Eritrea and Ethiopia have been locked in bitter conflict since 1998; a conflict that has exacerbated internal political crises in both states, split the two ruling parties, threatened regional peace and security, and cost tens of thousands of lives. This paper argues that the reasons for the conflict are far more complex than many have assumed, and are intrinsically embedded in the convoluted history of the two ruling parties. It asserts that relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia have been fraught with more serious, underlying tensions than are known publicly, suggesting that the conflict has largely persisted due to their similarities; notably in terms of identity, conceptions of power, governance structures, economic policies, and political orientation.
The paper relies on meta-analysis of published academic work, supported by political documents from the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments, the United Nations, and the African Union. Additionally, the author draws on own experience as a member of the opposition and later government in Ethiopia.
Key findings:
- The politically dominant groups in Ethiopia and Eritrea, not only belong to the same cultural group, but the political leaderships in both states are very closely related. This has important ramifications on the dynamics of the relationship between them.
- Taking both states as undifferentiated entities misses many important aspects of the conflict. Thus, treating this conflict purely as one based on a border dispute underestimates the consequences that this conflict has had on the political dynamics in both states and the cohesion of their ruling parties, as well as regional stability. The domestic and regional implications of the conflict therefore underlines the need for going beyond the border dispute, and looking at a more comprehensive solution to the problem in both states and the regional ramifications.
- The Algiers agreement is no longer the solution it was thought to be. It was negotiated in haste and imposed by an international community eager for success by stopping the war. One positive aspect of the agreement is the fact that there has been no direct fighting between the two states since, though both are engaged in proxy wars. There are however two fundamental issues that the stalled peace process raises, i.e., compliance and adjudication. From the disputes on the interpretation of the agreement and the subsequent decisions based on it, it is becoming increasingly clear that they are not the appropriate instruments for solving the conflict between the two states.
- There are various shortcomings of trying to use law to settle political disputes among states. In the Western legal tradition lawyers tend to retreat to technicalities and the deconstruction of texts. First, the EEBC commissioners never visited the area under dispute and conducted their proceedings and rulings based on texts and maps, emphasising three treaties which favoured Eritrea as all were forced upon Ethiopia by Italy. Second, the commissioners also depended on the colonial era maps, produced by Italy, therefore favouring Italy, and by extension Eritrea. Moreover, a lot has changed on the ground, especially settlements, over a period of a century since those maps were produced.
- Another problem is the question of who will enforce the rulings. In legal tradition, implementation is not the job of lawyers or judges, which becomes problematic in terms of international law. It is presumed that the United Nations Security Council is there to fill this vacuum, but very often the UNSC depends on the shared interests of states, and the will of the hegemonic powers.
- Thus, nearly a decade after the signing of the Algiers Peace Agreement and seven years after the ruling of the EEBC, there seems to be a deadlock in implementation. It should by now be obvious that the agreement and the decisions of the commissions are no longer adequate instruments for resolving the conflict, which has already had serious domestic and regional ramifications. Therefore, the international community needs to look for appropriate mechanisms that ensure lasting peace within and between both states as well as create a stable regional order.
- It is perhaps pertinent to take a longer view, and tackle the issue from the root. A starting point would be improving governance and accountability in both states. This requires fundamental restructuring of the political space in both states, and the international community can best contribute to the resolution of this conflict by promoting political reform, dialogue and national reconciliation within and between both states.
