The United Nations Security Council may have, yet again, called on Ethiopia to allow border demarcation without delay or precondition; nothing-new there. And the so-called witnesses may have had a convention of sorts and called for the implementation of the EEBC decision “fully and without qualification”; well, that is interesting – and only interesting.

Like always, almost on cue, most media reports have reduced the two statements to the most redundant component. With the exception of a few feeble attempts at originality by way of different headlines and so forth, most reports have mainly focussed on one thing: that only by virtue of the USA coming into the mix, we ought to be optimistic about finding a solution to the ‘impasse’.

But the devil is in the details and I believe it will be the small details that might just signal the collapse of the efforts by the UN Security Council and the Witnesses as spurred by the US. As it is, the American own ‘diplomatic initiative’ early this year fell flat on its face when Jendayi Frazer, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs charged with the responsibility of ‘mediating’ between Eritrea and Ethiopia, fumbled at her task right from the beginning.

Dr Frazer’s blunder came to the fore when she exposed herself as anything but neither fit nor enlightened enough to dispense the task of mediator. In an interview with VoA’s Straight Talk Africa back in February, she completely fluffed her lines when she claimed that the Algiers Agreement stipulated that ‘the demarcation has to be done according to what is just and reasonable’. Of course a close reading of the agreement would have revealed to her quite the reverse.

There may have been two possible grounds for her outrageous remarks; one, that she was completely ignorant as to the details of her task in which case she should have attempted to be well-informed beforehand. (Her failure to do so only uncovered the touch of disdain with which she and the US State Department approached such a serious situation). Two, that her ignorance may have been feigned to mask a trick hidden up her sleeve. Either way, her approach killed off the tiniest confidence that we all may have had as to the good intentions of the Americans.

Now, we have the witnesses. Gathered at the behest of the ever-bungling Kofi Anan, they have deliberated and issued a statement. The statement, it must be said, is not that refreshing since it just parrots what has been said before; except, that is, for one sneaky thing.

The witnesses, for one odd reason or another, have opted to urging the ‘Commission to consider the need for technical discussions with the support of a neutral facilitator to assist with the process of demarcation.’ That is what we might call a back-door-left-ajar for the ‘neutral facilitator’ (whatever that means) to steal through. Talk about a trick up the sleeve.

Mind you, the witnesses urged the commission as if it had been reluctant to do its job. On the contrary in fact, it was only a year ago that the Commission had convened a meeting in London which the Ethiopian government had duly snubbed. As a result, the EEBC packed up and left; meanwhile, Ethiopia’s ceaseless antics aimed at disrupting the implementation of the EEBC decision continued unabated.

We must also bear in mind that the call by the witnesses on the EEBC to convene a meeting is redundant since it is not the Commission’s failure to call such a meeting that is standing in the way of border demarcation. (On 4 February 2005 the Commission invited both Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet with it in London on 22 February 2005. While Eritrea accepted the invitation Ethiopia rejected it)

But never mind all that. Now there is the small matter of the ‘neutral facilitator’. This is a detail that represents an extremely shaky ground on which the whole effort of the witnesses including the US and the UN rests.

In the past, the witnesses and the UN have failed to single out Ethiopia and caution it sternly for thwarting a ruling enshrined in international law. But now, although still marked by that failure, the US and the UNSC seem to be intent on seeing the complete implementation of the EEBC decision – at least that seems to be the case on the face of it.

To that effect, they are, albeit hesitantly, attempting to heap pressure on the Ethiopian government to abide by the rule of law. However, their present call is in danger of being deemed toothless because it introduces an element that runs incongruous with the letter and spirit of the Algiers Agreement.

As per the framework of the Algiers Agreement, the EEBC decision is final and binding. What is more, its implementation is not linked to any precondition. The only reason why there is now a so-called impasse is because the Ethiopian government is intent on disrupting the demarcation process.

As well as delivering the delimitation ruling and conducting the process of demarcation, the EEBC is defined by two inalienable and absolute facts; one, that it is a neutral body and two, that it is charged with the sole responsibility of facilitating the demarcation process. These two aspects of the EEBC were a set of intrinsically built-in conditions for its formation in the first place. In other words, the EEBC is the only body that can claim the legal right to being called a neutral facilitator.

Furthermore, the EEBC has in its disposal an array of experts who are more than capable of facilitating the demarcation of the Eritrean Ethiopian border. The commission itself is made up of people who meticulously devised directions as to the procedure of the demarcation process. In short, the commission can mobilise the best people in the business come demarcation time.

The witnesses’ suggestion that a ‘neutral facilitator’ be included is at best naïve and at worst devious. The UN Security Council, although it has issued a rather resolute statement for a change, by endorsing the witnesses’ assertion, may have become party to a rather fishy precedent in the making. This will not have been lost on the Tigrean Ethno-national regime lording it over in Ethiopia.

Ultimately, the witnesses, the US, the UN and what have you, should not be placating the Ethiopia government by eternally adding sweeteners to the statements that they may issue – they should instead tell Meles Zenawi’s minority government that they will not tolerate its intransigence in the face of international rule of law.