Ethiopia / Eritrea Conflict: Department briefing

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
13 September 2006
ETHIOPIA / ERITREA CONFLICT: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Presentation on the Ethiopia/Eritrea Border Dispute

SUMMARY
Ambassador Kingsley Makubela presented a short briefing on the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.  He outlined the history of the conflict, recent developments, attempts to create a peaceful settlement and the proposed implementation of sanctions. 

The Committee requested more detailed information on the origins of the conflict in order for Parliament to better understand the situation and requested another presentation.  The Chair expressed concern that a senior Foreign Affairs official had delivered an unsatisfactory briefing and requested the presence of the Foreign Affairs Director-General at the future briefing.

MINUTES

Chairperson’s opening

The Chairperson opened the meeting by outlining the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea and the fact that it was a situation that had swung between resolution and conflict for many years and was an area of concern internationally. He introduced Ambassador Kingsley Makubela of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Chief Directorate for East Africa.

Briefing by Ambassador Makubela

Ambassador Makubela began his presentation with a brief breakdown of the history of the area and the conflict. He traced the origins of the conflict up to the present attempts at peace agreements and the recent developments within the area.  Ambassador Makubela noted that the conflict was no longer confined to Ethiopia and Eritrea but had spread into surrounding countries. Somalia was one such country.

The issue in Eritrea and Ethiopia was simply a border dispute, particularly the town of Badme that effectively would find itself divided between the two countries if the border was set as suggested.  Many attempts at the resolution of this issue have been made. One in particular was the Algiers Agreement in 2000 which set up the Ethiopia- Eritrea Boundary Commission (EEBC) which in 2002 allotted Badme to Eritrea. This was obviously an unsatisfactory decision for Ethiopia.

Ambassador Makubela directed the Members’ attention to the provided facts and figures for the two countries, urging them to examine them for a better understanding of the situation in the region.

Discussion
The Chair requested clarity about the role played by the European Union (EU) in the dispute.  The Chair queried whether the presence of the EU had contributed to the situation and whether they had unwittingly taken sides in the border dispute.

Ambassador Makubela elaborated slightly on the role of EU involvement, mentioning their participation in the interventions and implementation of US Aid.  Furthermore he noted that only limited tension had been directed towards the EU and therefore they cannot be considered as exacerbating the situation.

Mr D Gibson (DA) questioned the number of deaths in the region as the presentation had noted two different numbers. He asked whether these were estimates and whether any factual numbers were available.  Secondly he questioned if Eritrea had expelled the peacekeepers, as the presentation claimed they were calling for further peacekeeping operations and increased forces in the area. Mr Gibson clearly noted that this was a contradiction and asked for clarity. He also highlighted a factual mistake in the presentation as gold was mentioned as an agricultural product.

Ambassador Makubela did not provide an answer about the reliability of the statistics and facts relating to the number of deaths as presented in his report.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) submitted that it appears that Eritrea had a good case in the border dispute; however he queried why the conflict continued. He asked about the role of the African Union (AU) in the conflict, and the impact the conflict has had on Sudan and Somalia. In light of this impact, he asserted that it appears that the AU is seemingly immobilised and questioned why this was so.

Ambassador Makubela agreed that Eritrea had a good case, particularly considering its undertaking to abide by any agreement in contrast to Ethiopia. The AU was not immobilised as it had sent peacekeepers to Somalia.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) asked for more information about the causes of the conflict and questioned the role of religion in the conflict. He further questioned the high military expenditure, particularly on the part of Ethiopia. Considering the nature of the Ethiopian economy, Mr Ramgobin questioned where the money for the military equipment was coming from, and who the investors in Ethiopia were. He asked who benefited from the conflict suggested that perhaps it was a ‘remote control war’. He questioned the role of the African Union in the conflict and whether the system of peer review was used in the region. If this had not been done he felt it would weaken the African Union throughout the continent.

Ambassador Makubela spelt out that it was not a religious conflict, or a conflict that had any religious influences; it was simply a border dispute.  The dispute arose out of the fall of Mogadishu during which time the town of Badme was promised to Eritrea; however no factual evidence exists to substantiate this claim from Eritrea.  As for the system of peer review, Ambassador Makubela submitted that this system was in place and that the AU had sent soldiers to Somalia.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) submitted that the conflict would continue as long as there is continued lack of respect for state sovereignty and independence.

Mr L Kalako (ANC) queried the AU stance on the border issue.  He questioned whether they were going to adopt the policy that they would respect pre-existing borders as they found them. However he highlighted that this was problematic as it could lead to policy on a continental level which would result in the redrawing of boundaries all over Africa due to colonial occupation.

Adv Madasa asked about the expulsion of the United Nations (UN) observers and the rumored expulsion of a South African citizen.

Ambassador Makubela stated that he did not know of any South African who had been expelled by Eritrea.

Ms D Motubatse-Hounkpatin (ANC) corrected Ambassador Makubela saying that a South African had been expelled, a Mr Themba.

The Chair felt the Committee should follow up this issue.

The Chair questioned the role of South Africa in the conflict.  He noted that South Africa had substantial investments in both countries. Furthermore, he noted the presence of many students and displaced persons from Ethiopia and Eritrea in SA. It was SA’s political and moral duty to assist those displaced individuals and try to resolve the conflict. South African must continue to help the United Nations in their peacekeeping efforts and use its bilateral communications to resolve the conflict. He also queried the stance of the AU on the border dispute.

Ambassador Makubela noted the difficult situation considering the large populations that are involved. It would be beneficial for all concerned if a sustainable peace accord could be signed, but this would require political leadership from both countries.

Mr Ramgobin requested more details on the origins of the conflict, in particular the role of the fall of Mohammed Said Barre and the loss of part of Ogaden.

Ambassador Makubela stated that a ‘piece meal’ breakdown would not do the origins of the conflict justice and submitted that an entire presentation could be dedicated to the origins of the conflict.

The Chair agreed with this and suggested that a full presentation on the origins of the conflict be made in the fourth term of the parliamentary year.

Ms Motubatse-Hounkpatin suggested that the Committee would be interested in an idea of the post conflict situation.  It would also be interesting to understand the development, the implementation of programmes particularly by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the peace issues and the impact these programmes and operations would have on the area’s inhabitants.

The Chair asserted that the Committee would be interested in who was involved with Eritrea and Ethiopia and the extent to which the South African government is interacting with the two countries.

Ambassador Makubela submitted that South Africa is interested in finding a sustainable solution; however they were not operating at a level were bilateral communication can help.  He noted that these are political questions and said that he was unable to answer them.

The Chair suggested that perhaps the way forward for South Africa was to include Ethiopia in the discussions.  He submitted that it was important to create ways of including the two governments and engage their political leadership.

Ambassador Makubela noted that a structural framework was indeed needed; however there was a need for care in the communications as any use of bilateral communications to express South Africa’s concern could result in increased tension. A ‘parallel framework’ must not evolve in an attempt to express SA’s opinions. He stressed that South Africa would continue to urge the two countries to find a solution.

The Chair repeated his earlier point about the displaced students and persons from the area that are in SA. Therefore for South Africa not to raise this problem would result in a social problem, as South Africa have a responsibility to these people.  He further expressed concern that bilateral communication were not used to voice SA concerns and strongly criticised the stance that such expression of concerns would harm South African business ventures in the region. He called for a ‘sharp’ increase in the expression of discontent by South Africa.

Ambassador Makubela queried use of the word ‘sharp’ with respect to bilateral relations. He asserted that South Africa were concerned with economic impact and good governance and these were their priorities.

The Chair again raised the issue of ‘bilateral engagement’ in the resolution of the conflict.

Ambassador Makubela attempted to set the record straight by clearly outlining the conflict’s origins and asserting that South Africa did not have a forum to discuss the dispute and monitor the progress of the discussions.  SA continuously encouraged the countries to do something despite the complexity of the situation.

The Chair stated the need for a report to be drafted and submitted to Parliament and called for volunteers to draft such a report.  It was suggested that the secretary should write such a report and the Committee agreed.

Ms S Rwexana (ANC) stated the need for more information on the topic before the submission of such a report to Parliament.

Mr M Ramgobin noted that the unanswered questions were political questions and that the Director General: Foreign Affairs should address them.  He further asserted that Ambassador Makubela should not mistake the Committee’s enthusiasm as a slight to him, but it was important for the Ministry to give an adequate briefing.

The Chair concluded that no senior official would be treated with ‘kid gloves’ and that Ambassador Makubela was aware of this.  The Committee needed more information to deal with the issue. This information could be obtained from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He commented that the Committee would not show sympathy when a senior official failed to provide adequate information to the Committee. The Committee however understood the position of ‘this one is beyond my scope.’ The importance of the presence of the Director General was highlighted.

The meeting was adjourned.