Writing on the nature of the Eritrean Leadership's nationalism, Dan Connel, in his book entitled "Against All Odds: A Chronicle of the Eritrean Revolution," said "The Liberation Movement's greatest asset as it faces these and other trials is the depth and breadth of national feeling it has engendered among Eritrea's diverse citizens. This nationalism, however, could become a problem in its own right if taken to extremes and divorced form an overarching vision of a larger human community.

"Eritrea's experience encourages a bunker mentality, we-versus-them attitude in external relations. One danger now is that the country's long isolation may have bred such a depth of mistrust toward outsiders that Eritreans will find it difficult to deal effectively with governments, multinational institutions and others with which they will be forced to negotiate for access capital, markets and other resources."

Mr. Connel wrote this in 1993, on the aftermath of Eritrea's independence. His predictions, however, did not take much time to become a reality. The Eritrean Leadership's bunker mentality, we-versus-them, has surfaced immediately after independence, and has turned into a threat to the neighboring countries. This aggressive and provocative behavior has been mostly manifested in no other person than the president of Eritria himself.

Eritrea's leader, Issayas Afeworki superficially preachs peace, tranquillity and stability. During a recent visit to the USA he said:

"There cannot be successful development for Eritrea or any other neighboring country without commensurate development in all the others. War is an obstacle to development and war in any of the states in the region adversely affects development in others."

However, the following interview published in the 14 October 1995 issue of the Economist magazine projects a completely different position of the Eritrean leader. In it he said:

"We are out to see that this government (the Khartoum government) is not there any more. We are not trying to pressurize them to talk to us, or behave in a more constructive way. We will give weapons to any one committed to overthrowing them..."

Again in February 1996, President Issayas was quoted in New African (Feb. 1996, No. 338) as saying: "We are no longer prepared to play Tom and Jerry games with Khartoum. The stability of the region depends on the regime's defeat. There is no more room for diplomacy, and no compromise."

On December 15,16 and 17,1996, the Eritrean regime provoked a confrontation between the units of the armed forces of Eritrea and Yemen on Greater Hanish Islands, one of the Islands commanding the Red Sea approaches. Many countries condemned the aggression of Eritrea.

The Eritro-Yemeni dispute which erupted abruptly shocked many countries near and far, and Ethiopia was one of the countries which from the beginning exerted maximum effort towards solving the problem. The Eritrean regime was not made to realize that aggression is intolerable in interstate relations.

Therefore, the Eritrean leadership's provocation continued when Asmara moved against the Republic of Djibouti. In April 1996, President Goueled Aptidon reportedly rejected a map (produced by Italy in 1935) submitted by Petros Solomon, the then Foreign Minister, which apparently indicated that 20km strip of land then claimed by Djibouti, was in fact, Eritrean territory. Concurrently reports emerged of the attempted occupation of a border post in Djibouti (within the disputed territory) by Eritrean troops. The Eritrean authorities again denied the incident, claiming that it was part of a misinformation campaign by Yemen. They did this after they were desuaded by Ethiopia's intervention to rescind such a dangerous and unacceptable course of action against a neighbouring state.

The pattern of militarism, the use of military action or the threat of it, followed by a call for international mediation,which was employed by Etitrea during the conflict with Yemen, and a repeat of it was made against Djibouti a year later has now been turned on Ethiopia with the invasion of Badme and its environs on 12 May 1998.

In a display of stubborn arrogance, Issayas said in response to the proposals of peace brokers: "It is both physically impossible and morally unthinkable to withdraw from Badme," and at anther time "even if the sun does not rise we will not withdraw from Badme."

But it is obvious that the sun will not change its natural course and Badme to be part and parcel of the Ethiopian territory.

The President of Eritrea is not only provocative and aggressive, but he is also obstructionist. This he showed on many issues and several occasions. On the Somali problem he differed from the consensus reached by the IGAD member countries, and tried to saw seeds of discord among the Somali factions, by giving support to one faction to the exclusion of others.

One also can find a similar situation with regard to the problem of Burundi. By opposing the economic embargo imposed in respouse to military takeover and to press for dialogue among the political groups of the country, president Issayas said in mid February 1998, that political, social and other problems cannot be solved by hasty resolutions. The Eritrean regime is well-known for its contempt of regional and international organizations.

Finally, It would be well to recall his slanderous attack made against the OAU. During his maiden speech to the OAU when Eritrea joined the Organization in the last weeks of June 1993, at the Cairo summit of the Heads of States and Governments, the President said"... indeed, the sad fact remains that the OAU has become a nominal organization that had failed to deliver on its pronounced objectives and commitments. In this regard, I must admit that we have sought membership in the organization not because we have been impressed by its achievement but, as a local proverb goes, in the spirit of familial obligation; because we are keenly aware that what is ours is ours."

This was not alone. In another occasion he hurled a similar attack on the OAU. This time he said"... the OAU is not fit to play a continental role as it lacks organizational qualifications. Africa is internationally marginalized and so is the OAU. It has achieved nothing in the past thirty years."

Eritrea's aggression against Ethiopia is the latest in a pattern of provocative and aggressive policies against neighboring states. The Eritrean regime will not listen to facilitation by regional and international organizations because, in the first place, it holds them with contempt. Peace in the Horn of Africa sub-region remains threatened because the Eritrean regime is a trouble-maker, does not subscribe to the consensus of the region and persists in imposing its will on its neighbors by force.