The practice of States and the writings of eminent publicists show that self-defense cannot be invoked to settle territorial disputes.  In that connection, the Commission notes that border disputes between States are so frequent that any exception to the prohibition of the threat or use of force for territory that is allegedly occupied unlawfully could create a large and dangerous hole in a fundamental rule of international law. � Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Jus Ad Bellum Award, December 19, 2005

The above is one of the three opinions the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC) offered to rule in favor of Ethiopia and deny Eritrea�s arguments that it could not have initiated the border conflict in May 1998 because the disputed territory where the conflict was initiated (Badme) was ultimately awarded to Eritrea.

The question to the �eminent publicists� is: if the territory in dispute is not allegedly occupied (as was the case then) but demonstrably occupied (as is the case now), can a nation invoke the principle of self-defense to initiate a conflict, especially if all parties who took on the responsibility of returning the land refuse to do so?

The position of the Eritrean regime seems to be an emphatic �yes!�  Previous claims by the presidential Spokesperson, Mr. Yemane Gebremeskel, that Eritrea is justified to take by force its sovereign land as well as the recent declarations by President Isaias Afwerki to the AFP that �the border problem is a solved problem� are not just indications of hallucination given the reality in Eritrea; they are meant to lay the groundwork for any future conflict.  This is because they and their loud (but woefully misinformed) fans have a unique approach to international law: trial and error. They break the law and when they are admonished for breaking international law (as they did in initiating a conflict with Yemen and Ethiopia), they are not embarrassed by it and they don�t take responsibility for it.  When was the last time anybody was held accountable for the series of blunders?  Rather, they come to us seeking congratulations for calmly accepting their admonishment!    

Now they are testing a new principle of international law: if a nation is frustrated, can it continuously ratchet up provocation until its case is given a hearing?  The regime that invented �defeatism� and �pant-wetting� as national crimes is introducing another intolerable national injustice: �frustration.�   

But we seem to forget one thing: isn�t frustration exactly how the conflict was initiated to begin with in May 1998?  Wasn�t frustration with the pace of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border and trade committees of 1995 that gave us the war? Weren�t the Isaias-Meles letters of 1997 shown as evidence of Eritrea�s frustration? Isn�t frustration with the Ethiopian government what is behind the Isaias regime�s decision to arm every armed group in and around Ethiopia?    

Frustration is now presented as a prudent response to justifying dismissal of peacekeepers, grounding helicopters, violating buffer zones and being generally nasty to a party you begged to your own land.  In actual fact, it means nothing more than that the regime suffers from diplomatic ineptitude.  For a government that has been in power for 12 years, it is no longer excusable to use the �we are just fighters who came from the field, unschooled in diplomacy�.� It is not excusable to refuse to see the nexus between its own wanton disregard for Eritreans human rights while it makes humanitarian appeals on behalf of the IDPs, and then to be shocked by the indifference of the world.  It is not excusable to claim the two are unrelated. A world that sees your treatment of millions of innocent people finds it incredulous when you grieve over the fate of tens of thousands. It is naieve bordering on criminal to expect the world to lend a sympathetic ear when you insist on being nasty and brutish to every one every single day.  Even if Eritrea is right on the merits of the case, it is not likely to get fair hearing so long as it is ruled by the current lot.  In other words, the absence of a demarcated border is one more reason to kick out the government and not an excuse to retain it.

Faced with the frustrating and frustrated parties, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission has recently suggested that it will go on and demarcate the map by establishing �fixed points on the boundary to be connected to each other.�  The Ethiopian government has expressed its opposition, but this is baseless talk from a party looking for any excuse to declare the Algiers Agreement, on whose authority the EEBC ruling is based, null and void.  They are betting that Isaias Afwerki will continue to provide them the justification to declare it so, and his irrational decision-making process indicates that he probably will.

A meeting has been scheduled, one which will probably be boycotted by one or both parties.   We believe that the EEBC is justified in its decision and the Eritrean people will at least have a delineated and now demarcated map that officially tells them where Eritrea begins and ends.  The fact that there is no dispute on approximately 90% of the common border is a good beginning.  The fact that the 10% that is disputed is the most heavily populated is an opportunity for future actors to negotiate in good faith based on the EEBC map.  As the Pencil has indicated repeatedly, ultimately, it is not just about the land, but the people who have the right to live peacefully in the land.  This will only come about in a dialogue.  On the other hand, the Eritrean regime is betting that any future Ethiopian government it installs will be more sympathetic to its views.  It is fooling itself and setting us (and future generations) up for yet another rude awakening.

Refusal To Be Frustrated

Just like the Isaias regime�s diplomatic agenda seems to be driven entirely by frustration, many Eritreans� view of their opposition groups also seem to be driven by frustration.

True, given the very low regard that the Eritrean people hold the Isaias regime in, there should by a vibrant opposition group ready to articulate and address the grievances of the people.  True, no such opposition party or coalition of parties exists now.

But how we address this shortcoming should not be based on frustration.  Our next editorial will deal with this issue, including the recent developments in Sudan.  We should base our assessment on objective facts which include a police state that outlaws and brutally punishes dissent inside Eritrea; an intellectual class that refuses to share the burden; and a neighborhood with ever-changing loyalties.  No, the opposition groups should not be given a pass and their blunders and inaction should not be justified and apologized for and, when needed, they should be subjected to criticism.  But we should not be so frustrated that we lose perspective and place the criminal and the incompetent on the same footing.  Moreover, we should not be frustrated even with those who are temporarily frustrated, many of whom have proven their mettle when it counted. We should try to win them over. Our moral outrage should continue to be directed at those most responsible for the misery of the Eritrean people�Isaias and his clique.  It is not the opposition holding parents for ransom for their missing children: it is the Isaias clique.  It is not the opposition that is disappearing and torturing our youth: it is the Isaias clique. We need to keep our eyes on the ball.

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it