UAE and Saudi Arabia’s mediation to bury decades-long enmity of the Horn of Africa nations a strong step towards sustainable peace

Ethiopia and Eritrea have forged peace after a stalemate in their relations. Since 2000, the Horn of Africa nations have been in a state of “No war, no peace”, a situation that crippled their economies and divided families. So the warming of relations is indeed a welcome development.

Published: 16:35 July 27, 2018

The UAE, along with Saudi Arabia, played a crucial role in the detente. Abu Dhabi played host to leaders from the countries, facilitating talks that paved the way for the peace accord. His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, held a discussions with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmad and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki that helped iron out their differences.

Ethiopian Foreign Minister Workneh Gebeyehu said the rapprochement was a result of the efforts made by Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the reconciliation was “illustrative of a new wind of hope blowing across Africa”.

“The march towards peace might have been a long time coming, but we have faith in the love and solidarity of our people,” Ahmad said. “We can now imagine a future where we see no national boundaries or high walls dividing us. The people of our region are joined in common purpose.”

Two weeks after the two nations signed a peace deal on July 9, their leaders made another trip to Abu Dhabi, this time as friends. Shaikh Mohammad appreciated their efforts to normalise relations and bestowed on them the Order of Zayed.

Such efforts are vital to achieving comprehensible and sustainable development for all the people globally, Shaikh Mohammad said. “This would help establish security and stability and bring in development to this important region,” he added.

Solving the conflict in a short time was unthinkable. The two countries had fought a bloody two-year war (1998-2000), that killed more than 80,000 people besides displacing at least 350,000. A Cold War-like atmosphere prevailed for nearly two decades after a border commission set up under the peace agreement ruled that the flashpoint town of Badme was part of Eritrea. Ethiopia refused to accept this and relations remained frozen.

The two leaders have now pledged to implement the commission’s decision as part of the peace agreement. Ethiopia asked the United States to lift sanctions on Eritrea and the positive step set in motion a series of confidence-building measures. The two nations will reopen embassies and the border between them. Direct telecommunication services have been restored and commercial flights began operations last week. Plans are now afoot to resume diplomatic, trade and transport links.

So the spinoff from peace is an economic revival in both the countries. Ethiopia’s Ahmad has already lifted a state of emergency, freed political prisoners and unveiled economic reforms.

The deal was important for the stability and security of the region. Extremist elements and terrorists had taken advantage of the enmity to spread their agenda and ideas besides carrying out criminal activities. The absence of political will made their task easier. The successful mediation, therefore, is a powerful blow to all those players who used the conflict to serve their selfish interests. Arab states and the countries in the region suffered the most. Now they can breathe easy.

Dr Salem Al Ketbi is an Emirati political analyst, researcher and opinion writer.

Source=https://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/ethiopia-eritrea-detente-vital-for-regional-stability-1.2257735

December 28, 2015

An abandoned tank by the roadside in Eritrea. Shutterstock

July 19, 2018 2.39pm SAST

The end of hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea has been met with relief in the region as well as globally. But what does it mean for Eritrea, which has been dubbed the North Korea of Africa. The Conversation Africa’s Julius Maina spoke to Martin Plaut about the implications for the small and reclusive state.

How did Eritrea earn its reputation as a reclusive state?

Isaias Afwerki, the Eritrean president, has operated on the presumption that no-one would come to Eritrea’s aid after it launched its armed struggle for independence from Ethiopia in 1961. It was never entirely true, but they certainly didn’t have the support of any major power.

When Eritrea gained its independence in 1993 he saw no reason to alter his view. As a result, major international aid agencies were made unwelcome. Even the United Nations has found it difficult to work in the country.

After 2001, when the president cracked down on all opposition – including from within his own party – all major news organisations, including the BBC, Reuters and AFP – were banned from having offices in the country. International journalists have only been allowed to visit sporadically. This has left Eritrea under-reported.

Isaias is moody and reclusive by nature. Since the regime is a dictatorship which has never allowed elections of any kind, the country reflects the politics of its leader.

The country has been named as a sponsor of regional terrorism. To what extent is this still the case?

Following Eritrea’s bitter border war with Ethiopia between 1998 and 2000, the government in Asmara became a sponsor of the Somali Islamist group, Al-Shabaab, and a number of Ethiopian rebel groups . It did so to undermine the Ethiopian government, which was fighting a war in Somalia against the Islamists. Eritrea’s support for Ethiopian rebel groups had a similar aim in mind.

These activities – as well as a border clash with Djibouti – led to the UN Security Council imposing an arms embargo against Eritrea in 2009. The embargo didn’t include economic sanctions.

UN appointed experts monitored the arms and logistical support Eritrea provided to Al-Shabaab in great detail. In recent years they’ve reported back that they have no evidence of current Eritrean backing for Al-Shabaab.

In the last few weeks the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has said he thinks the sanctions regime will become obsolete, since Eritrea and Ethiopia have resolved their differences.

How will recent events affect politics and commerce in the Horn?

The prospects for the Horn could be transformed if the Ethiopia-Eritrea rapprochement holds and their border dispute is truly resolved.

The closure of their mutual frontier for the past two decades has had a terrible effect on people all along the 1,000 km long border. Family ties and trade patterns were severely disrupted.

The people of the two countries have never been at loggerheads: there is little real animosity between them. The divisions have been between the ruling parties of both countries.

With these apparently resolved, life in the Horn can resume as normal. The Eritrean ports of Massawa and Assab will hum with life once more, as Ethiopian trade flows through them. And the potash deposits on their border can be developed. Since Ethiopia is currently Africa’s fastest growing economy this could ease bottlenecks such as international investment in Eritrea which will no longer be viewed as a war-risk. And instead of competing to fund and support rebel movements in each other’s countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea can combine to tackle the real enemy: poverty.

What will the impact be on Eritrean society?

This is the most difficult question and predictions are fraught with difficulty. Having been such a closed dictatorship it is impossible to say with any certainty how the country will be transformed.

On the one hand, Isaias could allow democracy to emerge, since he no longer has a foreign enemy on his doorstep. The constitution, which was ratified by the National Assembly, could be implemented. Free and fair elections could be held and a multi-party system allowed to emerge. The president might even decide to retire now that peace has been achieved – he is 72 years old.

This is all possible. But it’s not very likely. The president is extremely cautious and believes he is indispensable to the country: without him it will lose its way. He is more likely to move only gradually towards allowing limited freedoms. This could include ending indefinite conscription, since the rationale for this has ended. Such an approach would be consistent with his past behaviour. But it might result in growing frustration from citizens who have accepted economic hardship and a lack of democracy during a time of war, but might do so no longer. What forces this might unleash and how the citizens will react, only time will tell.

How do these developments affect Eritrea’s refugee outflow?

The end of hostilities should mean that Eritrea’s indefinite National Service is ended. National Service (or conscription) is required of all citizens between 18 and 40 years old. In theory this lasts for no longer than 18 months. Yet many Eritreans have served for 20 years and more. Pay is minimal and conditions harsh: for women there is the threat of rape or sexual abuse. This has been – by a long shot – the main driver of the refugee exodus that has seen up to 5,000 people leaving the country every month.

Freed from conscription, some servicemen and women will return to their farms or seek employment in towns. One possible consequence is that unemployment could become serious, unless inward investment takes up the slack.

If the border with Ethiopia is opened up again thousands of people in refugee camps in Ethiopia might return home. The refugee outflow might even be reversed. This is an optimistic prognosis. More likely, refugees who have risked everything to reach safety will remain in the camps until the outcome of the dramatic changes can be assessed and the transformation is made permanent.

Eritrea’s refugee outflow will only end when both prosperity and freedom become established facts. Until then it is likely that some will continue to seek a better life abroad, even if in smaller numbers.

Source=https://theconversation.com/what-peace-will-mean-for-eritrea-africas-north-korea-100063

Asmara’s feud with Ethiopia’s had a huge bearing on Eritreans in the country and diaspora. Now there’s peace, we have a lot of questions.

What will peace in Eritrea mean for ordinary citizens? Credit Andrea Moroni.

Like many Eritreans, the sudden warming of relations between the Eritrean and Ethiopian governments has filled me and my loved ones with both hope and fear. The no-war no-peace stalemate that defined the politics and identity of my country for 20 years is apparently over.

This newfound peace is undoubtedly a cause for celebration, and one that will transform politics across the region for years to come. Yet for many of us, the most pressing questions this new situation begs are far more immediate.

We are asking things like: Will my sister in school still be conscripted into compulsory military service next year? Will my cousin, who is looking for ways to be smuggled across the border, be allowed to leave legally instead? Will my aunt, who has criticised the Eritrean government from outside the country, be allowed back in? Will my uncle, languishing in jail for political reasons, finally be released?

[Isaias out of character: Why Eritreans are getting nervous]

[Ethiopia-Eritrea peace: Some unanswered questions]

Lives on hold

For two decades, Eritrea has been one of the world’s most secretive and isolated countries. To begin with, it has been extremely difficult to get in and out. The first time I applied for a visa to enter as a tourist, I was met with puzzled laughter at the consulate. I was only able to get a visa because I had some contacts that could pull strings in the capital Asmara.

Getting out of Eritrea is much harder and much more dangerous. Very few are permitted to exit by the government, and so most who want to leave rely on human-smugglers and risk being arrested or kidnapped for ransom. Everyone knows someone who has embarked on these uncertain and treacherous journeys. Thousands consider the conditions in the Eritrea to be so dire as to do so every single month.

Life in Eritrea is restricted and tough. The country is poor and the economy extremely closed. People are not allowed to access non-state media. There is practically no Internet or access to smart phones. And there has never been a single election. Asmara’s defining features – the crumbling, modernist architecture; wide, palm-lined avenues; Italian-style pastry shops; and classic 60s Volkswagen beetles – are all reminders of a vibrancy that has long ceased to exist.

Worse still, all young people in Eritrea are required to undergo compulsory national service. Their passports, university diplomas and lives are put on hold as they undergo military training, after which they may be sent off to labour in any outpost that the government sees fit.

At the moment, one of my relatives spends his days painting arrows and divider lines on the few one-lane roads of Asmara for virtually zero pay. Another, who was finally released from national service after over a decade, is still required to guard a government building from 10pm to 3am once a week. National service is indefinite. In his words, this serves “as a reminder that the government has power over me”.

Divided families

For 20 years, President Isaias Afwerki, who effectuates total control, has used the pretext of Ethiopian hostility to entrench his totalitarian rule and shut Eritreans off from the outside world. This has incurred huge political and economic costs, but the human costs of this enforced isolation have been just as high. They can be measured in every Eritrean family, each of which has its own stories to tell.

I had an aunt, for example, who lived in Addis Ababa. When she received a diagnosis of terminal cancer, her relatives in the US and Canada could visit her to say goodbye, but her loved ones just over the border in Eritrea were not allowed.

I have another friend nicknamed “Baby”. When the 1998-2000 border war began, he was in Eritrea with his mother. The rest of the family was visiting Ethiopia. With transit no longer permitted, they were suddenly split in two. In an instance, the tight-knit unit was unable to reunite and could only communicate with great difficulty. My friend was called Baby, because that’s what he was the last time the rest of the family saw him.

The separation between Eritrea and Ethiopia has never been of two nations, but of two populations made up of thousands of families. That’s why headlines such as the New York Times’ “After 20 Years of Silence, Strangers in Ethiopia and Eritrea Call to Say Hello” fail to capture an important element of Ethiopian-Eritrean relations. We are not strangers.

What now for us?

With war declared over, the status quo of the past two decades will fundamentally change. Asmara’s apparatus of control will necessarily shift, marking the end of Eritrea as we (don’t) know it. But this brings us back to the question of what will happen to the Eritreans’ lives both in the country and in the diaspora.

Now there is no longer an apparent threat of Ethiopian attack, will military conscription end? Now that flights are open to Eritrea, who will be allowed in? My dad, having written critically of the regime in the past, has not dared enter the country for the past ten years. Will there be a place for him and other dissidents in this new opening?

What about the thousands who have fled? Several of my family members have sacrificed the prime years of lives in refugee camps and transit countries for the chance to begin anew elsewhere. Will they be able to keep these lives that they’ve worked for?

Some Eritreans remain sceptical about Asmara’s genuine capacity to act differently. “Having seen the injustice in my country, I don’t think anything will change without a change in leadership,” a compatriot told me. That’s not the feeling of most Eritreans, but our new hope remains tinged with fear and uncertainty, our long-held fear and uncertainty now tinged with hope.

Source=http://africanarguments.org/2018/07/23/eritrea-peace-history-aside-mean-loved-ones/