The Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release of 27 February expresses the wariness in the clearest terms. It dismisses the Witness's request that the EEBC consider the hiring of "neutral technical experts" to assist in the demarcation process as truly irrelevant. Indeed it is irrelevant because the Algiers Agreement places the authority to demarcate solely in the hands of the EEBC commission and its designated staff.

Eritrea considers any attempt at circumventing the finality of the EEBC Delimitation Decision, as obliquely hinted in the Witnesses Statement, or boldly stated by the US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, in a recent radio interview, beyond the pale. The Press Release correctly interpreted the Witnesses' version of the recommendation for the two parties to proceed with demarcation suspiciously, as a veiled attempt to reinterpret the delimitation order to suit Ethiopia's needs.

Eritrea views the professional staff of the Commission as the sole body with the sole mandate and legitimacy to complete the demarcation process. The extent of the EEBC's responsibility in demarcating the border on the basis of the 13 April 2002 Delimitation Decision is clear. It has been spelled out in black and white in the Demarcation Directive of 8 July 2002.

The Demarcation Directive of 2002 is based on Article 4(13) of the December 2000 Algiers Agreement which requires the EEBC commission to "arrange for expeditious" demarcation of the border as delimited . Any suggestion to the contrary, that the EEBC strays from its delimitation decision as implied by the overt and covert actions of the recent U.S-led initiatives, is illegal. Putting pressure on the EEBC to force Eritrea to accept a review of the Delimitation Decision is an exercise of raw political power, unbecoming a great nation committed to the rule of law.

The demarcation process as envisaged by the Algiers Agreement is the sole responsibility of the EEBC commission. The Demarcation Directive states that "the demarcation process will be carried out by, or under the responsibility of the Boundary Commission." The Commission's technical staff consist of a Secretary and his representatives from the UN's Cartographic Unit, the Special Consultant of the Commission, the Chief Surveyor and other staff the commission may want to hire. The point is that the Commission has enough in-house technical expertise that any suggestion that it needs to consider hiring a U.S. recommended "expert" to augment its staff has nefarious implication.

How will demarcation take place? According to the Directive, demarcation shall take place on the basis of the 1:25,000- scale map. Both countries and their agents have copies of the map. There are provisions in the Directions that permit comments from each side. Ultimately, however, the Commission is responsible for marking on the map "the line prescribed in the Delimitation Decision and the proposed sites of the boundary pillars, taking into account the need for intervisibility."

The pillars or poles that mark off the boundary must be visible to the naked eye. The pillars, continues the Directive, must be placed within 50 meters of the coordinates of pillars marked on the 1:25,000 scale map. If for whatever reason, the pillar cannot be placed within the designated distance, the case must be referred to the Commission.

What happens if the line crosses towns and villages? Here, too, the Commission is unequivocally clear. Section 14 (A) of the Demarcation Directive states: "The Commission has no authority to vary the boundary line. If it runs through and divides a town or village, the line may be varied only on the basis of an express request agreed between and made by both Parties." The Party that wants a change in the direction of the line may put in a request through the Commission, but unless the other Party agrees to the change, the Commission is forbidden by the Algiers Agreement to alter the boundary line. If lives are disrupted as a result of the drawing of the boundary line, the Algiers Agreement has made sufficient provisions for the expected occurrence.

What if there are disagreements about the placement of the pillars? The Directive provides each Party sufficient due process through its Liaison Representatives to state its case. The disagreement will initially be handled by the technical staff, sand if dissatisfied with the response, may appeal directly to the Commission, which has final say on the matter. Yet disagreements cannot hold up the process. On this point the Directive is clear: "The fact that a question relating to a particular pillar is under consideration shall not prevent the Field Office staff from continuing work on the pillars."

If the current U.S led initiatives are to succeed in bringing lasting peace to the trouble area nothing should be done to amend, dilute or water down the Delimitation Decision. Too many people have perished, and too many people are rotting in camps, and much scarce resource has been squandered on this conflict. To delay and drag out the demarcation process any further is most unconscionable. A legal decision has been rendered. It is not by any means perfect and by no means what each side had hoped for. It is, however, a decision both sides pledged to accept, regardless of the outcome. For the sake of the people on both sides of the border, the U.S must demonstrate fealty to the letter and spirit of the law and steer both sides to accept and implement the EECB Decision in its entirety in every sense of the word.

Much has been made out that the line may divide villages and that this is unfair and unjust. But people who hold such views miss an essential point about the Algiers Agreement. The Agreement has made it abundantly clear that demarcation is not about what's fair and just: it is first and foremost about what's legal. In this case what is legal is what has been contained in the EEBC decision. What is more, what is fair and just to one side is unfair and unjust to the other. Who is to say that what happens to a few houses that may end on the other side of the line should be of special concern and hence requiring extra legal solution than the plight of the thousands of the original settlers of the area who are currently rotting in far away camps? One should not try to promote justice to one side while denying justice to the other, as regrettably, the U.S. Assistant Secretary seems to be saying, a position that is likely to widen instead of closing the gap between the two sides.

Last question: should Eritrea attend the London meeting? Yes, if the meeting is about the implementation of the April 13, 2002 Decision according to the Demarcation Directive of July 8, 2002, and about nothing else. Yes, if before the meeting Ethiopia commits to accepting the EEBC Delimitation Decision without preconditions and the Witnesses are prepared to secure Ethiopia's compliance. Initial exuberance notwithstanding (on second, indeed, it was irrational), the answer is No if the meeting is another example of "bait and switch" where instead of implementing the Delimitation Decision according to the already agreed upon Directives the meeting addresses other issues including political dialog that leads to normalization. Normalization is an admirable long term goal and must be pursued as soon as the pillars have been placed along the coordinates suggested in the delimitation decision. But as always, first things first: demarcation before any discourse towards political normalization.