Among the matters that are disrupting the peace and stability of the Horn of Africa, the occupation over or invasion of the sovereign territory of Eritrea as yet stands foremost. Despite the scourge of conflict that was fabricated to have broken out as a border dispute in 1998 was adjudicated following the EEBC ruling in April 2002, an implacable hindrance by the Administration in Washington has held the verdict back from execution clouding the crisis over, and thus, keeping the peoples in the Horn region hostage. As the EEBC ruling is desired to remain a perpetual factor for micromanaging the crisis, however, futile attempts that have been made to divert the lingering matter to dialog and all the smoke screens remain manifestations of the gimmick, which intends to precipitate a lasting chaotic state of affairs over the region.
However sugarcoated are such acts of hostility in diplomatic terms, they would still amount to subversion of the rule of law. Once a dispute is legally decided upon, what comes next is self-evident: enforcement of the verdict. No room for diversion. Failure to implement the final and binding Algiers Agreement and the ensuing EEBC ruling, to which the adversarial parties and the guarantors are signatories, can never be justified in any legal or political pretext whatsoever.
The deific urge for normalcy and building trust is also hyped time and again with a view to obliquely obscuring the real situation. Normalcy and robust trust can by no means be realized in a situation where the rule of law is subverted and the sovereign Eritrean territory is occupied, but rather, these can only be achieved under the aegis of the rule of law. In order that normalcy could be guaranteed, therefore, Eritrea necessitates no condition other than the divestiture of its illegally invaded territory. Eritrea’s unwavering stance is but enforcement of the EEBC’s decision. All other sidetracking attempts are tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, the EEBC ruling should in the first place be implemented as well as the vicious acts of conspiracy, which have resulted in instability, be rectified in order for both parties to move to the next chapter.
There was a vital role the UN, the AU and the remainder guarantors of the Algiers Agreement should have played in enforcing the execution of the adjudication. On the contrary, the said parties have for a number of reasons, especially, due to the pressure from Washington, reneged on their pledges for enforcement of the rule of law, and failed to discharge their responsibilities. Needless to say, the consequence such miscarriage entailed in the Horn region is not to be viewed lightly. Yet again, any regional or international organization whatsoever, provided that it is resolved for peace and stability to prevail in the Horn of Africa, must show the courage to condemn the invasion of a sovereign territory and urge for the enforcement of the final and binding Boundary Commission ruling in place of stirring up concluded matters and muddling them up.