• Print
• Share

Ethiopia/Eritrea

Expected Council Action
The 30-day hold on Council action to facilitate a US diplomatic initiative on the Ethiopia-Eritrea crisis ends on 9 February. At the time of writing, it seems possible that some additional time will be necessary.

Should progress be impossible, Council members will be looking at options for addressing the crisis.

Key Facts
The Secretary-General on 3 January presented a report on Ethiopia and Eritrea under resolution 1640. The report notes that Ethiopia returned to the December 2004 levels of troop deployment along its border with Eritrea, but that it still refuses to demarcate this border. No visible redeployment had been taken by Eritrea, which denied having moved troops forward in the first place.

Eritrea continues to place unacceptable restrictions on the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE). The Secretary-General’s report presented options for addressing this. It also noted that, while maintaining the status quo could “buy time for diplomatic initiatives,” eventually hard decisions will need to be taken if the restrictions are not lifted.

On 9 January, Asmara dismissed the report and resolution 1640 as unbalanced. It also criticised a scenario in which “the party that has flouted international law [Ethiopia]… is let off the hook while the aggrieved party is threatened with condemnation and punitive measures.”

On 9 January, the US announced a diplomatic initiative to solve the current crisis, including the demarcation. The US asked the Council to keep the status quo for thirty days. US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, travelled to the region in mid-January. At the time of writing it seems that it is still proving difficult to get meaningful dialogue with Asmara.

In a parallel development, the Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission on 19 December found that Eritrea had no basis under international law for starting the 1998 war and thus must compensate Ethiopia. Eritrea on 3 January issued a letter stating willingness to honour the decision and pay for damages when they are determined.

Key Issues
There are several key issues facing the Council. They will resurface if no progress is made on the US initiative. They include:

• Agreeing to some form of redeployment of UNMEE, while avoiding a resumption of war. There is a need to respond to the Secretary-General’s options, since the Eritrea’s restrictions violate key UN standards, Council resolutions and the peace agreements. They also raise serious concerns on the part of troop contributing countries (TCCs). But all players seem to accept that a complete withdrawal should be avoided as it would likely lead to renewed border tensions.
• Striking an appropriate balance between the parties. There are risks in punishing Eritrea while allowing Ethiopia to enjoy its unlawful refusal to demarcate the boundary. But Eritrea’s inflexibility and unlawful actions against UNMEE have cost it the moral high ground. Due to its restrictions on UNMEE Council members will oppose rewards to Eritrea.

A key issue is how to create a situation in which both parties are compelled to make concessions, so that neither is rewarded for its unlawful actions, but both end up getting at least some of their demands.

The decision by the Claims Commission raises another, perhaps helpful, issue. Its ruling means that there are now mutual obligations and therefore the potential for compromise. This is particularly important since sanctions will have little impact on Eritrea, which refuses outside assistance, including much-needed humanitarian aid.

Council Dynamics
The Council welcomed the US initiative to take the issue off its hands. In part, there may have been some embarrassment that in October and November, when there may have been a chance to take action to avoid the current crisis, the Council failed to act. For most Council members the US offer represented much-awaited action from the only Council member with potential access and leverage on both sides.

Certainly, from the perspective of TCCs, such action was welcome. In their view, the delays in October and November cost the Council time and credibility.

Most Council members appear to believe that as long as the status quo is kept- with some defusing of tensions and no UNMEE casualties-there is some time for diplomacy.

But if the US initiative is unsuccessful, members will face difficult choices if a balanced approach is to be constructed. Some members will face the need to show less support; such as Russia which has ties to Ethiopia and the UK which has considerable sympathy for Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The issue is complicated by the fact that some Council members have unresolved border issues themselves, which could make them reluctant for the Council to press Ethiopia on such a matter.

If the initiative fails, Council members are aware that withdrawing UNMEE could lead to renewed hostilities. Nonetheless, there is a recognition that this concern must be balanced with the safety of UN personnel and the unacceptable nature of Eritrea’s actions. The view of TCCs will have a strong impact, particularly on the recommendations of the Secretary-General.

Options
Council members may extend the thirty day period and review the situation in March, when UNMEE’s mandate expires. However, should the situation deteriorate before then, options outlined by the Secretary-General include:

• maintaining the status quo, with the possibility that a unacceptable precedent is created;
• relocating the Asmara UNMEE headquarters to Addis Ababa, with troops in the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) within Eritrea and a liaison office in Asmara. Some Council members are inclined toward this option;
• reducing UNMEE to an observer mission;
• deploying a preventive force in Ethiopia;
• reducing UNMEE to a liaison mission; or
• withdrawing UNMEE.

Other options include:

• pressuring witnesses to the Algiers Peace Agreement-namely the AU, the UN, the EU and the US-to pursue greater, concerted involvement; or
• imposing deadlines on Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Underlying Problems
From 1998 to 2000, Ethiopia and Eritrea fought over disputed border territories, particularly the town of Badme. The conflict ended with the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in June 2000 and the Algiers Peace Agreement in December 2000.

Ethiopia committed itself to redeploying troops to regions it administered before 6 May 1998, and Eritrea to areas outside the TSZ, which is a buffer zone established along the border but within Eritrea. The parties also invited the deployment of UN peacekeepers to monitor the TSZ, and committed themselves to ensuring their safety and freedom of movement. On that basis, the Council established UNMEE in July 2000.

The two Agreements linked the termination of UNMEE’s mandate to the completion of the border demarcation, which the Council stressed in resolution 1344 (2001). The OAU and the UN committed themselves to guaranteeing respect for the TSZ until the border is finally demarcated, including through the deployment of peacekeepers and possible action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

A Claims Commission and an investigation into the causes of the war were also agreed. While the investigation was never begun, the Claims Commission started in 2001.

The Agreements stipulate that the border will be demarcated by an independent Boundary Commission, and that its decision will be “final and binding”. The Commission issued a decision in April 2002.

But the demarcation stalled in 2003 when Ethiopia objected to the Commission decision. Addis Ababa demanded that the line vary to account for “human and physical geography.” The Commission responded that it had no power to revisit the decision or to vary the line under the framework established by the parties.

In December 2004, Ethiopia presented a five-point proposal accepting the Commission’s decision “in principle”. The concrete implications of this have not been explored, nor have Ethiopia’s concerns about its landlocked situation since Eritrea’s independence, due to Eritrea’s refusal to discuss the issues.

In October 2005, Eritrea imposed limitations on UNMEE, after much protest at the delay in demarcation. This decreased the mission’s monitoring ability by about 60 percent and led to a military build-up near the border as well as violations of the TSZ.

On 23 November, the Council threatened to take measures under article 41 of the Charter if by 24 December both parties failed to return to their troop-deployment levels of 16 December 2004 or if Eritrea failed to lift restrictions on UNMEE. It also demanded that Ethiopia allow the demarcation of the border, but no threat was attached.

Eritrea responded on 6 December with demands that certain UNMEE troops leave in ten days. Concerns with troop safety led the Council to accept a temporary relocation of part of UNMEE’s Eritrea-based staff to Ethiopia.

UN Documents

Historical Background

Other Relevant Facts

Useful Additional Sources
Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission website

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission website

Full forecast

• Print
• Share

• Share or print this post