While it is difficult to find markers of this peace in relations between the two countries, hopes raised by the announcement of peace have also been dashed at the Eritrean level. Indeed, the Eritrean regime was quickly faced with a dilemma: while it could end a very unpopular forced summons, or at least reduce its duration and scope, such a decision implied that it offered jobs of demobilized conscripts and that it perhaps more than politically met some of its lifestyle requirements. Going in such a direction was a risk9 that Eritrean leaders did not want to take. Some members of the security apparatus were hesitant to support a liberal change because they received real rent from the existence of such personnel, who might be tempted to work as they pleased or were willing to pay dearly to cross the border and escape Eritrea. Suddenly, it would have been necessary to accept less control of the market, competition with new economic operators, which is not linked to the figures of the regime and the single party. This was not impossible, but no regime was interested, knowing that it could benefit from considerable international assistance to stem exile seekers and mining potential (such as Ethiopia) that would produce more small development enclaves than a general improvement in the national economy. But even though the front lines seemed frozen in this conflict, U.S. diplomacy has quietly worked on normalization from 2017. This new situation was not so much the result of Washington`s aggiornamento as the friendly pressure of the Saudi and Emirati allies who had gained a foothold in Eritrea and Ethiopia to develop an alliance of countries bordering the Red Sea – which finally emerged in January 2020.5 This period was also marked by the intensification of the often violent social struggles in Ethiopia. the exhaustion of a regime founded in 1991 by Meles Zenawi, who himself died of aggressive cancer in 2012.6 The old world has collapsed and peace between the two countries could belong to the new one.
Each party made available to the Secretary who, on the basis of this evidence, forwarded his findings to eEBC, his claims and his evidence, identifying the parts of the border in which there did not appear to be a dispute between the parties. In the event of disagreement, the parties submitted written and oral submissions directly to the EEBC, as well as any additional evidence.