And now Ethiopia and Eritrea are speaking the same language, writes Justin Pearce
It began as a border dispute. But in the past two weeks, the Ethiopian army has swept through western Eritrea establishing effective control over almost a quarter of the country, before Eritrea agreed on Wednesday night to withdraw from the disputed territories – effectively meeting Ethiopian conditions for a negotiated settlement.
No one, it appears, was more surprised by the attack than the Eritrean army.
A tense stand-off had prevailed for months, and it appeared that any Ethiopian advance would have meant fighting hand to hand, metre by metre, through the trenches that were ranked along the disputed sections of the border. In any case most observers had reckoned that an Ethiopian offensive would begin on the central part of the border, where the Eritrean occupation of the town of Zalambessa was a particularly sore point for the Ethiopians.
Why then did they strike on the western front, where Ethiopia had recaptured conquered territory more than a year ago? The answer seems to lie in strategy.
One account of the invasion involves foot soldiers and several thousand weapon- carrying donkeys. They took advantage of a rugged mountain route which the Eritreans had assumed to be impenetrable, and left unguarded.
With the Eritreans surprised from behind, it was easier for the Ethiopians to move in their heavy artillery through more conventional routes, and advance rapidly. The Eritrean army abandoned the strategic town of Barentu, pulling its troops back to defend Asmara, in case the Ethiopians decided to advance that way.
But Ethiopia had other ideas. The next attack was on Zalambessa, where the Eritreans finally agreed to pull back after a fierce two-day battle.
In a war where both sides have consistently inflated enemy casualty figures, a reliable death toll is yet to emerge – though thousands are believed to have died in the past fortnight. The conflict has wiped out the next harvest in Eritrea’s main food- producing area, meaning that the effects of the food shortage will be felt well beyond the battle zone.
At least 500 000 people are now refugees. Some have fled towards Asmara. Others have gone west, into Sudan, including some soldiers who were reportedly disarmed by the Sudanese authorities as they crossed the border.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), many of the Eritreans are remaining in the 40C heat close to the border in the hope of being able to return home soon. Others are lingering on the Eritrean side of the border, fearful that if they take their cattle across, Sudanese export restrictions will prevent them from bringing their cows home again when peace returns.
Sudan’s eastern Kassala province is used to Eritrean refugees. Before the latest exodus, about 160 000 Eritreans were in the area, some of them having been there since the 1960s when Eritreans began resisting the rule of Emperor Haile Selassie. They have been joined by a further 20 000 in the past 10 days. The latest fighting has come as the UNHCR was trying to help the long- term refugees return home.
Naturally, Eritrea was livid at Ethiopia’s “determination to disregard international condemnation and invade larger parts of Eritrea”, as a statement earlier this week from Asmara put it.
Addis Ababa responded coolly that “it has no interest in sovereign Eritrean territory” and wants merely to take back what it believes to be its own. Its deeper incursions into Eritrea, it insists, were part of a plan to destroy Eritrean military capability – an assertion which seems to be borne out by its reluctance to march on Asmara.
Ethiopian representative Selome Tadesse told Reuters on Thursday that Ethiopia’s army would continue to attack Eritrea until its forces withdrew from every piece of disputed land. Despite its decisive victories on the western and central parts of the border, Ethiopia still believes that Eritrea is occupying its territory in the desert around Bure in the east.
Eritrea insists it has not surrendered. Problems could still arise over the interpretation of Eritrea’s promise to pull its troops back to where they were before May 1998. How and when Ethiopia will withdraw from the tracts of indisputably Eritrean territory it has invaded poses yet more questions.
It will also be interesting to observe the fall-out of the defeat for Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki. Isaias has the status of an Orwellian hate-figure in Ethiopia and some observers have suggested that Ethiopia’s long-term aim in pursuing the war was to see him replaced by a leader more sympathetic to Ethiopian interests – who might, for example, allow Ethiopia unrestricted access to Eritrean ports.
But Isaias is personally resilient, and maintains solid support in most of Eritrea. What is more, Eritrea’s centralised state structure makes it unlikely that Ethiopia could loosen his grip on power.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi insisted on Tuesday that “we are not in any way trying to impose a political set-up in Eritrea that is to our liking”. But with regional rivalries exacerbated by the war, it is difficult ever to imagine Meles and Isaias settling down into a good neighbourly relationship.
But Eritrea’s stated commitment to withdraw means that the two adversaries are at least now talking the same language – and prospects have never looked better for an end to a conflict that has cost both sides far more than they could ever have hoped to gain.