is no higher judicial body than the Boundary Commission
Oct 1, 2003
In his letter to the United Nations Secretary General on September
19, 2003, the Ethiopian Prime Minister has formally and unequivocally
announced his regime will not be bound by the rule of law and that
Ethiopia threatens to unleash war again, should there be any failures
in introducing alternative mechanism and wholesale change of the
In maligning the decisions as totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible,
the premier attempted to unjustifiably blame the neutral Boundary
Commission for the war the regime in Ethiopia plans to unleash.
The regime has vividly expressed its hostile stand, indicating that
it sees no other option but to pursue its adventurism if the regime's
demands are not met and the boundary commission does not entirely
change its verdict.
Parties, that were not familiar with the degree of intensive care
and incessant leniency of the international community, which eventually
spoiled the regime beyond limits, probably perceived the regime's
reluctance towards the implementation of the border delimitation
as a temporary sign of dissatisfaction on the part of Ethiopia.
It was based on the belief that the Ethiopian regime would sooner
or later be bound by the international decision that the world community
optimistically exerted efforts and made expenditures to facilitate
the peace process and the border delimitation.
This is why the international community could be transfixed with
shock to discover the regime's scornful attitude towards principles
and regulations honored by the international community. For the
government and people of Eritrea, who are totally acquainted with
the regime's disturbed mentality and its evil nature, however, such
a revelation does not come as a surprise.
The regime lacked any solid reason for launching its offensives
against Eritrea in the first place. The people and government of
Eritrea had been fully aware from the onset that neither Badme nor
any border issue had been the root cause for the regime's malevolence.
Neither did the people of Ethiopia, who bore the brunt of war for
almost an eternity pressure the regime to invade Eritrea and retrieve
Badme. Nor was the case presented before an international court
because of the Ethiopian regime's good will towards arbitration.
On the contrary, it was the people of Eritrea's stiff resistance
that compelled the regime's leaders to bow down to peace.
Like President Isaias Afwerki said, "the TPLF's singular objective
was to inflict military humiliation on the Eritrean people and dehumanize
them, frustrate their efforts for economic development and prosperity,
and reduce them to a third/fourth-class people and country. Such
a 'heroic and pompous' achievement would, the TPLF presumed, further
bolster its status and monopoly of power in Ethiopia and permanently
secure its dominance of the country."
Contrary to the aspirations of the regime, the war it unleashed
under the pretext of a border dispute resulted in nothing except
huge massacres and losses, in an experience that has tremendously
shocked the world. It was after coming to comprehend that its all-out
offensives against Eritrea were no good in weakening the Eritrean
people that the regime realized it has no other option but to sign
the arbitration agreement and accept the final and binding decision.
It had already been clear, however, that the regime's decision to
bow down to the agreement was simply to buy time. The psychopathic
nature that the regime developed with the announcement of the final
and binding decision has its roots in the regime's foiled ploys
of expansion under the pretext of a border issue.
The Algiers Peace Agreement has no loopholes that can be exploited
to dilute the "final and binding" nature of the court
ruling. The Algiers Agreement towards arbitration explicitly states
that the international court's decision would be final and binding.
The United Nations, which was a witness in the signature of the
Agreement in Algiers and represented by the Secretary General, or
any other party, has no legal or moral authority to change the boundary
decision. That is why even after engaging in intense diplomatic
campaign carrying out briefings worldwide to undermine the decision,
the regime had yet failed to succeed in accomplishing its sinister
plans. It is after all these futile maneuvers and ploys that the
regime's Prime Minister gave a final answer over recent days. Through
the premier's message, the regime in Ethiopia is basically telling
the world that it is the highest judicial body, higher than the
international court, the United Nations and guarantors of the peace
A display of good will on the part of the people and government
of Eritrea in faithfully respecting its commitments by cooperating
with the Boundary Commission springs solely from the fact that Eritreans
are peace-loving people, and not because Eritrea entertained even
for a moment false and unattainable hopes that the regime in Ethiopia
might actually respect its part of the agreement. That is also why
the Ethiopian prime minister's message did not come as something
out of the expected for the Eritrean people. The choice of whether
another fresh rounds of offensives will take shape or not, however,
would be left for the aggressors to decide. Alongside ongoing processes
of development and political reconstruction, the people and government
of Eritrea, on the other hand, will continue to remain vigilant
and ready to safeguard national interests against any aggressor
that wants to violate its territorial sovereignty and integrity.