The process to achieve sustainable peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, under way since 2000, is at a critical stage.  Demarcation cannot be carried out. It is not because Ethiopia is dragging its feet.  It is because demarcation is not a priority for Eritrea.  Ethiopia has always been ready for dialogue and for the normalization of relations with Eritrea. Ethiopia does not need to be pressed: "to recognize and demarcate the border and talk with Eritrea to lower tensions."    The New York Times (October 17 editorial) shows little knowledge of the position of the respective parties to the conflict.

The New York Times is, however, correct when it says Eritrea "has violated the treaty, sending troops into the demilitarized zone."  This, in fact, is the crux of the matter.    Eritrea has violated the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. This provided for a buffer zone, the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ), between Ethiopian and Eritrean forces.  The Zone was created by the voluntary withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from areas inside Eritrea put under Ethiopian control following the counter offensive to repulse Eritrean aggression.  This buffer Zone put the two armed forces at a distance of 25 kms from each other.  This condition was insisted upon by Ethiopia.  With Eritrean troops taking over the Zone, the Agreement is now in tatters.

At present, the most urgent matters between the two parties are the restoration of the TSZ, the removal of the restrictions placed by Eritrea on UNMEE and full compliance with the provisions of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities.  Ethiopia has been insisting on this over two years.  Ethiopia's Notification to Eritrea should be seen in this context.  Ethiopia is still awaiting the response of Eritrea.  In the meantime, Ethiopia must reiterate that there can be no more urgent matter than full, not partial, compliance with the Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities. 

With regard to the demarcation of the boundary, as it has frequently pointed out, Ethiopia is ready to carry out its obligation in conformity with customary international practice. This cannot include "virtual demarcation" on paper. Any attempt at "virtual demarcation" is fraught with danger.  It is likely to end up legitimizing irresponsible behavior. Eritrea has shown its capacity for irresponsibility all too often.  Ethiopia would urge the Security Council to exercise wisdom and common sense in this regard.

The Security Council has repeated in many of its resolutions that demarcation of the boundary is primarily the responsibility of the two parties. We agree, but this means acceptance of responsibility for a dialogue, a preparedness to normalize relations and a willingness to accept third party facilitation, primarily that of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  Ethiopia is certainly ready for all this.  It will also provide an answer to the question of what happens after November 2007.  In the meantime, there can be no more urgent matter than the restoration of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities without which demarcation of the border cannot be carried out.

 October 18, 2007

Addis Ababa