I     INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia has been consistent in its position on the border dispute with Eritrea. This is common between many African countries, given the history of the Continent. Ethiopia's consistent position is that border disputes should be addressed by peaceful and legal means.

Aggression is a different matter. Eritrea has committed aggression against Ethiopia in violation of international law, in violation of the OAU and UN Charters. Therefore, Eritrea's unprovoked and naked aggression is a crime which cannot be justified by any pretext of border dispute.

Several months have elapsed since the eruption of the crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is to be observed that the governments of both countries have been expressing their respective views on the cause and beginning of the crisis. A number of governments and international organizations, upon thoroughly examining the issue, have put forward proposals to peacefully resolve the crisis, based on international law and principles of conflict management and resolution.

In order to give a clear picture of the start of the conflict and for an understanding of its legal and peaceful resolution, it is appropriate and useful to examine and compare the recommendations made by the Rwandan and American Facilitators and international organizations, taking into account the nature of the problem and its solution vis-à-vis the principles and positions of the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The sole objective of the paper is thus to give clarifications on the main points pertaining to the crisis.

II     THE POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA ON THE PROBLEM AND HOW IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED

2.1 The position of the Ethiopian Government on the issue

Conflicting territorial claims between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been long standing dating back to the times of the armed struggle. The question of territorial claims was raised simultaneously by various Eritrean political organizations on the one hand and the Tigrean Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) on the other. However, there was a clear and an unambiguous position on the part of the TPLF on how to resolve the difference on the question of territorial claims. The principled position of the TPLF was that since political organizations do not have the mandate to delimit and demarcate borders between the two countries the issue should be postponed until such time that governments, with the legal mandate to deal with the issue, evolve in both countries and find a lasting solution based on a legal and peaceful means of resolving the problem.

When the question of territorial claims surfaced once again following the demise of the military regime (the dergue), the governments that emerged in both countries then agreed on two fundamental ways to resolve the problem. The first was to resolve the border issue by peaceful and legal means through dialogue. And the second understanding reached was that the two countries should respect, maintain and administer the territories they had inherited with the demise of the dergue and to wait for an appropriate time to delimit and demarcate the border.

After this cardinal understanding on resolving the issue was reached, the border question was not regarded as an urgent matter by both governments prior to, and even for some years after the Eritrean referendum. Meanwhile, the Eritrean government embarked upon excesses and undue advantages by trying to impose its unfair policy on sales tax, on Franco-Valuta, on port service charges, etc. without due regard to bilateral interests based on equality and mutual advantage of both countries.

To forestall this move the Ethiopian Government took a firm stand that would insure the maintenance of mutual advantages of both countries and discourage the unfair Eritrean practice. This principled stand was naturally not agreeable to the Eritrean side and hence Asmara started to take measures that negatively affect the hitherto existing positive relations between the two countries. At last when the Eritrean Government introduced its own currency, Ethiopia decided to apply its prevailing policy regarding all countries to Eritrea as well that is the letter of credit (L/C) and a third utilization of currency based on international monetary parameters, in its import-export relations with Eritrea. Eritrea rejected the idea by insisting that the currencies of both countries should have a free rein in each other's territory with no need for the dollar as an intervention currency. This disagreement further exacerbated the already strained relations between the two countries.

When the relations of the countries deteriorated further as a consequence of economic issues, the border claim began to come to the fore. Subsequently, on the insistence of the Ethiopian side for the need to put a mechanism in place to seek a lasting solution to the border problem, a joint border commission was established.

The joint commission entrusted with the task of resolving the border question held its first meeting on November 14, 1997 in Asmara, the capital of Eritrea, and reached an understanding:-

• To assign to a technical sub-committee drawn from both countries to examine the border question and to report to the commission be formed.

• That each party should declare to the other side the list of its members to be represented in the sub-committee.

• That both sides respect the status quo and take measures to alleviate impending border disputes until such time that a lasting solution is attained.

In March 1998, both sides agreed, via correspondence, to hold a meeting of the bi-lateral border commission on May 8, 1998. However two-days before the appointed date on May 6, 1998, a conflict was triggered off when armed Eritrean units entered some localities under the Badme administration. According to the already existing understanding nationals of both countries could freely enter each other's territory unarmed. Thus, members of the Ethiopian police and militia who were on guard in the area brought to the attention of the Eritrean armed units that, according to the agreement of both sides, it was prohibited to cross each other's territory with arms. Hence, they proposed that the Eritreans could only freely enter the Ethiopian territory by leaving their arms in their areas or keep them under the custody of the Ethiopian side and collect them on their return to their position later. The armed Eritrean group retorted by defying the Ethiopian plea and resorted to violence by opening fire and the ensuing clash claimed lives from both sides.

After this skirmish the meeting of the joint Ethio-Eritrean border commission was held in Addis Ababa on May 8, 1998 as scheduled and reached an understanding on the following salient points.

1. That two members of the joint commission, one from each, side should be assigned to meet in Asmara in two months time with pertinent information and to identify points of agreement and difference on the issue and to determine a date for the joint commission to re-convene.

2. That the Eritrean forces, which had crossed the border and entered the Ethiopian territory by force of arms on May 6, 1998, should pull back to their original position in Eritrea.

3. The agreement reached by both sides prohibiting the movement of armed units to cross into each other's territory should be observed.

4. That the existing border stability be maintained until a final solution is reached.

5. That the two sides take measures to diffuse the border tension and by way of augmenting this trend they investigate the causes of the May 6, 1998 clash.

What is more, in an attempt to encourage further bond of relations among members of the joint-commission in an informal discussion, an understanding was reached by both parties, for the Eritrean side to stay in Addis Ababa during May 9, 1998. But for reasons not known to their Ethiopian counter-parts, the Eritrean members of the joint border commission went back home, on the same day, May 9, 1998, without notifying the Ethiopian side about their departure.

During the joint session of the border commission in Addis Ababa, the Eritrean side was simultaneously amassing huge forces in the environs of Badme in stark contravention of the understanding reached by both sides. The chief of staff of the Ethiopian armed forces cognizant of this development telephoned the Eritrean minister of defense twice on May 10 and 11, 1998 and demanded that the amassing of force in the Badme area should be stopped immediately and insisted that the dispute should be solved in accordance with the principles agreed upon by both sides earlier. The Eritrean defense minister responded to the Ethiopian chief of staff by saying that the issue was being examined by pertinent Eritrean authorities and assured him that no measure would be taken out of the context of the previous understanding reached by both parties. Likewise, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi also demanded, through the office of the Eritrean Embassy in Addis Ababa, for a halt to the arms build up around Badme and its environs and demanded that the border problem must be addressed on the basis of the understanding reached on May 8, 1998, in Addis Ababa.

The insistence and plea by the Ethiopian side was to no avail and the Eritrean forces launched an unprovoked aggression on Badme and its environs. The Eritrean forces reinforced by tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery and commanded by three generals literally walked into the Ethiopian territory unimpeded since there was not even a single armed unit of the Ethiopian defense forces in the area.

True to Ethiopia's commitment to seek a peaceful resolution of the dispute, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi directly talked on the phone, to President Issayas Afewerki of Eritrea and demanded the unconditional and prompt withdrawal of the Eritean forces of aggression first and demanded that the dispute be solved through a negotiated settlement. When the Ethiopian attempts to obtain an Eritrean withdrawal could not achieve the desired results because the Eritrean regime refused to listen, the issue was brought before the Ethiopian Council of Ministers and the Parliament on May 13, 1998. Consequently after a thorough examination of the situation, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament passed a resolution which:-

• Strongly condemned the unprovoked aggression perpetrated by the government of Eritrea as a flagrant violation of international law and many agreements reached between the two countries.

• Denounced the shameful attack by the Eritrean side on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia.

• Expressed the unwavering stand of Ethiopia for a peaceful, legal and lasting resolution of the dispute, and for this to be realized it called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Eritrean forces from the Ethiopian territory which they were occupying.

• Declared that if the demand by Ethiopia for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Eritrean occupation forces paving the way for a peaceful settlement of the dispute is not heeded by the Eritrean side, Ethiopia reserved the right to take measures deemed necessary to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity and the dignity of its peoples.




2.2 Worldwide Acceptance of the Ethiopian Position.

When Ethiopia officially declared on May 13, 1988 that a naked and violent aggression was committed on it by Eritrea and subsequently put forward proposals for a peaceful and legal resolution of the dispute, the governments of Rwanda and the United States on May 17, 1998 began facilitation efforts by shuttling between Addis Ababa and Asmara. Accordingly after consulting both sides and making their respective independent investigations the facilitators examined and evaluated the issue from all perspectives; i.e. how the problem emanated, why it evolved, how it should be viewed. Based on international law and principles of conflict management and resolution and taking into account the causes of the crisis, the facilitators put the following recommendations as a basis for the peaceful and legal resolution of the crisis:

1. That the two sides should accept and abide by the following principles.

• To resolve through a peaceful and legal manner the current problem or any other prevailing differences between them.

• To respect the fundamental principle that the logic of force should not be taken as a path towards attaining a solution.

• To take necessary measures to ventilate the tension.

• To delimit and demarcate their border, based on established colonial treaties and relevant international laws.

• To agree that these recommendations are accepted by both sides as governing principles.

2. An observer team established by Rwanda and supported by the US should be deployed to Badme in order to diffuse the tension and facilitate propitious conditions to resolve the crisis.

• In 24 hours after the observer team had arrived in Badme, the Eritrean forces should start to withdraw to the position they held prior to May 6, 1998.

• That the Ethiopian civil administration should be reinstated to its position before May 6, 1998.

• That an investigation should be made to the events of May 6, 1998.

3. In order that the problem is accorded a lasting solution the entire Ethio-Eritrean border should be delimited and demarcated in the following way.

• That the process of border delimitation and demarcation should be carried on the basis of established colonial treaties and international law applicable to such treaties.

• That the delimitation and demarcation work is undertaken with the participation of the UN office of cartography; and this process is shouldered by a technical committee which has the necessary capacity and competence, delegated with the necessary power and authority to give a final and comprehensive verdict and solution to the entire border between the two countries.

• That the two sides will have the right to feed oral information or supply written material or through both means to the technical committee in the course of the delimitation activity.

• That the border delimitation should be finalized with the advice of the technical committee as soon as possible.

• That the two sides should agree to delegate the technical committee with all the authority for the final decision on the delimitation and demarcation of their common border and that the two parties agree to accept and be governed by the decision of the technical committee as final for the settlement of the border issue.

• That the two sides will assume jurisdiction over their respective sovereign territories after the final conclusion of the delimitation and demarcation of their entire common border.

4. That the two sides agree to demilitarize the border as quickly as possible to facilitate the delimitation and demarcation activity by defusing the tension on the border.

The aforestated was the main content of the recommendation forwarded by the Rwanda-US facilitators which was presented after an in-depth examination of the dispute based on acceptable standards of conflict management and resolution and in accordance with international law. The first point demands that any disagreement including the current dispute should be resolved only by a peaceful means and negotiation; that force must not be utilized as a means of resolving a problem, and that the two sides should accept this internationally accepted principle of conflict resolution. The second point which is the core point of the recommendation demands that the Eritrean army should pull back to its the position it held prior to May 6, 1998 in the presence of the observer body assigned by the facilitators to over-see the process of withdrawal, and for the re-instatement of the status quo ante of the Ethiopian civilian administration. The third and fourth points presented by the facilitators clarify the mechanism for the lasting resolution of the border dispute based on colonial treaties and international laws applicable to them and on principles of conflict management and resolution; and how and by whom the delimitation and demarcation work should be implemented and on facilitating a conducive atmosphere to perform the job.

The recommendations put forward by the Rwanda-US Facilitators makes numerous points starkly clear. Primarily it states that before any attempt is made to reach a lasting resolution for any difference relating to the border dispute, the Eritrean army should pull back to its position held prior to May 6, 1998 and the then existing Ethiopian civilian administration should be restored. Secondly, the recommendations, cognizant of the fact that the Eritrean army had forcibly occupied Badme & its environs beginning from May 6, 1998, requests that the situation be rectified. Thirdly, the recommendation based on the fact that while the de facto scenario is that the occupying Eritrean army had forcibly seized Ethiopian land and had consequently altered by force of arms the actual situation on the ground, it would be unacceptable to venture to seek a negotiated settlement on the border dispute through the instrumentality of international law and principles of conflict management and resolution. Therefore it establishes that first of all the status quo ante should be restored and then the task of delimitation and demarcation should be taken up.

When the recommendations were officially submitted by the Facilitators, the Ethiopian Government declared its acceptance of the Rwanda-US sponsored initiative. On the other hand not only did the Eritrean Government openly tell the Facilitators of its total rejection of the recommendations but also made its refusal public through an interview with the BBC, by President Issayas who declared: "To withdraw from Badme is morally unthinkable and physically impossible". This was a clear testimony to the world at large of the unabashed stand of the Eritrean Government. Due to the obstructions laid by the Eritrean Government against the realization of the proposals made by the Facilitators the issue was submitted for discussion by the OAU Council of Ministers and the Assembly of Heads of State at their Sessions held in Ougadoubou, Burkina Faso. The Summit of African leaders on 10 June 1998 decided as follows:

1. Expressed deep concern over the escalation of the conflict;

2. Endorsed the relevant resolution of the 68th Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers on the crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea and urgently appealed to the two parties to put an end concurrently and simultaneously to all hostilities, accept and implement the recommendations of the Facilitators (the United States and Rwanda);

3. Decided to send an OAU mission of heads of state led by the current Chairman of the OAU to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The OAU decision which wholly endorsed the Rwanda-US recommendations had accepted inter-alia, that the Eritrean aggression forces be pulled out from the Ethiopian territory they have occupied for a resumption genuine talks and subsequent delimitation and demarcation of the border. Accordingly, based on the OAU resolution, the summit mandated the leaders to shuttle between Addis Ababa and Asmara to help resolve the crisis. The Ethiopian Government which had already accepted the US-Rwanda recommendations naturally reconfirmed its acceptance of the proposal when the delegation of the heads of state formed by the OAU met the Ethiopian Prime Minister and other Ethiopia leaders in Addis Ababa. Regrettably, however, the OAU delegation's mission was flatly rejected by the Eritrean side by saying that the US-Rwanda proposal had become obsolete and out-dated.

When the efforts of the OAU mission encountered obstacles put by the Eritrean government the issue was presented to the UN Security Council. Following are the operative paragraphs of the resolution passed by the UN Body:-

1. Condemns the use of force and demands that both parties immediately cease hostilities and refrain from further use of force;

2. Welcomes the commitment of the parties to a moratorium on the threat of and use of air strikes;

3. Urges the parties to exhaust all means to achieve a peaceful settlement of the dispute;

4. Expresses its strong support for the decision of the Assemble of the Heads of State and Government of the OAU on 10 June 1998 (s/1998/494) as well as for the mission and efforts of the Heads of State of the OAU and urges the OAU to follow up as quickly as possible;

5. Calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with the OAU;

6. Also calls upon the parties to avoid any steps which would aggravate tensions such as provocative actions or statements and to take steps to build confidence between them including by guaranteeing the rights and safety of each other's national;

7. Requests the secretary-general to make available his good offices in support of a peaceful resolution of the conflict and stands ready to consider further recommendations to this end;

8. Requests the secretary-general to provide technical support to the parties to assist In the eventual delimitation and demarcation of the common border between Ethiopia and Eritrea and, for this purpose, establishes a Trust Fund and urges all Member States to contribute to it; and

9. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The UN Security Council has in effect endorsed the OAU summit resolution of June 10, 1998 by declaring its firm support for it and by calling upon the two sides to co-operate with the OAU and resolve the conflict accordingly. Therefore, it is clear that the UN Security Council has supported the US-Rwanda proposal which calls for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from Badme and its environs first, to be followed by the resumption of talks on the border dispute and their resolution by legal and peaceful means, which is the essence of the OAU summit decision on finding a lasting solution to the problem.

The Ethiopian Government had earlier accepted the US-Rwanda proposal which is the basis for the subsequent resolutions by the OAU and the UN Security Council which it naturally accepted. The Ethiopian Government accepted the resolutions because they are inherently congruent with its own ideas on resolving the conflict. As was indicated earlier it is because the Ethiopian Government had expressed its readiness to resolve the border dispute through legal and peaceful means provided the Eritrean forces of aggression pull back to their original position without any pre-condition. Ethiopia has accepted the recommendations submitted by the Facilitators, the OAU and the UN Security Council resolutions all of which firmly conform to the position of the Ethiopian Government made clear when the forces of the Eritrean regime invaded Badme and its environs.