Many Eritreans think that the only problem Eritrea is having is caused by the refusal of Ethiopia ("Weyane"!) to live up to the terms of the final and binding EEBC ruling and the international community’s lack of political will to compel Ethiopia to do so. But this is only half the story.

The other half is the gross incompetence of the Isaias regime in the fields of diplomacy. Since September 15, 2000, when the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1320 authorizing the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), the Isaias administration has manifested its detrimental policies in various forms. Broadly categorized, these include: (1) Policies that contradict the letter and spirit of the Algiers Agreement or subsequent UNSC resolutions; (2) Policies that disrespect the UN, as an institution; (3) Policies that are never explained and (4) policies designed for domestic consumption that generate the ridicule of the international community.

Many Eritreans think that the Isaias regime has been dutifully complying with everything it is required to do and conclude, as the government wants them to, that the treatment Eritrea receives must only be because the "international community hates Eritrea." But the negative image of Eritrea is a result of continuous missteps and provocations and the belligerence of the Isaias regime. Here are some examples:

• Contrary to the terms of the Algiers Agreement, Isaias has refused to sign the status-of-forces agreement for five years. Yet, all the UN has done, every quarter, was to remind Isaias to abide by his agreement.
• The terms of the Algiers Agreement also confer on UNMEE the sole authority to define the TSZ; yet, the Isaias regime has constantly disputed the southern boundary of the TSZ and has refused to grant UNMEE unfettered access to the adjacent areas.
• Contrary to the terms of the Algiers Agreement, the Isaias regime has not ceased, not even for a day, from embarking in hostile war of words with Ethiopia.
• The Algiers Agreement called on both parties to work for the prompt release of the prisoners of war, something both sides dragged on unnecessarily. Yet, when the Claims Commission submitted its findings, the UN reported:
  
  "The most serious issues of liability against Ethiopia were the failure to provide a proper diet and the delay in repatriation. The most serious issues of liability against Eritrea concerned the refusal to allow ICRC to visit prisoner-of-war camps between May 1998 and August 2000, failing to protect Ethiopian prisoners of war from being killed at capture and permitting pervasive and continuous physical and mental abuse." 
  
• When the UN Security Council passed resolution 1507 calling for political dialogue between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Isaias regime responded by recalling its ambassador to the AU. Eritrea remains unrepresented at the AU, a partner in the Algiers peace agreement. The call for political dialogue is no longer an Ethiopian invitation, which Eritrea can ignore; it is actually now part of a UNSC resolution adopted unanimously.
• Finally, when the UNSC delegated Axeworthy as an envoy and directed both parties to receive him, the Isaias regime blatantly refused. In December 2005, it also refused to grant an audience to Jean-Marie Guehenno, a diplomat dispatched by the UNSC.

The Isaias regime and its flunkies have made a sport of attacking the UN. This deteriorated to its nadir when Isaias himself, in an interview with Australian media, referred to UNMEE as "tourists" who "have nothing to do here." Other examples include:

• Whenever the UN attempts any effort that normalizes the relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Isaias regime is quick to terminate it.The Isaias Afwerki regime denied access and co-operation to the Norwegian Church Aid group which had begun a dialogue between religious leaders of Eritrea and Ethiopia;
• In 2003, the Isaias regime accused UNMEE of facilitating human trafficking;
• Also beginning the same year, the Isaias regime refused to recognize the "international character" of the peacekeeping staff and started rounding up for "national service" Eritreans employed by UNMEE (which is contrary to the 1946 convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations)
• The Isaias regime placed MPs outside UNMEE’s "outreach centers," in an attempt to intimidate Eritreans from "fraternizing" with UNMEE. UNMEE eventually closed the centers;

Then there are policies that "just happen"—no government representative, junior or senior, will explain them. The most recent was the grounding of the UNMEE helicopters and the selective expulsion of UN officials. Who knows, there may be some reason for pursuing these policies—but the Isaias regime wants to extend the same treatment it shows towards its own citizens—contempt—to the international body at large. Nor are these two high-profile cases exceptions, they are a continuation of many others including the following:

• In 2002, the Isaias regime expelled international demining agencies and refused to provide UNMEE the workplan of the Eritrean Demining Agency. Ironically, it is this government mismanagement that delayed the return of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs.)
• Whereas Ethiopia refused to grant UNMEE access to its radio stations unless it was paid (at least giving a reson), the Isaias regime exercised its trademark diplomacy of granting and denying access without any explanation;
• The Isaias regime continues to restrict, lift the restriction, then re-implement the restriction on UNMEE’s movement on UNMEE’s preferred Asmara-Barentu-Keren road;

On December 12, 2005, Eritrea’s foreign ministry issued a statement that has all the hallmarks of an Isaias letter: rude, incoherent and belligerent. Responding to the Ethiopian government’s pledge to redeploy its troops, the "Foreign Ministry" press release included the following:

The withdrawal or non-withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is a matter that concerns the Ethiopian government only and to which tune it can dance alone.

Yet, only a few weeks earlier, in a meeting with UN envoy Kenzo Ashima, Yemane Gebremeskel, the spokesperson for President Isaias Afwerki, had conveyed a message that is the exact opposite, as reported by the envoy himself:

I conveyed to Mr. Yemane the Security Council’s concern and urged his country to exercise maximum restraint. He deplored the military build-up by Ethiopia along the border areas as provocative

Then there are statements that are designed for domestic consumption for people who cheer up the presumed "standing up" to the world but are known by every informed person as empty boasts. For example, when President Isaias Afwerki accused Koffi Anan (in yet another ill-advised letter) of exaggerating the famine threat in Eritrea, it is an empty boast because no fewer than six UN/US agencies including:

1- WFP: World Food Programme
2- FAO: Food And Agricultural Organization
3- OCHA: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
4- UN Representative for Underdeveloped Nations
5- UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
6- USAID’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS-NET)

came to the same conclusion that the UN Secretary General had: that, rain or no rain, Eritreans are going to need assistance next year.

To those who wish to live in the cocoon of Eri-TV, the empty boasts and lies of the Isaias regime may be sufficient, but they are poor substitutes for facts. Is UNMEE supposed to believe the reassurances of the government that nobody gets rounded up and nobody died in Adi Abeyto, for example, or make note of the fact that some of its own employees are routinely rounded up and some may have died in Adi Abeyto? Is the UN supposed to believe the empty threats of the Isaias regime that it has the capacity to militarily retake Badme or is it expected to rely on its own assessment of the reality on the ground?

Of all the government policies, this tendency to lie, is the one that generates the greatest ridicule. The world is truly a global village and Isaias has managed to insult or alienate all of it. It is not by accident that most if not all of the UNSC resolutions are adopted unanimously: the Isaias regime has ensured that Eritrea has no friends.

Conclusions

The international community’s reluctance to compel Ethiopia to accept and implement the EEBC ruling is not governed just by geo-political considerations. The abysmal diplomacy of the Isaias regime contributed to the development of a situation where Eritrea’s only friends are outlaw governments like that of Libya and an environment where, five years after the last angry shots were exchanged, the border remains un-demarcated. The Isaias regime can continue on its isolationist policy and continue to receive a deaf ear. Or it can show, at long last, some maturity and show the international community some respect. Alas, given the record of this government, there is not much hope in this happening and Eritrea has to either wait for the brinkmanship policy of the Isaias regime (proxy wars in Ethiopia) to prevail or, conversely, for the Eritrean people to, at long last, relieve Eritrea of the PFDJ