In the 18 July 2007 report (S/2007/440), the Secretary-General expressed deep concern “at the continued ‘stalemate’ in the boundary demarcation process” and strongly urged “both countries to take advantage of the Boundary Commission’s advice and assistance before it [the Boundary Commission] takes action to conclude its work at the end of November”. Furthermore, the Secretary-General drew both countries “attention to the Boundary Commission’s decision to convene a meeting with them on 6 September 2007”. Nevertheless, the observation portion of the Secretary General’s latest report neglects to mention this significant event, in spite of the 30 July 2007 Security Council Resolution (S/RES/1767(2007)), which highlighted the “importance of this [Boundary Commission] meeting”.

Demarcation is the core issue. Yet, the report does not reveal or explain, what transpired, during the Hague meeting. The same resolution of the Security Council stressed “the need for progress on demarcation” and it reiterated its call “upon both parties to cooperate fully with the EEBC [Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission], including participating constructively and with sufficient authority in the meeting to be convened by the EEBC on 6 September”. Eritrea responded positively to the call of the Security Council by reaffirming its commitment and by demonstrating flexibility to the concerns expressed by the EEBC. The report however, failed to welcome the flexibility Eritrea displayed at that meeting. Eritrea’s willingness to cooperate with the Boundary Commission on all accounts should have been recognized if not welcomed.

The Secretary General’s report omits Ethiopia’s failure to cooperate with the EEBC. The report also fails to make demands on Ethiopia in connection to the concerns raised by the Boundary Commission during the Hague meeting, in particular the “unqualified acceptance of the 2002 Delimitation Decision without requiring broader ranging negotiations between the parties”. Furthermore, the most serious omissions of the report were the fundamental and critical events that took place during the reporting period. In his account, the Secretary General evades any mention of Ethiopia’s current threat to withdraw from the Algiers Agreement (Ethiopian Foreign Minister’s letter of September 2007) as well as the country’s unscrupulous preparations for aggression and renewed hostility against Eritrea.

It is not clear why it was chosen to conceal this information. Nevertheless, the aforementioned issues should have been reflected in the report not only as matters for the record, but also as issues of concern to the members of the Security Council.

The latest report also appears to make demands, which are not a part of the Algiers Agreement, as it alludes to compromises on the demarcation decision. Employing such languages as “…to find common ground…” and “…to find a mutually acceptable way…” not only undermines the final decision already made by the Boundary Commission, but reverts the authority mandated to the Boundary Commission.

The Permanent Mission of Eritrea to the United Nations hopes that future reports of the United Nations would be balanced and impartial.

Permanent Mission of Eritrea to the United Nations New York
12 November 2007

---