The Horn of Africa region has had the reputation for being a troubled neighborhood for far too long. There are, perhaps, a considerable number of reasons for this, but one very obvious factor detrimental to the prospects of peace in the region has been the all-too-negative role of the government of Eritrea which has consistently posed a distinct and formidable challenge to regional efforts to address the various conflicts that have bedeviled the Horn. Eritrea’s leaders have committed aggression against all their neighbors in a manner that defies ordinary notions of good neighborly relationships and normal inter-state relations.

The government in Asmara has openly championed a series of destabilizing activities throughout the region, actively supporting armed opposition elements in other countries. It has continued to carry out these schemes despite mounting criticism and even pressure from the international community. Apart from these activities at various times in Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia, Eritrea’s support for extremists and terrorists in Somalia and its declared opposition to the legitimate Transitional Government of Somalia as well as its most recent aggression against Djibouti, have drawn particular attention from the international community. One result has been Resolutions 1862 and 1907 of the United Nations’ Security Council. In particular, Resolution 1907 imposed targeted sanctions against the regime and its officials for, inter alia, Eritrea’s flagrant occupation of Djibouti territory; its arming, logistical and political support for extremist elements in Somalia; and, finally for its destabilizing activities throughout the region. Given this history, it was indeed altogether fitting and proper that the UN Security Council should finally take the action that it did, belated though it might have been.

 Eritrea’s reaction to the Security Council action was all too predictable, displaying as it often does a continued aversion to behaving normally. Rather than making any effort to adjust their actions, Eritrea’s leaders have preferred to do everything they could to deflect the international community’s attention away from the destructive activities they have all-too-obviously been engaged in. True to form, the first reaction was flat denial of the accusations made against them, in spite of a mountain of detailed and incontrovertible evidence available. They have continued in this. An orchestrated media blitz, including a highly unusual number of interviews with President Isaias, was clearly intended to sidetrack attention in different directions, though it appears to have failed in its desired effect.

 Eritrea’s position with regard to its dispute with Djibouti was particularly telling. It consistently denied aving conthe very existence of any ‘bona fide’ dispute with Djibouti, denied the presence of its troops across the Djibouti border, and refused to accept a fact-finding mission from the UN. Then the Emir of Qatar announced that Eritrea and Djibouti had indeed agreed to resolve their dispute following mediation by Qatar. As we have noted before the negotiations have been shrouded in opacity, and Eritrea has yet to come forward publicly confirming that they did indeed take place. Despite the mediation announcement that Eritrean troops had withdrawn from the previously occupied areas, and the fact that Qatar troops are now acting as observers on both sides of the border, Eritrea has continued to refuse to assume responsibility for its aggression against Djibouti much less issue any statement. Despite this there has been a highly enthusiastic response from the international community to the agreement. However, it still remains to be seen if the regime in Asmara will in fact make good on the terms. On past record, it has to be said this seems unlikely.

 Similarly, acting true to form, the government of Eritrea has recently been pestering the Security Council to lift the sanctions imposed on it under Resolution 1907. It has claimed that the signing of an agreement with Djibouti, even without public acceptance or acknowledgement of responsibility for its actions, amounts to its full compliance with the demands made in the Resolution. This of course ignores the more significant elements of Resolution 1907, relating to Somalia and regional destabilization. In fact, Eritrean officials have been making strenuous efforts to shift attention away to wholly unrelated issues, straining every nerve to dilute the significance of Resolutions 1862 and 1907 by trying to sidetrack the Security Council into totally unrelated issues. In a classic case of reductio ad absurdum, they have been trying every trick to try to persuade the international community to believe that all Eritrean misbehavior, however egregious, was meant to draw attention to an entirely different issue.

 In fact, Eritrea’s leaders are now pressing the UN Security Council to lift sanctions even though Eritrea still fails to admit to its responsibility for the instigation of the dispute with Djibouti and it is far from clear if the agreement will hold. Indeed, Eritrea still appears to be denying any such dispute actually took place. It appears to be banking on the possibility, if not the likelihood, that the international community enthused by the possibility, however implausible, of Eritrea’s ‘renewed good faith’, will be oblivious to the remaining two aspects of the Resolution demanding that Eritrea stop its support for extremism and terrorism in Somalia, and desist from  destabilizing activities throughout the region. In fact, despite the UN Secretary General’s rather optimistic interpretation of Eritrea’s participation in the Istanbul conference on Somalia, the government of Eritrea has continued to hold to its entirely negative line towards peace and stability in Somalia. In what can only be called a deliberate snub, typical of Eritrea’s leaders, Eritrea has even gone so far as to remind the UN Security Council in so many words that Eritrea has never changed its position on Somalia. In other words, Eritrea’s position continues to fly full in the face of the demands of Resolution 1907. It is clear its rejection of the TFG, and its support to the opposition, continues without change.