as a precondition for demarcation as well. They are in the wrong.  Once a decision has been rendered, there is no point in reopening the arguments. The judges have heard all the arguments, and have made their decision. It is time to move on. Observance of international law is not a choice: it is an obligation that all countries must abide by.  Thus, before Ethiopia asks Eritrea to engage in normalizations of relations, first it must vacate sovereign Eritrean territories. Speaking of "normalization of relations" while Ethiopia refuses to implement the final and binding border decision and is still occupying sovereign Eritrean territories, in defiance to the Commission's and UN Security Council's orders, is only asking to be rewarded for lawlessness. If the events of WWII have clearly shown the world anything, it is that appeasing countries that illegally occupy neighboring countries' territories only creates an insatiable appetite for more.

The government of Eritrea is saying that "Eritrea is prepared to consider normalizing its relations with Ethiopia and engage in any necessary discussions pertaining to normalization…..when a conducive environment for normalization is established." One of these "conducive environments" for dialogue and normalization is for Ethiopia to respect international law and to respect the territorial integrity of Eritrea.

Again let those who are genuine about peace insist on the respect of the rule of law and call for the expeditious demarcation of the border, then bilateral relations between the two countries would take their natural course. Normalization of relations is like love, it can neither be demanded nor legislated; it has to be earned. Fortunately or unfortunately, Eritrea and Ethiopia are destined by geography to share a common border, and as neighbors they would benefit if they normalize their relations, but normal relations are impossible while Ethiopia is in material breach of its treaty obligation under the Algiers Agreement. As a rapist cannot demand love from his victim, an illegal occupier such as the government of Ethiopia should not hope for normalized relations before it accepts demarcation unconditionally.

Deception World of Woyane listed! Once more, Ethiopia, by signing the Algiers Agreement, had willingly established the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, selected its members, and given it the mandate to delimit and demarcate its common border based on specific colonial treaties and applicable international law; it must now have the courage to consent to its final and binding decision. While it is difficult to accept the fact that it didn't get what it hoped for, it will be to its benefit to take "final and binding" to be final and binding and move on. Instead of asking for a secret meeting with Eritrea in hopes of getting normalization through the backdoor, let it allow demarcation, renounce its territorial ambition over Eritrea, and then count on the magnanimity of the Eritrean people to take the right step towards normalization and broad ranging dialogue. 
 
There is also the talk as if the Eritrea-Ethiopia border is any different from other borders around the world. As the EEBC Commission noted, "it is by no means unusual, for boundary delimitation and subsequent demarcation to divide communities." The unfortunate reality is that international borders do divide communities. African colonial treaty boundaries in particular are notoriously known for doing that. However, Eritreans had no say whatsoever on this boundary, Ethiopians on the other hand did. They were the ones who negotiated the border treaties with European colonialists (the Italians and the British). Specifically, the current Badme line was the result of an express request by the Ethiopians to divide the Badme plain into two. If it was up to the Italians and the British who co-negotiated the 1902 colonial treaty border for this sector of the border, their desire was for the border to go farther east so as to leave no Kunama communities inside Ethiopia. In addition to this, at the moment there are no Ethiopian villages that are divided by this international boundary line. The village the Ethiopian Prime Minister loves to talk about every time he opens his mouth about this sector of the border is called Sembel. Next time he mentions Sembel to any diplomat or journalist he needs to be asked: “where the name Sembel came from?” “who first established the village?” “what happened to the original inhabitants of the village? As its name clearly suggests, this village is a 100% Eritrean. The village was named after the very plain where the Asmara airport now seats on and its Eritrean inhabitants were “ethnically cleansed” when Ethiopia illegally occupied the village. Such are the stories of Ethiopia’s “divided communities” along the border then. As the Commission had noted repeatedly, all these excuses by Ethiopia are nothing but “obstructive actions taken since the summer of 2002” aimed at reversing the April 2002 Delimitation Decision. Similarly, the latest ploy of "farms being split from their wells" that is being repeated by the current Assistant Secretary of State for Africa is unimpressive; it shows how uniformed she is about farms in this part of Africa. It would have done a great service to the United States and her office had the Honorable Assistant Secretary done her homework well.
 
At the same time any problems that arise in the process of demarcation are not as intractable as the Ethiopian regime or Jendayi Frazer has the world believe. Ms. Frazer should know better.  Definitely, they are not problems that warrant going to war again. There are different solutions that can be agreed upon after demarcation and during the transfer of territories. Solutions such as construction of community facilities for those who chose to move across the international border; an agreement that allows members of these communities to have free access to facilities across the international border, or other mutually acceptable solutions that do not adversely affect the lives of communities along the border. It is precisely for these reasons and in search of such solutions that Article 4.16 of the Algiers Agreement had these words: "Recognizing that the results of the delimitation and demarcation process are not yet known, the parties request the United Nations to facilitate resolution of problems which may arise due to the transfer of territorial control, including the consequences for individuals residing in previously disputed territory."

Finally, it has to be remembered that, UNMEE, (The United Nations Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia) was created for a limited purpose; it was never meant to be a permanent arrangement. Thus, the issue of UNMEE shouldn't be confused with the main issue at hand: that of demarcating the border. Friends of Ethiopia would do all the people of the Horn great service if they use their influence to nudge Addis Ababa to obey international law. Eventually it is for its own good.

---