Awate Foundation - 467 Saratoga Ave.  PMB 500 - San Jose, CA 95129-1326 - U. S. A. 
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a two-year war (1998-2000) whose cause remains shrouded in mystery.  Whether this �senseless war� was due to the competing interests for hegemony by the governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia or even a personal conflict between the leaders of the hardliner cliques within the two regimes is a subject that will only be understood by historians in the future.  The regime in Eritrea informed Eritreans that Ethiopia had occupied sovereign Eritrean territory (Badme and environs)�without having to explain why Ethiopia was permitted to administer �sovereign Eritrean territory� for so long without the consent of the Eritrean people.  Similarly, the regime in Ethiopia saw a political interest in escalating what was then a minor skirmish into a full-fledged war.

The bloody and devastating conflict came to an end after both parties signed the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in June 2000 and the framework for comprehensive peace agreement (Algiers Peace Agreement) in December 2000.   The Algiers Agreement was the culmination of various proposals and agreements that were accepted in principle by both parties dating back to May 1998, when the �US-Rwanda� peace plan was proposed.   In Article 4.15 of the Algiers Agreement, Eritrea and Ethiopia agreed that the boundary between the two countries would be the one delimited by the Commission.   Both parties also pledged their obligations to treat the Commission�s delimitation resolve as �final and binding� and �to cooperate with the Commission, its experts and other staff in all respects during the process of demarcation.�

The Border Commission gave its delimitation decision in April 2002.  Since then, demarcation has twice been delayed by Ethiopian objections to the ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. Although the ruling cannot be appealed and both sides have agreed to respect the court�s judgement, regrettably, Ethiopia is backtracking from its previous pledge. The latest Ethiopian protest has not only fuelled speculation that the demarcation, which was scheduled for later this month, may again be postponed, but could also give rise to further conflict between the two countries.

On September 19th, in a letter from Prime Minister Melles to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Ethiopia asked to set up a new commission, saying the Border Commission was in �terminal crisis� and that its verdict to award Eritrea the village of Badme could lead to more fighting. That is a threat. The reason for the threat, which was referred to as a �crisis,� according to Ethiopia�s line of reasoning, is the Commission�s illegal, unjust and irresponsible decision on Badme.  The U.N. Security Council rejected Ethiopia's request on Oct. 7 and the president of the Boundary Commission, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, said the commission�s ruling was consistent with international law. Now Ethiopian officials are accusing the Border Commission of trying to �ridicule� the country in the Horn of Africa.

The intent and vision of the agreement was clear. It had clearly defined purposes, duties, responsibilities and commitments of all involved.  By signing the agreement both leaders gave their trust to the Border Commission and promised, in front of many dignitaries, that they would move ahead collaboratively to accomplish mutually agreeable outcomes. The lack of commitment from the Ethiopian government to the agreements gives expression to the unjust values which have darkened the peace path.

While acknowledging that:

• Both Eritrean and Ethiopian leaders are exploiting the situation to advance their gratuitous campaigns;
• The prevailing no war/no peace condition is ideal to both leaders political aspiration;
• Both governments are not in a position to find a peaceful and a lasting resolve to the obstacle;
• Eritrean and Ethiopian citizens are kept out from the course of action that leads to harmonious future co-existence;

The Awate Foundation is of the opinion that international law and the Border Commission�s adjudication should be upheld for the following reasons:

�         The adjudicators were chosen by both parties.

�         The adjudication process was clearly laid out and both parties gave their consent for its activation.

�         From the time the adjudication process got underway until its end, both parties were fully engaged.

�         The verdict was based on terms that both parties agreed.

�         Ethiopia did not put a condition that it will not accept the verdict unless it obtains Badme prior to the adjudication process.

Having expressed the aforementioned points, we Eritreans and Ethiopians should remind ourselves that while the bulk of the responsibility for the Eritrea-Ethiopia war of 1998-2000 falls squarely on the two governments, we as a people have contributed to its �inevitability� because both countries evidently lack civil institutions that could have opened dialogue to avert the crisis.  Both countries would have been better off if many of their religious leaders, scholars, professionals, students, writers and journalists had sought ways to offer alternative solutions rather than to echo the hateful propaganda of our governments.   

The Awate Foundation believes that it is shameful to rely on foreigners to feed us when we are hungry; to clothe us when we are unclothed; to shelter us when we are homeless; to arm us when we go to war; to bring us to mediation when we fight; to guard us from fighting each other when we make peace and then to compel us to honor agreements whose very terms we accepted.   The people of our respective nations have a right to expect better from us. 

Ref: 031003