Perspective - The Effects of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Dispute

Looking at the Effects of the Ethiopia-Eritrea
Border Dispute

By Maru Gubena | 31 March 2009

It is difficult if not impossible for most of us to assess the effects, including the
loss of human lives, the displacement of a large number of people, and the impact
on economies, of the still unsettled Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict – a most unfortunate
war that is said to be a result of border dispute. To make such an assessment and
be able to present relatively balanced figures on the repercussions of the war, one
would certainly require a proper and probably lengthy study, including access to
government documents in both countries and the cooperation of officials. In
general terms, however, it is clear (as many observers have indicated) that if it is
allowed to continue the war will have a devastating effect on the people of the two
countries. Additionally, based on the experience of the past two years, one might
also argue strongly that this unexpected war has deeply affected both day-to-day
interactions and general social relationships between the people of two countries –
so badly that deep seated hostility has reached a point that may be difficult, if not
impossible, to reverse.

One cannot deny the existence of the tensions and resentments towards each
other that have been present since the inception of the very idea of a separate state
of Eritrea. During the 1980s - which marked the intensification of the armed
struggle between EPLF/TPLF and the former dictatorial regime of Mengistu Haile
Mariam - various hostile elements (including the distortion and misrepresentation
of events and the history of Ethiopia, and quite disparaging statements directed at
both Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian historians), were used as tools to gain sympathy
and assistance from the international community with the overall goal of achieving
an independent state of Eritrea and helping the TPLF to take power in Addis
Ababa. In the same period, both EPLF and TPLF worked successfully to gain not
only sympathy but also the financial, material and moral support they needed from
the West. Later, the early 1990s, with “new leaders” in Ethiopia and Eritrea – at
the time, regarded as role models for African leadership – marked a dramatic
revival of diplomatic and economic relations with the west.

What is obvious to many of us today is that the desired objectives of both
movements (being in power) have been achieved, but without any thought for the
future direction of the countries and people they wanted to lead. That is, without
developing the sort of vision that is an indispensable part of leadership. Instead,
those in power appear to have had a hidden, deep-seated animosity towards each
other, which they did not want to disclose to their people. Instead, the two leaders
made countless statements in their endless speeches and in addressing many
regional and international gatherings, saying they were peacemakers. There would
never, never be war between the countries under their leadership; they were not
only peacemakers in their own countries but also forces for regional stability, in
countries including the war-torn Somalia, the Sudan and even further, to Central
and probably even Southern Africa. They said they had taken power because they
wanted to free their people from endless conflicts and from the yoke of military
dictatorship; to bring an accelerated economic prosperity; and to make people in
the region happy and proud of their countries and themselves. Nevertheless,
Ethiopians remain unconvinced. Instead, they resisted from the beginning, in an
attempt to make their views clear to the international community. There was
opposition to the arrangements and agreements between the two regimes in
Asmara and Addis Ababa, as well as to the ethnic policies of the Ethiopian
government. Since the change of power in Ethiopia that coincided with the
independence of Eritrea, Ethiopians, especially the Amhara, have become
outcastes, rarely given higher level governmental responsibilities and kept in the
dark regarding arrangements between the two countries.

In fact, little or no

information was given to

“outsiders”. Ethiopians

who were worried about

the new directions being

taken in Ethiopia were

constantly accused by the

regimes in Addis Ababa

and Asmara, and also by

donor countries and

major NGO communities,

of either being associated

with Mengistu's regime

or of regretting the loss

of power by the Amhara,

who had been in power

throughout most of

Ethiopia's history.

After fighting as hand and glove with TPLF against Mengistu’s regime, Eritreans
(living both in Ethiopia/Eritrea and abroad) had at least a brief period in which they
could enjoy freedom of movement. Also they, rather than Ethiopians, held the
highest governmental and non-governmental positions in Ethiopia. They also had
the privilege of advising and helping the TPLF (then called the Ethiopian
Transitional Government) to craft strategies and policies in an effort to keep
Ethiopians out of Ethiopia’s national and international activities and affairs. As can
be seen from speeches and papers presented by Eritreans at many conferences
devoted exclusively to Ethiopia, as well to the media in Africa, Europe and the
United States, Eritrean intellectuals and professionals indeed behaved as the
uncontested official representatives of Ethiopia. Eritreans today probably regret
the many roles they played on behalf of the government of Ethiopia during the
early 1990s. It is becoming clear that their behavior was not based on a rational
assessment and a responsible attitude towards the future wellbeing of the people
of these two countries.

Apart from protesting about human rights issues, Ethiopian intellectuals and
professionals, on the other hand, produced little or no effective efforts to organize
an effective, operational and respected voice capable of embracing Ethiopians and
their issues. It is unfortunate that no effort was made to create and use such a
vital and indispensable force, capable of linking the energy, knowledge, skills and
expertise of Ethiopians living at home and throughout the international community.
It is probably not wrong to see the past 15 or 20 years as a missed opportunity.
The past two decades have been experienced by Ethiopians as a period of
humiliation, characterized by a drastic reduction in the status of Ethiopia and
Ethiopians in the international community - with increasing dependence on the
outside world and external charities. Unfortunately many Ethiopians have spent
this painful period mainly haggling with each other over largely irrelevant matters
such as the future leadership of social and political groupings or organizations.

One of the frustrating factors that contributed greatly to the inability of opposing
Ethiopian groups to form and shape a united force capable of challenging the
regimes in Addis Ababa and Asmara has been the open handed support provided
by western countries to both Ethiopia and Eritrea, while little or no attention was
given to Ethiopians with opposing views. Western governments were eager to
assist the two leaderships, because they were convinced they could do business
with them. Long-term political stability in Ethiopia and Eritrea was expected. The
presence and the active involvement of the United States was more obvious than
that of other countries and its financial assistance, especially to Ethiopia, was said
to be quite substantial. US–Ethiopia relations, however, were not limited to
diplomatic relations and economic assistance. The United States was actively and
publicly engaged in strengthening and shaping a combined regional force involving
Uganda and the two countries that were now in conflict with each other. This
was aimed at weakening and replacing the Islamic government of Sudan with
“moderate” individuals or groups willing to work cooperatively with the west and
embrace its economic models. It is also believed that, despite internal tensions and
human rights violations, the IMF and the World Bank were and probably still are
more open to lending large amounts to the Ethiopian government than to other
governments in the region. Yet despite the involvement of donor countries and the
provision of substantial financial and military support, and the wide-spread
presence of western institutions and NGOs (the latter were largely in Ethiopia), it
would be wrong to assume that donor countries were interested in the general
well-being of the people, the issues facing rural people and the urban poor of the
two countries. In fact it was evident that foreign powers had little or no interest in
helping to craft a reliable framework or final agreements regarding Eritrean
independence that would have been conducive to a lasting peace. There was also
little interest in the many other issues related to future relations and cooperation
between the two countries. Since the change of power in May 1991, as far as one
can recall, no single western country or department official has shown any
concern for human rights violations in either country. No concern was shown
when thousands of Ethiopians were forced into exile; when those few Ethiopian
public figures who managed to escape Mengistu's seventeen years of terror were
forced to languish (some have already lost their lives) in prison because their
views differ from those in power. To convince the world, government officials
call their victims criminals. They say these people have been jailed because of
criminal activities. Government officials display weapons (secretly placed by
government representatives in the backyard or house of a political opponent of the
regime) to journalists and the media. Meanwhile Ethiopians have continuously
attempted to make the international community aware of Ethiopians who have
been killed or jailed and kidnapped or are victims of political repression by the
governments in Addis Ababa and Asmara. Multiple sorts of evidence, including
lists of names of victims of human rights violations, have periodically been
presented to various western ministerial departments and concerned major
western institutions and NGOs by national and international human rights
organizations. The leaders of donor countries, however, remain reluctant to
become involved; they have kept a deaf ear to the daily cries of Ethiopians.

Despite the persistent outcry of Ethiopians regarding massive human rights
violations, the present leaders seem to have had the power to convince both
diplomats and the rest of the international community, saying it was their
predecessors who committed inhuman acts; but they themselves claim to be the
backbone of human rights organizations. And despite what must have been
longstanding and growing animosity, both leaders were also capable of creating
the impression for the outside world that their mutual friendship and cooperation
would last for generations. Just three weeks before the official outbreak of war,
when foreign journalists asked if he were aware of tensions and anxieties between
Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, indicated that
he saw such rumors and gossip as the talk and dreams of enemies, of those who
have nothing better to do than spread rumors. He said they were jealous of
Ethiopia–Eritrea, and their strong and immovable friendship built on the basis of
brotherhood and respect for each other. But this wasn’t true. The two leaders
were engaged in making fools of us. The deep-seated animosity that had existed
for many years became too much to cover up. It exploded in May 1998,
spreading throughout the two countries in a highly accelerated fashion. Many
friendly donor counties reacted to this news with surprise and disbelief. For the
United States, the outbreak of the war was more than disappointing – it was a slap
in the face. But for the INF government in Khartoum, the news was received with
relief; it expressed its joy by simply saying “you see, Allah is always with us.”

Inside sources stated that, because the hate and hostile attitudes towards each
other were so strong and had built up over many years, the war between the two
leaders will not come to a peaceful end. They added that a peaceful resolution of
the conflict would definitely affect the existing power structure and in fact the
very chance of survival of each leadership. Thus, the two leaders must insist on
maintaining the current course, at least their war of words.

Looking at the overall outcome and the painful conditions and experiences that the
people of the now two countries have lived through in the last three decades, one
tends to conclude that we are all the losers, with little or no prospect of future
recovery. The goals that were said to be expected to come from war did not
materialize. The obvious results of these years are instead the continuation of the
war itself, the loss of more and more human lives, and the production and
dissemination of elements that help the leaders to increase the animosity among
the people, to help perpetuate their own power. And people listen to the leaders;
they are used as instruments.

What has been more surprising, depressing and even shocking in recent times,
however, is the instrumentality of intellectuals in the production and distribution of
material that has helped to worsen the already existing animosities among the
people of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The irrational approach of Ethiopian and Eritrean
intellectuals and professionals to the complex and longstanding issues that face us,
as well as the people at large, strongly indicates our willingness and readiness to
be used as followers and tools of those in power who are interested in keeping
people in conflict. We also seem to be incapable and/or unwilling to engage with
each other and to look for ways to discuss our problems rationally and
constructively. The continuation of the war at home and the increasing animosity
towards each other have greatly contributed to the breakup of many marriages
(even among those living abroad); many people who used to be good friends do
not see each other anymore. But is this the best way to influence people? Is this
what we want? In the search for possible strategies to peace and future relations
between the people of the two countries, the education we received both at home
and abroad (some of us with advanced degrees) seems in some cases more a
detriment both to us and the people at large than a force that delivers the
anticipated positive contribution.

It appears that our emotion has become exceedingly dominant over our rationality.
The techniques we use in attempting to explain our views are often harsh,
destructive to both current and future relations between people. Our views and
attitudes towards each other are so full of hate and cruelty that we may not be
able to reverse or repair the damage in the near future. Ninety percent of writings
presented in various newspapers, magazines and web sites for reading or, rather
intended for a deeper understanding of their grievance with a particular intention
of getting sympathy from the international community contain only emotions and
animosities. Texts seem to be written only with the objective of winning the battle
and controlling the disputed area; defeat and kill the targeted enemy and then
organize a huge party to congratulate those who achieved that. Such emotional
articles, full of distortions about day to day events in our home countries and
attempting to humiliate leaders and other government officials, are being produced
and distributed (in my view) without the slightest thought of any responsibility for
short and long-term consequences.

Of course people are being killed and others are suffering as a result of the endless
conflict, but again, the loss of so many lives, the painful experiences and events
are a clear result of our own creations, deeds and hostile attitudes towards each
other. In other words, everything we have to deal with at present is the result of
our own desire to achieve certain goals, spurred on by the force of emotion,
whatever the cost. The question is again: Have our actions put us where we want
to be?

As an illustration, Professor Jordan Gebre-Medhin’s characterizes (Ethiopian
Review, Feb. 1993: 27) those who disagree with measures undertaken against the
Ethiopian people and with the political and territorial arrangements reached
between the two regimes as “Ankober chauvinist,” constituting a repressive
campaign to make their dream of greater Ethiopia a reality. Professor Jordan’s
article contains many disparaging statements, which does not encourage non-
Eritrean readers. Professor Jordan concludes his article by instructing us to read
his book for more information.

In the more recent Eritrean Studies Review (volume 3, number 2, 1999, published
by Red Sea Press, Inc., and devoted to the Ethiopia–Eritrea war, with articles
exclusively written by Eritreans), Professor Jordan again appears to make all
possible efforts to add fuel to the existing tensions between the government in
Addis Ababa and the Oromo people. In his attempt to convince us, Professor
Jordan sees the source of the current Ethiopia–Eritrea conflict as the TPLF’s
ambition for the “revival of Tigrayan hegemony” as seen under Emperor
Yohannes IV. Jordan states that “Emperor Yohannes and the TPLF made
extensive use of the Oromo peasants as the bulk of their army in their invasion of
Merb Melash (Eritrea). The centralized states of Emperor Yohannes were built by
slave trade from the populous Oromo region. The slaves were shipped to Europe
and North America through the Red Sea.” To be able to control Eritrea. He sees
exactly the same activity and the same objective as the overall aim of TPLF today:
to gain and control access to the Red Sea. Jordan concludes by saying that
“already under this Eritrean leadership two regimes in Ethiopia have fallen. If
history teaches a lesson it is that the TPLF is marching headlong toward the same
abyss into which its predecessors have fallen”. Regrettably, in his review of
Jordan’s article in the same volume, Professor Tekie Fessehatzion, Editor of ESR,
cites this article as “ insightful.”

It is not at all clear to me which period of Eritrean leadership and previous
leadership in Addis Ababa Jordan refers to. Jordan of course mentions names of
authors, including well-known names who write on Ethiopian history. But specific
books, years and pages are not provided. Such vague, unverifiable analysis can
hardly be expected from individuals such as Jordan. In fact it comes across as a
bit of creative writing, with bizarre references intended to blackmail both the past
and present leadership of Ethiopia. Such distortion and hostility suggests a total
immaturity. One thing is clear: this sort of thing will never bring people closer. We
will all remain the losers, without being able to help either ourselves or the people.

Another illustration of the growing animosity between the people of the two
countries is the following. Since the war erupted, the official representatives of
the two countries have been engaged in highlighting and explaining the causes that
led to war to the Ethiopian and Eritrean communities residing in the West, to the
best of their ability. Such gatherings are typically organized with the intention of
arousing emotions, as well as getting moral support and financial contributions
from the communities. The officials of each country do their best to convince
community members to be on their side, and to share their attitude that their
government has been forced to armed confrontation by an aggressor and invader,
to defend the country and the well-being of the people.

I myself have attended some of these meetings, both in Europe and in the United
States. Two or three weeks before one of the events in which I was a participant,
a videocassette showing the bombardment of Mekele was distributed to the
Ethiopian community. It graphically pictures the ravaging effects of the war, such
as bodies of children who have been killed and wounded. During the meeting the
Ambassador and other officials, who had come a long distance to inform us,
asked the conference audience if we had already seen the film of the
bombardment. A good number of people said “yes”, with a tone of sadness. But
one young lady, who said she was from Mekele, said loudly, “yes, I saw it ten or
more times.” She went on to tell her story very emotionally to the attentively
listening government officials and conference audience: “I was married to an
Eritrean man and have three children. Immediately after I saw the videocassette,
however, it became clear to me how cruel those people can be. I realized my three
children will never, never be a part of me. Because they have an Eritrean father.
Two weeks ago, I left my children with their father. I am now living alone. And I
will never, see them again”. Because her emotion was so high there was silence
for some time among conference participants, and probably many sad emotions as
well.

There are many more such instances; we have been witnessing them since the
outbreak of the Ethiopia–Eritrea war. Meanwhile it seems to me we have been
imposing a restriction on ourselves, so that we do not ask questions, such as
whether our current enterprise of spreading hate and animosity against each other
is the best way to fulfill our goals and dreams. In my view, they are not. As the
past four decades have shown, not even a small section of the population of the
two countries has experienced a positive effect as a result of the struggle or the
animosity. Instead, almost all of us have clearly been the losers. Not only have we
lost family members, also we have witnessed the repeated humiliation of our
country and people as a result of frequently returning famine and hunger; and
growing poverty, partly as consequence of the diversion of money and human
resources into the military. Finally, we have seen the weakening and loss of our
many common social and cultural elements. In summary, recovery would be
easier if we could work together, but it will be extremely difficult if not impossible
to restore the many sided cultural forces that have tied us together over centuries,
unless we are willing to begin approaching our issues and problems rationally and
to take measures to correct the mistakes we have made.

Maru Gubena

Readers who wish to contact the author can reach me at info@pada.nl

● This paper was written in early 2000, and was published in Ethiopian
Review Magazine and other Ethiopian newsletters at that time. Although the text
is almost a decade old, the issues discussed and analyzed are still current, fresh
and educational.

Back To Editor's blog or Home page