"...I recognized then, as did virtually every other member of Congress, that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who terrorized his own citizens, attacked neighboring states and threatened international security and stability... I believed then as I continue to believe today that the international community, not only the United States, Britain, Australia and a handful of other nations had a collective responsibility to ensure that Hussein's regime abided by its international commitments...acting against Hussein, who defiantly and flagrantly breached his international obligations, was a justified enforcement action. As such, the onus for enforcement rested on the nations of the civilized world..."

I agree. It is the international community's obligation to enforce international agreements and laws.

Some may find it ironic that the two "democratic" regimes, the United States and the United Kingdom, who worked hand in glove to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq are today cuddling and propping up a dictatorship in Ethiopia led by Meles Zenawi who is also a "a brutal tyrant who terrorized his own citizens, attacked neighboring states and threatened international security and stability... defiantly and flagrantly breached his international obligations...".  I for one am not surprised. For all their talk about "democracy and human rights", their actions speak differently. It is a cover for those who want to plunder and pillage; it is a cover for those who want to suppress other people's right to self determination and development. Meles Zenawi is the quintessential house Negro in their employ who is working to destabilize the entire Horn region on their behalf. That brings me to the reason why I am writing today.

On 24 January 2007 Chatham House launched a diversionary, self serving, duplicitous and hypocritical paper  entitled "Ethiopia and Eritrea: Allergic to Persuasion" co-authored by Sally Healy, Associate Fellow, Chatham House (CH) and Martin Plaut, Africa Editor, BBC News, in which it seemed to be justifying Ethiopia's defiance of international law. Chatham House is the UK's version of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States, and both work closely with their respective governments and each other in devising global strategies and analysis, including the many campaigns that we see year after year when they target countries to shame and blame.

Here is a succinct description of the way these two institutions conduct their "work":

"...Aside from the obvious harnessing of the corporate and state media in this process has been the creation of innumerable ëfoundations', ëNGOs' and spin-offs of the various organs of the state such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and a plethora of quasi-governmental structures like the National Endowment for Democracy [sic] or NED...Big business has been an integral part of this process funneling literally billions of dollars into a plethora of foundations and ëthink tanks' which work hand-in-glove with the state in not only projecting the capitalist way of life but in directly interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries whenever ëprivate property' is seemingly threatened...These foundations have all the appearance of ëobjective' and ëneutral' institutions, employing an army of ëexperts' in every conceivable field of endeavor. In addition they also work closely with PR companies and survey organizations [Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Albert Einstein Institute, Reporters San Frontiers etc. etc. ] whose job it is to translate their ëlearned' papers and ëresearch' into digestible chunks for public distribution via a complicit corporate and state media..."

For those of us who have been following developments in the Horn, and Martin Plaut's lopsided, distorted, and unsubstantiated reports on the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue, it came as no surprise to see another one of his "analysis" at a time when the minority regime in Ethiopia, which has invaded and occupied Somalia, is once again trying to get out of another self created crisis.

Mr. Plaut, part of the Chatham House's cartel has been actively promoting and advancing Ethiopia's ridiculous, childish, deceptive, and time buying gimmicks and ploys with several distorted "analysis" and "reports". On 7 April 2003 in "Analysis: Crucial point for Horn relations", an article that was totally devoid of any legal basis, attempting to hoodwink the Ethiopian people, and intervening to cover up Meles Zenawi's lies about Badme, he suggested that Badme, a sovereign Eritrean territory, be administered by Ethiopia in exchange for Ethiopia's "acknowledgement of Eritrea's sovereignty" over it. He called it a compromise, I called it absurd!

Mr. Plaut was back again on 9 January 2004 with another "analysis" under the heading "Diplomatic muddle over Horn stalemate" in which he misrepresented the international community, specifically the Security Council's 04 January 2004 Press Release. Citing an unnamed "UN insider" (usually a cartel member), he attempted to blame Eritrea, the law abiding party equally with Ethiopia, the belligerent party. He wanted the international community to pressure Eritrea to "compromise", relinquish sovereignty over Badme. I called that blackmail!

Once again, in continuation of his misinformation and fabrication campaign against the Government and people of Eritrea, a country he has never visited since independence in 1991, attempting to appease the minority regime in Ethiopia and stoke its megalomaniac leaders, exposing his bias and attempting to give himself the relevancy and respect he has not been able to achieve as a BBC "journalist", Plaut has contributed to another factually inaccurate document for Chatham House-as commissioned. This time, instead of addressing Ethiopia's numerous violations of Security Council Resolutions, and defiance of international law, Chatham House is once again trying to make excuses the international community's acquiescence as Meles Zenawi defies international law.

Before I address some of the issues raised in this paper, allow me to share some of the developments on the Eritrea Ethiopia border dispute, its legal resolution on 13 April 2002, and how the demarcation process, a technical matter of putting pillars on the ground, and the sole mandate of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission has been hijacked and stopped by the US-Chatham House cartel.

In 1997 only 7 years into Eritrea's independence on 24 May 1991, Eritreans were once again forced to defend their hard earned sovereignty and territorial integrity. Meles Zenawi's Tigrayan minority regime in Ethiopia first expanded the borders of its home province, Tigray, to incorporate territories from the Wollo and Gondar provinces of Ethiopia. Then, in 1997, it unilaterally published the "Greater Tigray map" which incorporated large swatches of sovereign Eritrean territories. The regime then proceeded to dismantle Eritrean Administrations and replacing them with Tigrayans. They intimidated, harassed and sacked Eritrean farmers from their lands and homes and when Eritrea decided to take action, the minority regime in Addis cried wolf, all the way to Washington.

Accusing Eritrea of violating Ethiopia's sovereignty, employing a vicious vilification campaign against Eritrea's leaders and population, arousing and inflaming anti Eritrea sentiments amongst Ethiopians escalated the minor conflict into a full blown catastrophic war. Using intensive and destructive World War II type human wave tactics, the minority regime in Ethiopia launched a disastrous war of aggression and expansion against Eritrea in May 1998. Over 120,000 Ethiopians and 19,000 Eritreans were killed and over a million people were displaced.

In June 2000 a ceasefire agreement was signed and on 12 December 2000, the Algiers Agreements were signed. The Algiers Agreement mandated the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) to delimit and demarcate the border "based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902, and 1908) and applicable international law". The Commission was not given power to make decisions "ex aequo et bono", and both parties agreed that its decision would be "Final and Binding".  The distinguished Commissioners delivered the unanimous Final and Binding decision on 13 April 2002.

The African Union (AU), European Union (EU), United Nations (UN), and the United States (US), through their respective Press Statements and Releases officially endorsed and confirmed that the Border Commission's decision was Final and Binding, and the UN Security Council adopted and endorsed it as such. The Eritrea Ethiopia border dispute was now legally resolved. 

The minority regime in Ethiopia that had applauded the EEBC decision within hours of its delivery rejected the Final and Binding decision when it learned that Badme, the casus belli for the conflict had been awarded to Eritrea. It set out to have the decision altered, amended, changed, revisited and/or revised. For brevity sakes, for brevity sakes, I have compiled the responses of the EEBC to some of Ethiopia's repeated, arrogant attempts to alter the Final and Binding EEBC decision and obstruction of the EEBC's work.

On 24 June 2002 the EEBC's responded to Ethiopia's 21-page hollow document entitled "Request for Interpretation, Correction and Consultation by saying:

"The Commission did not find in any of the items of the Ethiopian request anything that identified an uncertainty in the delimitation decision ... no case was made for revision. The Commission concluded that the request was inadmissible and that no further action would be taken on it"-

On 21 March 2003, the EEBC's responded to Ethiopia's 24 January 2003 defiant and legally hollow 141-page document entitled "Comments filed by Ethiopia" and the 1 May 2003 equally incoherent hollow 36-page document entitled "Comment to the Eritrea Ethiopia Border" by issuing the "21 March 2003 Observations". This 13-page report of the Commission is a clear and refined legal response to the minority clique's hollow and repetitive attempts to amend, change, and revise the Final and Binding EEBC decision. . In its March Observations the Commission said:

"...The Commission has no authority to vary the boundary line. If it runs through and divides a town or village... some maps submitted by Ethiopia not only showed the distinctive straight line between the Setit and Mareb Rivers, but also marked Badme village as being on the Eritrean side of that line...the Commission must maintain its impartial approach to all matters with which it has to deal. It cannot allow one Party to claim for itself the right to insist on adjustment of parts of the boundary, which that Party finds disadvantageous..."

Unable to intimidate and wear out the distinguished and internationally respected Commissioners with constant barrages of legal documents, the flip-flopping Meles Zenawi, resorted to insulting the international community's intelligence. On 19 September 2003, using diversionary "fear" tactics and requesting an "alternative mechanism" and "dialogue", the leader of the minority regime in a condescending and insulting letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan officially rejected the Final and Binding decision. He wrote in that letter that the Commission was in "terminal crisis" and that the EEBC's had made a "totally illegal, unjust, and irresponsible decision on Badme and parts of the Central Sector".  

The EEBC responded through its own 7 October 2003 letter, clearly rejecting Meles Zenawi's redundant, repetitive, insulting and defiant letters, submissions and memorandums. In its 7 October 2003 "Statement in response to the Ethiopian Prime Minister's letter", calling his statements "misconceived and misleading", the Commission eloquently responded by saying:

.      "...the Prime Minister's letter states that the peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea is facing a challenge Ethiopia characterizes the situation as being one in which "the work of the Commission is in terminal crisis". The Commission does not accept that assessment: there is no "crisis", terminal or otherwise, which cannot be cured by Ethiopia's compliance with its obligation under the Algiers Agreement, in particular its obligations to treat the Commission's delimitation determination as "final and binding"(Article 4.15) and "to cooperate with the Commission, its experts and other staff in all respects during the process of ... demarcation" (Article 4.14)"

.      "...The letter states that the "Colonial treaties which are the basis of the Algiers Agreement and which should have been the key basis for the delimitation and demarcation of the boundary leave Badme well inside Ethiopia"...Ethiopia argued in the proceedings before the Commission for an interpretation of the Treaty which would have resulted in a much different boundary, far to the northwest, which would have had the effect of placing Badme well within Ethiopia, but the argument for Ethiopia's line was considered carefully by the Commission and rejected...."

.       "...Ethiopia maintains in the fifth paragraph of its letter that "only the Security Council can salvage the peace process", and that "the Boundary Commission has itself acknowledged the responsibility of the United Nations, in accordance with the Algiers Agreement, to assist the two parties to overcome challenges they might face in the process of the delimitation and demarcation". The Commission recalls that article 4.16 of the Algiers Agreement is in the following specific terms: "Recognizing that the results of the delimitation and demarcation process are not yet known, the parties request the United Nations to facilitate resolution of problems which may arise due to the transfer of territorial control, including the consequences for individuals residing in previously disputed territory". It is accordingly clear that Ethiopia's construction of the Algiers Agreement and of what the Commission has stated in respect of it is misconceived..."

.      "...Ethiopia's statement is a repudiation of its repeated acceptance of the Commission's Decision since it was rendered..."

.      "...Ethiopia proposes that "an alternative mechanism to demarcate the contested parts of the boundary" be set up. Such an alternative mechanism would involve a departure from, and thus an amendment to, the terms of Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement, which gives the Commission the mandate to demarcate the boundary. Moreover, Ethiopia's reference to "the contested boundary" can only be understood as a reference to those parts of the boundary to which it alone and unilaterally takes exception: no part of the boundary is "contested" by both Parties..."

On 24 November 2004, while continuing to militarily occupy sovereign Eritrean territories, the minority regime's advisors and lobbyists came up with another time-buying political and diplomatic gimmick. Meles Zenawi latest gimmick was baptized "The New Ethio-Eritrean Peace Initiative", and became known as the 5-Point Peace Proposal (5PPP). This dead on arrival (DoA) declaration was another futile attempt to present Meles Zenawi and his minority regime as law abiding, peace loving, and dialogue-seeking bunch. His sugarcoated "Proposal" turned out to be nothing but another deceptive attempt to amend, appeal, revise, and revisit, the Final and Binding decision of the EEBC.

Legally and morally compelled to respond to the minority regime's incessant calls for revision, amendment, and outright reversal of the EEBC's Final and Binding decision, re-iterating the Final and Binding status of the decision, the Commission in its 16 Report to the United Nations Security Council wrote:

.      "...Ethiopia is not prepared to allow demarcation to continue in the manner laid down in the Demarcation Directions and in accordance with the timeline set by the Commission. It now insists on prior "dialogue" but has rejected the opportunity for such "dialogue" within the framework of the demarcation process provided by the Commission's proposal to meet with the Parties on 22 February. This is the latest in a series of obstructive actions taken since the summer of 2002 and belies the frequently professed acceptance by Ethiopia of the Delimitation Decision..."

.      "...The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono." In the proceedings leading to the Delimitation Decision, neither Party contended that the Commission should depart from the boundaries that it would objectively determine were laid down in the stated treaties..."

.      "...When the Delimitation Decision was rendered, both Parties accepted it and its delimitation of the boundary, as indeed they were bound by the Algiers Agreement to do. The acceptance by each Party was unqualified and publicly announced..."

.      "...The Parties were consulted and their views were taken into account in the formulation of the Demarcation Directions which were promulgated on 8 July 2002. At that stage, neither Party suggested that the Commission had, or should have, a power to vary the boundary in the course of demarcation or that there was any need for more than limited technical discussion between them before the demarcation could begin and be carried to a conclusion..."

.      "...the Commission is taking immediate steps to close down its Field Offices. These can be reactivated (though subject to some months of lead time) if Ethiopia abandons its present insistence on preconditions for the implementation of the demarcation..."

.      "...The Commission must conclude by recalling that the line of the boundary was legally and finally determined by its Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002. Though undemarcated, this line is binding upon both Parties, subject only to the minor qualifications expressed in the Delimitation Decision, unless they agree otherwise. Conduct inconsistent with this boundary line is unlawful..."

In January of 2006, the Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazier went on a propaganda campaign to appease Meles Zenawi and his minority regime, to try, once again to amend, change and revisit the Final and Binding decision. Calling for a "neutral facilitator" to support the EEBC, she attempted to hijack the sole mandate of the Commission. Eritrea declined to participate in this transparent charade, which had absolutely no legal basis, and so it too failed.

The EEBC closed its offices and left the area and on 14 November 2006 it announced that it would "complete the process of demarcation by the use of coordinates to establish fixed points on the boundary to be connected to each other by appropriate straight lines and river lines", leaving the parties to erect boundary pillars at a future date if they choose to do so. Today, the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia are held hostage by a minority clique who has been given diplomatic, financial, political and military support from the folks at Chatham House and others.

Read Part II