Bilateral and trilateral treaties and in some instances unilateral decrees were used for the delimitation, putting a line on the map, of all African borders as early as the turn of this century. However, much of the demarcation, putting markers on the ground so as to correspond to the delimitation on the map, between countries, especially those that were administered by the same colonial ruler, had to wait until the second half of this century; i.e. after the independence of the colonies.

Eritrea and Ethiopia, like all other African countries, owe their modern borders to the treaties that were signed between colonizers. Their common border is the result of the treaties between the Showan King, Menelik, and the Italians, and in one instance between the British, Menelik and the Italians. The myth of "3000 years" is a sham that even the children of Tigray were dismissing it as late as 1997. This more than 1000 km Eritrean-Ethiopian border had evolved over a period of 18 years (1890-1908) to what it is now, but the final and crucial treaties that delimited it are those dated 1900, 1902 and 1908.

There are two key characters that make the Eritrean border with Ethiopia unique. 1) unlike with many African borders, the treaties that delimited it were signed and ratified not by two European powers, but by a European power (Italy) and an African power (Showa). 2) the Eritrean border, a legacy of colonization, was not a mere gift, but was earned by the blood of generations of Eritreans. In other words, the Eritrean population had fought for more than 50 years to keep its borders intact and except with the Portuguese colonies and a couple of other exceptions no other African borders have been ratified by the wish and blood of its population the way Eritrean border with Ethiopia did. Thus Eritrea's right to its borders is to international treaties and the law that governs them as well as to the wish of its population.

The first of the three border treaties is that of July 10, 1900. This treaty recognized the Eritrean-Ethiopian border to be the line "Mareb-Belesa-Muna". This treaty covers almost one third of the border with Ethiopia. It starts west of Mai Ainom (junction of Mereb with Mai Ambessa) and continues all the way to Randacom. Because it is formed of natural boundaries it is the most unambiguous border. It is clearly delimited and demarcated by the rivers: Mereb, Belesa, and Muna & its tributaries. This is also the border that sets the boundaries between highland Eritrea and most part of the Tigray province of Ethiopia. However, Ethiopia's new regime, in clear violation of the letter and spirit of this treaty, is claiming land across the Belesa and Muna rivers. This claim to land between the Tserona and Belesa rivers on one part, and between the Muna and western Endeli rivers on another part makes it obvious that the Woyane leadership doesn't want to honor what Menelik had signed saying "in the name of his successors".

The second treaty is that of May 15, 1902. This treaty covers the western part of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border. It commences at the tri-point where the Eritrean, Ethiopian and Sudanese borders meet and according to this ratified treaty this tri-point is at "the junction of the Khor Um Hagar with the Setit". The border then follows the Setit (known as Takeze in Ethiopia) to its junction with the Mai Teb. This junction is at the tri-point where the borders of the former Tigray and Begemdir provinces of Ethiopia met Eritrea. From this tripoint the treaty states that the border is to proceed "leaving Mount Ala Tacura to Eritrea, and joining the Mareb at its junction with the Mai Ambessa." Furthermore the treaty allows the line from the junction of the Setit with Mai Teb to the junction of the Mareb and Mai Ambessa to be delimited so as all the Kunama land belong to Eritrea.

It is in this area where the, now famous, Badme (also spelled as Baduma) plain and the town named after it are located. The locality is also called Tahtay Adiabo. This line partitions the Badme plain between Eritrea and Ethiopia but the town of Badme, according to all the maps dating back to the first decade of this century to 1996, is in Eritrean territory. Note that the town of Badme was not established until the mid to late 60s. The reason we are saying it belongs to Eritrea even in earlier maps is by taking its current non-official coordinates and comparing them on the map. This means, there are no credible maps, be they those that were made by the Ethiopian mapping authority, the American, Russian, Chinese, Italian, German, French or others that put the coordinates of Badme in Ethiopia.

This being the case with the town of Badme and the Badme Plain what Ethiopia is claiming in its new Tigray map is not even close to where the Maieteb meets the Setit or the Mereb with Mai Ambessa. The Tigrean claim is further west, deep into Eritrean territory, on both end points. This clearly violates all the key specifications of the treaty. Those of the junction of the Maieteb and Setit, Mereb and Mai Ambessa, leaving Mt Ala Tacura and the Kunama to Eritrea.

The Setit-Mereb line has always been delimited as a straight line. This straight line delimitation is what all Ethiopian maps starting from the time of Menelik to 1996 had shown (See attached Map 3 from 1907; Map 4, current CIA map of Eritrea and Ethiopia; and Map 5, the new map of Ethiopia from 1997). Looking at topographical map of the area and taking the specific mountain, Ala Tacura, as it appears in maps of the late 1800, into consideration the traditional straight line is the optimal line for Ethiopia. Any redrawing of the line and making sure the four key specifications of the treaty are taken into consideration, makes Ethiopia, not Eritrea, to lose land. But the Tigrean line is no where near a straight line nor does it begin at the junction of Maieteb with the Setit and end at the junction of the Mereb with Mai Ambessa. Instead it attempts to annex Eritrean territory by following the Gash (Mereb) past its junction with the Mai Ambessa reaching all the way up to Tokombia and then continues south following tributaries of Setit to meet the Setit near Sitona. This aggression has attempted to annex an area close to 400 square Km. (See attached Map 6)

The third and last treaty is that of May 16, 1908. This treaty says the border, starting from the easterly end of the 1900 treaty, should continue "in a south-easterly direction, parallel to and at a distance of 60 kilometers from the coast, until it joins the frontier of the French possessions of Somalia." This starts from Randacom and reaches Mt Mussa Ali, the tripoint of the Djibouti, Eritrean and Ethiopian border.

This treaty is one manifestation how arbitrary colonial borders are. The specification of 60 km from the coast is easy to talk about mathematically, but demarcating it on the ground is another matter and that is why it was not demarcated prior to 1935. Like many other African borders that were made to follow imaginary longitude and latitude lines, this part of the border is an imaginary line. But no matter what, Africa had decided to abide by colonial borders and there is nothing that can be done. Thus it is in clear violation of this treaty that Ethiopia is now trying to push the border on the Bada and Assab areas. The claim on the Assab-Dessie road is so outrageous that it shows the naked aggression of the Ethiopian government. While the treaty clearly says "60 km and parallel from the coast" [this is understood to be 60 km along the shortest path (on a straight line perpendicular to the tangent line drawn at a point on the coast)] the Woyanes are claiming the border to be at the 57th (and sometimes 51st) km mark on the Assab-Dessie road. How can a 57 km mark on a road that is never a straight line satisfy the 60 km specification?

As any one can see the Eritrean-Ethiopian border is clearly delimited, and on the parts where it is delimited by rivers, it can be said that it is demarcated, however on the parts where imaginary lines were drawn on the map, it has yet to be demarcated. This is what Eritrea is calling for and the UN Security Council through its Resolution 1177 had set a fund for, but Ethiopia is dragging its feet. It is pretty obvious the demarcation of borders wouldn't serve Ethiopia's interests and ambition of re-invading Eritrea. What the Woyane want is to invade Eritrea and present it on a silver platter as a gift of reconciliation with the Amhara. This is the crux of the conflict: invade Eritrea on a pretext of a border conflict, appease the Amhara, and then exploit Ethiopia to the maximum.

Eritrea's claim to its colonial borders is supported by the UN and OAU principles, as well as the OAU's Cairo resolution of 1964. Here is what the OAU charter says

Article III

"The Member States, ... solemnly affirm and declare their adherence to the respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence;"

Although most of African borders were drawn in total disregard to wishes, ethnic distribution, and economic needs of the local population, it was these very borders that African states accepted as their borders. ALL OAU member countries with the exception of Morocco and Somalia had signed the July 21, 1964 Cairo resolution. This is the most quoted resolution for the justification of the keeping of the arbitrary, artificial and unreasonable borders left by colonialists. The resolution that is referred as Cairo Resolution AHG/RES 16(1) says that all member states solemnly declare and

"pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence."

There is no ambiguity as to what is meant by this resolution. Around the time the Cairo declaration was being drafted African leaders were clear on what they were getting into. Here is a sample:

President Tsirinana of Malagasy

"It is no longer possible, nor desirable, to modify the boundaries of nations, on the pretext of racial, religious or linguistic criteria. Indeed, should we take race, religion or language as criteria for setting our boundaries, a few States in Africa would be blotted out from the map. "

President Kieta Madibo of Mali:

"We must take Africa as it is, and we must renounce any territorial claims, if we do not wish to introduce what we might call black imperialism in Africa.... African unity demands of each one of us complete respect for the legacy that we have received from colonial system, that is to say: maintenance of the present frontiers of our respective states."

Prime Minister (Aklilu Habtewold) of Ethiopia:

"It is in the interest of all Africans now to respect the frontiers drawn on the maps, whether they are good or bad, by the former colonizers."

While this is the case with almost all African countries, Ethiopia because of its territorial aggrandizement, had never respected this resolution. Two years earlier than 1964, it had annexed Eritrea violating colonial boundaries. It was also waiting to annex Djibouti, if and when the French leave, with the pretext of "Djibouti is Ethiopia's natural port". This has never materialized so far. But the same Prime Minister that was quoted above had told the OAU's inaugural assembly: "Ethiopia has always existed in history for centuries as an independent state as a nation, for more than 3,000 years. That is a fact. Second fact: the historical frontiers of Ethiopia stretched from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, including all the territory between them. Third fact: there is no record in history either of a Somali State or a Somali Nation. That too is a fact." This is practically what Ethiopian arrogance looked like at the time and it hasn't changed a bit. They, Ethiopians, have no regard to colonial treaties, and they are known for their contempt on African people.

In conclusion Eritrea's call on Ethiopia to abide by colonial treaties has many legitimate reasons.

1. all the treaties that were signed between the Italians and Menelik has the phrase "Menelik in his name and the name of his successors"; the Woyane are the successors of Menelik and thus they are obliged to abide by these treaties.

2. The four Imperial regimes that came before the Woyanes, starting from Menelik to Iyasu, Zewditu, and Haile-Sellassie hadn't raised a qualm about the treaties; thus their acceptance of the treaties. Even Mengistu hadn't changed the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia along the now disputed area

3. the Second World War didn't change Eritrea's colonial borders. The UN sponsored federal constitution of Eritrea in its 2nd article reads

   "the territory of Eritrea including its islands is that of the Italian colony of Eritrea."

4. The OAU's charter, Article III, calls for the

   "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence."

   Ethiopia as a member of the OAU ought to respect the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Eritrea. Furthermore, Ethiopia as a signatory to the Cairo resolution and as a country that had quoted the resolution a thousand and one times in order to argue against Somalia's claim of the Ogaden, should stop its irresponsible behavior of redrawing colonial borders and has to obey the Cairo Resolution.