3.1 The Position of the Eritrean Government on the Issue.

The blunder of the Eritrean Government is not only that it has committed an aggression without any legal justification but it has all the more stood in contradistinction to the only legal and peaceful resolution of the issue which has been forwarded by the Facilitators and has the full backing of the OAU and the UN Security Council. The rejection of the proposed peaceful resolution of the crisis by the Eritrean Government, which was officially communicated to the Facilitators was also made public by President Issayas Afewerki to the whole world, when he unhesitantly stated that it is unthinkable to withdraw from Badme. The adamant stance and blind rejection demonstrates that the Eritrean Government has defied the Facilitators, the OAU and cannot claim to have accepted the UN Security Council's resolution which supports the OAU on the legal means of resolving the dispute.

At the same time, the Eritrean regime is engaged In deceit and ambiguities because it lacks the moral nerve to openly state its stand on the recommendations, as this would expose its real nature in the face of the entire world. It has opted to bluff here and there with the decided objective to hoodwink the international community. While it has been made crystal clear that the Eritrean regime has absolutely rejected the proposal tabled by the US-Rwanda Facilitators, on the other hand in a deliberate move to create confusion Asmara has been observed saying that the US-Rwanda proposal was of its own formulation, while on the other hand it obstructs implementation of the recommendation by claiming that it is pregnant with technical problems and unimplementable elements. At other times, the Eritrean regime blames the Facilitators by saying that their proposals had been drawn up in a hasty manner and implies forcing Asmara to accept it. And when the delegation of the OAU leaders met with the Eritrean leaders to broker a peaceful end to the conflict based on recommendations of the Facilitators and the OAU summit resolution, which endorses the recommendations, the Asmara regime arrogantly dismissed their plea by saying that since the US-Rwanda Facilitators proposal was out-dated their mission had no relevance. Although it is a fact that the recommendations of the Facilitators and the resolution issued by the OAU emanating therefrom and the UN Security Councils resolution are identical, the Eritrean regime is pretending to accept the UN Security Council resolution as if it was different from the OAU resolution in a vain and sinister attempt and motive of creating confusion and avoid being held responsible for the blatant aggression it has committed.

It can be clearly discerned that the stand adopted by the US-Rwanda Facilitators, the OAU, the UN Security Council, and the Ethiopian Government on the one hand, and the lonely attitude of the Eritrean government on the other, are totally different and diametrically opposed to each other. In this regard, the crux of the difference lies in the fact that the recommendations promoted by the Facilitators, the OAU, the UN and Ethiopia demand that prior to entering into any negotiation to seek a settlement by legal and peaceful means the Eritrean forces should withdraw and the status quo ante re-established. The Eritrean side obdurately advocates that the border delimitation and demarcation work should start and that the area should be demilitarized without the withdrawal of its forces from Ethiopian territory. This is totally unacceptable to Ethiopia and the international community.

To profess to bring peace while forcibly occupying the territory of a sovereign country by way of aggression and to pretend to be seeking conciliation while unlawfully expropriating someone's holdings is typical of the stand of a force which does not wish to subscribe to law and order. And this approach, which supports that peace could be attained while force is on the ground contravenes the proposition that force should not be a mechanism of conflict resolution and that it is peaceful and legal means which is the only path to resolving any difference.

To say that peace could be achieved while the aggressor forces are occupying the territory of a sovereign nation contradicts the internationally accepted notion that the forcibly altered situation on the ground should be redressed and the status quo ante put in place. It is quite vivid to understand that the Eritrean regime's position could only be shared by like-minded forces that commit aggression first and call for dialogue later. This trend will certainly spell chaos and instability the world over and is anti-peace. Such kind of stand will not be acceptable to any civilized state and the international community.

The Eritrean regime's blind rejection of the recommendations of the Facilitators, the UN and OAU resolutions, could only emanate only from the fact that the Eritrean regime's stand which is totally irreconcilable to the internationally accepted values and practices of conflict management and resolution and as such is dangerous. Because of this contradiction, the Eritrean regime is trying to smoke-screen and cloud the issue by spreading blantant lies and fabrications.

3.2 Why has the Eritrean regime rejected the peaceful proposals?

Why has the Eritrean Government rejected the demand for the withdrawal of its forces from Badme and the immediate resumption of the delimitation and demarcation of the border which was supported by governments and international organizations? Why has it opted for the dangerous path that would push Eritrea to the brink of disaster and engulf the region in chaos? These questions have been widely posed and the matter has become a subject of dialogue by journalists and other sectors of society on a world scale. The answers to these questions could be found by undertaking a deep and thorough investigation of the history and behavior of the Eritrean leadership. In this paper an attempt will be made to examine the issue in light of the territorial dispute at hand. Is it the expansionist ambition which is the sole reason that has triggered off the conflict at present? Certainly, since the EPLF leaders have wild and unattainable ambitions and dreams they do harbor expansionist aims.

Had their ambition had been tamed, they would not have primarily jumped on to aggression. Eventhough the piece of land they are putting a claim on does not belong to them or they cannot justify their claim, still if they believe they have all the legal ground to support their claim they would have been served better if they had sought a peaceful and legal means to pursue their claim. Furthermore, it could be assumed that the Eritrean leadership could have erred, in any way possible, to indulge itself in aggression. Still, Asmara could have accepted the Facilitators' proposal for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from the occupied Ethiopian territory and resort to the path of legal and peaceful means to end the crisis and strive to pursue the claim legally. One certainly observes from the foregoing that the origin of the conflict and the motive of the leaders of the EPLF does not emanate from territorial claim only.

One is inclined to believe at this juncture that a responsible and civilized government, when faced with a similar situation, would be expected to do two things. First and foremost, it should not resort to force while the problem at hand i.e. a territorial claim, can safely and definitely be resolved through negotiated and peaceful settlement. Secondly, even if, by any chance of mistake or miscalculation, it had committed an aggression it could naturally retract to its original position by rectifying the situation. Unfortunately, the EPLF leaders have not considered both options. Because, even the first move they ventured into was an irresponsible act based on their stand on the worship of force reflecting their anti-peace stance. What prevented the Eritrean leaders from admitting that they had earlier erred was the fact that such a measure would not be in line with their concern for their image and personality. Instead, in their own belief admitting their mistake, which would tarnish their ego, they would rather sacrifice the country as a whole, instead of admitting what had gone wrong, they chose to protect their false dignity by jeopardizing the erstwhile cordial relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea; instead of taking corrective measures, they consciously opted to spell unrest and chaos in the region. If they withdraw their forces of aggression the Shaibya leaders fear that the Eritrean people and the international community will demand an explanation on why in the first place they had embarked upon such an adventurist and unprovoked occupation of a foreign land, they think this would be an affront to their pride and ego. Therefore, they have reasoned instead of being stripped off their assumed pride and hypocritical ego, they would rather have Eritrea suffer the consequences of the impending catastrophe, hence they have chosen to save their skin at the expense of the suffering of the Eritrean people.

The Eritrean people should not give a chance to the Shaibya leaders, who have irresponsibly opted to present the Eritrean people and youth with imminent disaster, only to save their skin. One cannot but underline the fact that, what counts for the Shaibya leaders before anything else is their pride and ego; and that their stance will not permit them to stand for peace for the benefit of the Eritrean people. This has been testified by their deeds to date. If there is the slightest chance that would force the Eritrean leaders to traverse along the rout of peace it is only through the firm pressure applied on them by the Eritrean people in particular and the international community at large.

Therefore, the Eritrean people should raise their voices and demand of the Eritrean leadership; "Eritrea should not be a sacrificial lamb, to save your skin. Stop playing with the lives of our youth, who are the survivors of our 30 years of just war, for the sake of your own personal pride and ego centralism. Stop conspiring against our national interest, by isolating our country from the family of the global community! "

The Eritrean people should call upon the Eritrean leadership to heed to the voice of reason and sanity and follow the path of peace and reconciliation. The people should demonstrate their opposition to the path of war and destruction that the Eritrean leadership is pursuing and persistently strive to force the leadership to abide by the appeal of the entire world community to adopt the path of peace. The Eritrean people should vehemently fight to foil the devilish design of the Eritrean leadership to use the people as their canon fodder in their insane campaign. Realizing that the overriding mission of the day is to thwart the arrogant ambition of Shaibya and to salvage the Eritrean youth from being sacrificed in this unjust war, it is incumbent upon the Eritrean people to persevere in their struggle to put an end to the arrogance of the EPLF leadership and summon the courage that belongs to the tradition of the Eritrean people towards the noble objective of foiling the insanity which threatens the peace.