Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia is blaming Eritrea for "wanting the matter to be dealt through the mediation of the United Nations," while his government wants "demarcation of the borders to be settled through an ad-hoc international court of arbitration". This is a new condition! In none of the documents presented before is there a reference for involvement by an "ad-hoc international court." Not in the US/Rwanda, not in the OAU Framework Agreement, and definitely not in the June 18 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement.

If "going to the world court" had been Ethiopia's stand all along then how come it didn't raise this issue at the very beginning? After all the involvement of the UN in the delimitation and demarcation process is not something Eritrea brought come October 2000! As early as November 1998, Seyoum & Co. were shouting to the rest of the world, "we have accepted the OAU peace plan and Eritrea has rejected it". They were, of course, talking about accepting the OAU Framework Agreements.

 As has been the case for the past 30 months, Ethiopia's leaders are one more time moving the goal post, each time bringing new conditions for settling the conflict, conditions outside of the OAU peace package. Ethiopia's habitual prevarication has one purpose: to tie the negotiation on demarcations into knots, to extend it as far into the future as possible, unless Eritrea accepts the Mekele 1997 map that had gobbled up large swaths of Eritrean territory into Tigray.

 A simple review of the documents that both countries have officially accepted shows that Ethiopia is trying to break free of Agreements it has previously accepted and forcefully championed. Take the core agreements in the Framework to which Ethiopia has committed itself:
 

•  Article 6: " the delimitation and demarcation of the border between the two countries."
•  Article 7 "investigation on the incidents of 6 May 1998 and on any other incident prior to that date which could have contributed to a misunderstanding between the two Parties regarding their common border, including the incidents of July - August 1997," and
•  Article 8 "addressing the negative socio-economic impact of the crisis on the civilian population, particularly, those persons who had been deported."

 "A copy of a paper containing possible solutions to the remaining outstanding issues of the peace process was provided to both delegations by the mediators. The issues addressed in the proposal were DELIMITATION AND DEMARCATION of the border, COMPENSATION and the INVESTIGATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT." (Emphasis added)

 "We expect that the issue of DEMARCATION AND DELIMITATION of the border on the basis of colonial treaties and applicable international law, we expect that this will be a central element of the peace agreement. We expect the issues of COMPENSATION, NOT REPARATIONS, COMPENSATION, would be addressed adequately and quickly within the context of the peace agreement."-May 31, 2000. (Emphasis added)

Here is what the Government of Eritrea said:

 "The proximity talks were cut short and forced to adjourn because of Ethiopia's unwillingness to engage itself in talks involving the delimitation and demarcation of the border which is the kernel of the OAU peace package." - GoE Press Release 31/10/2000

1.  "[W]hile Ethiopia wanted demarcation of the borders to be settled through an ad-hoc international court of arbitration, Eritrea wanted the matter to be dealt with through the mediation of the United Nations."
2.  "Ethiopia has demanded that the case be submitted for consideration by the International Court based on the agreement concluded with Italy after 1869 and other International treaties. Eritrea wanted a political solution to the border issue based on the map to be submitted by the United Nations cartographic unit, while Ethiopia was in favor of justice through a court settlement." -WIC 28/10/2000

But before June, Ethiopia had never expressed opposition to the Cartographic Unit's role in delimitation and demarcation. Even when it was attempting to undo the Technical Arrangements, Ethiopia had recognized the Unit's role. The only reservation it registe was that it be allowed to bring its experts to submit to the Unit evidence supportive of Ethiopia's case.

The role of the cartographic experts was spelled out in the Framework Agreement which Ethiopia accepted:

 "The two Parties commit themselves to make use of the services of experts of the UN Cartographic Unit, in collaboration with the OAU and other experts agreed upon by the two Parties, to carry out the delimitation and demarcation of the border between the two countries within a time-frame of 6 months which could be extended on the recommendation of the cartographic experts;" --Article 6a, OAU Framework Agreement

Here is also how a team of UN, OAU, USA and Algerian experts envisioned the implementation of Article 6a of the Framework Agreement. This is from August 1999, a time when the Technical Arrangements were presented to the two parties. (The Technical Arrangements were presented as non-amendable at the time.)

 "Delimitation and demarcation will be conducted by the UN Cartographic Unit, supported by other Experts the Unit may employ."-- Article 13, OAU Technical Arrangements

 "In conformity with paragraph 6(a) of the Framework Agreement, the delimitation and demarcation shall be conducted by the UN Cartographic Unit, supported by other experts the Unit may employ. In case other experts are employed, the OAU Secretariat shall be consulted accordingly by the UN Cartographic Unit, which shall also request the acceptance of the two Parties."--Paragraph 41

 "Upon the acceptance by the Parties of the delimitation of each segment, the binding demarcation of the segment shall be carried out. Such signed acceptance shall be given to the UN Cartographic Unit within one week, unless arbitration is requested by either Party."--Paragraph 38

In short, the Framework Agreement had envisioned a large portion of the delimitation/demarcation process to be a technical issue. In this process the UN Cartographic Unit was expected to be fully committed to the principles of neutrality and transparency. It was not supposed to have a power to make decisions by principles of what "are fair and just" but by what the maps and treaties say. In other words by the strict reading of the treaties and international laws as they may be applicable.

Yet instead of admitting that it's Ethiopia that's changing the rules, Meles is blaming Eritrea for "intransigence." As usual Eritrea is responsible for the dead lock. But what are the facts ?

By signing the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities on June 18, 2000 both countries had reaffirmed

 "Their acceptance of the OAU Framework Agreement and the Modalities for its Implementation which have been endorsed by the 35th ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, held in Algiers, Algeria from 12 to 14 July 1999 "

 "Endorses the Framework Agreement and the Modalities as the basis for the peaceful resolution of the dispute between the two countries." --UNSC Resolution 1297(2000), May 12, 2000.

 "The OAU and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the two Parties UNTIL THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMON BORDER ON THE BASIS OF PERTINENT COLONIAL TREATIES AND APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW, THROUGH DELIMITATION/DEMARCATION AND IN CASE OF CONTROVERSY, THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM OF ARBITRATION." (Emphasis added)

Conclusion
Eritrea should never give Ethiopia a way out of the corner it has put itself in. It has to answer why it is afraid of the UN Cartographic Unit's involvement. We hear that Ethiopia prefers to go to arbitration to "save time". That is good and it is worthy of praise. But what is the hurry if a lasting peace is what is desi? At the same time how long will it take the UN Cartographic Unit to pass a verdict on the delimitation? Three may be six months? May be the six-month time frame the Framework Agreement envisioned could be pushed to nine or twelve months. After all the Framework Agreement is flexible on time, if the experts request so. Let's remember this verdict is a technical verdict and it shouldn't take long. At the same time rather than rush the process to reach a settlement let's agree to take our time to reach a final and lasting settlement of the border. But by no means should Ethiopia be allowed to destroy the Framework Agreement. This is an essential part of the peace package and we have to ask the mediators to stick by the letter and spirit of the Agreement.

There are rumors that the mediators may buckle under pressure from Ethiopia and impose a five member Arbitration Commission to do the job the OAU peace package had assigned to the UN's Cartographic Unit. In my opinion this need to be avoided, but if it is inevitable, then it is better if the size of the Arbitration Commission is seven instead of five. If the size is going to be seven and the Parties choose two each, then there would be THREE neutral commissioners. Otherwise, if the size is five and the Parties chose two each that would leave only ONE neutral commissioner. If decision is made on a "majority vote" it would be easy to influence the ONE neutral member as opposed to TWO in the seven-member commission. The alternative is of course not to let the Parties chose more than one commissioner each. That is exactly what we find if we look at how the UN appointed the Iraq-Kuwait Demarcation Commission. Here is a quote from the UN Secretary General's report:

 "After consultations with the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait, I will now establish an Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission, to be composed of one representative each of Iraq and Kuwait and three independent experts who will be appointed by me, one of whom will serve as the Chairman."

--Ghidewon Abay Asmerom