BY GETACHEW MINAS
Ethiopia and Sudan have been engaged in a dangerous stalemate over al-Fashaga, a strip of fertile borderland from which Sudan evicted thousands of Ethiopian farmers in December 2020. This act of eviction is nothing but a ploy to divert attention from local political crises in Sudan. Khartoum is in a fragile political transitions and any dispute will engender and beget heavy risks. Sudan seeks skirmishes without realizing that any hostility could escalate into a full scale war. Also, it does not realize that any accident or a slight blunder or any mistake may lead to devastating crises. A wider conflict could attract the attention of regional allies, causing further destabilization in the Horn of Africa. Thus, Khartoum should immediately freeze military intervention and positioning into Ethiopian land. Friendly countries and super powers, should also urge Sudan to withdraw from the occupied land of Ethiopia.
Khartoum should retain its longstanding friendly relationship with Ethiopia without any confrontation that could slide into a war which it cannot afford. At the time Sudan evicted thousands of poor farmers, Ethiopia has been distracted by internal conflict in its Tigray region. Misreading the reality and taking an elusive, doubtful and uncertain advantage of the internal situation in Ethiopia, Sudan fearfully took control of the fertile Ethiopian land. It grabbed the land without any regard to a relatively amicable land-use arrangement that had governed the area for decades. It evicted the farmers, mainly from Ethiopia’s second-largest ethnic group, the Amhara. Infuriated by the incursion, Ethiopia has alerted itsarmed forces and militiamen to regain its borders. The recurrent situation is now raising fears of an “escalation” of conflict that could draw in regional allies. To prevent a disastrous border war, external partners, particularly the African Union (AU) should make effort to reverse the Sudanese aggression.
Friendly countries have the duty to urge Khartoum to immediately open diplomatic channels that help halt its military adventures. They have to organize high-level talks to return to the peaceful pre-conflict border before the current crises escalate into a human disaster. Khartoum wrongly claims the area, which is part and parcel of the Amhara region within Ethiopia. The two countries had agreed on a treaty of cooperation allowing farmers on the borders to cultivate their land in peace, with the two sides agreeing to undertake formal demarcation at an unspecified date in the future. However, leadership changes and political turbulence within Sudan have led its new leaders to “avert” domestic political crises by conducting a war of aggression on a friendly neighboring country.
So far, Khartoum does not appear ready to back down, partly because it is bound by key domestic crises. After the change of government, the country is in chaos. To divert public attention from local political issues to external ones, it snatched land from Ethiopia, which is only an opportunistic act. In return, Ethiopia insisted on peaceful co-existence between the two neighboring countries and demanded withdrawal of Sudanese troops from occupied land “before” starting any negotiation. This is only a peaceful pre-condition to which Khartoum responded negatively, still occupying the Ethiopian border. It is reported that Sudan’s military leaders have used the occupation of foreign land to falsely enhance their nationalist credentials among the Sudanese people, who are friendly to Ethiopia.
Shadow boxing: The Sudanese Junta want Ethiopia not only to acknowledge Sudan’s sovereignty over the occupied land but also to accept immediate border demarcation and concurrent settlement of all major disputes between the two countries. This is only a psychological feud that amounts to shadow boxing with no impact on the Ethiopian political domain. Given time, it only backfires resulting in economic and social disaster that affects the lives of the lovely and friendly Sudanese people. The Junta has no interest in keeping peace with Ethiopia as long as it relies on social disruptions for maintaining its political power indefinitely. It fears the implication to its dictatorial rule of the democratic election conducted in Ethiopia recently. Ethiopians have been able to demonstrate their civility and capability to elect their leaders by casting their votes peacefully.
Apart from their participation in the peaceful election process, Ethiopians are determined to reduce and finally eliminate poverty from their country. Their resolve is not a blank aspiration, but a realistic one as demonstrated in their ability to construct the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, GERD. The Ethiopians are dedicated and hardworking people as witnessed in the construction of the dam. Despite the “refusal” of the international financial institutions to finance the construction of the dam, the poor people of Ethiopia have managed to construct the dam with their limited income. This is an achievement the African people, including the Sudanese, take pride in. Also, Sudan will benefit from controlled water and less siltation of its dams due to the GERD that retains most of the silt. As a beneficiary, Sudan should be thankful to Ethiopia.
To worsen the situation, Khartoum called for the removal of Ethiopian troops from the UN peacekeeping mission in Abyei, on Sudan’s border with South Sudan. Its growing pressure on Ethiopia is designed to fan internal pressures within the country. This calls for urgent measures to direct Sudan away from its perilous path. It is imperative to prevent any escalation of war between the two countries that would ignite a wider conflict, drawing in countries in support of both countries.
To avoid wider conflicts, the AU should encourage Sudan to refrain from clashes that might trigger a wider regional war. Simultaneously, it should expedite meetings between leaders and encourage Sudan to withdraw from Ethiopia. The AU should push for a border solution that confirms land-ownership rights for Ethiopian farmers evicted from their land.
The origin of dispute: The border dispute originated from the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1902. This colonial-era document agreement sought to determine the frontier between Ethiopia and Sudan, which was then under British dominion. The treaty, which was the result of protracted negotiations between Emperor Menelik II and the British Government, assigned the territory to Ethiopia. The area produces a variety of crops, including cereals, sunflowers, cotton, export-grade sesame seeds and gum Arabic. Decades after the treaty, demarcation of the border remained a bone of contention between the two countries. Following a 1972 visit by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie to Sudan as part of his mediation of Sudan’s north-south conflict, the two countries sought to resolve the boundary dispute with an “exchange of notes” that would guide demarcation.
The Emperor’s effort had been disrupted by the 1974 revolution, and it took another generation before the two neighbors arrived at a mutually acceptable arrangement for managing tensions over the area. This largely rested on good-will between the leaders of the two countries. This effort cultivated close ties for the pursuit of strategic goals for reducing tensions. Ethiopian leaders wanted the support of Sudan for the construction of the GERD, the largest hydropower plant in Africa. However, the dam has been an intermittent source of tension between the two countries. While demarcation attempts consistently wrecked, the 2007 cooperation agreement contained a compromise that allowed both Ethiopian and Sudanese citizens to grow crops, raise cattle and conduct trade in the area. This reduced the urgency of border demarcation.
Before the new frictions, Ethiopian farmers had moved along the border to farm their land. The Ethiopian government offered farmers incentives to sell crops to its marketing boards, making it more profitable for them to do business. Reports indicated that there was no such incentive in Sudan. However, Ethiopian and Sudanese farmers had lived side by side for decades in relative harmony. Not only farmers, but also other people engaged in other businesses have closer and friendly linkages. The Ethiopians have great affinity for Sudanese art, music, literature, culture, character, attitude, spirit, morality, code of conduct and ethos. They attach values to Sudanese communal affinity, attraction, kinship and sympathy and a sense of fellowship. The Sudanese Junta overlooks the social ties between the people on both sides of the border who interact with each other closely.
Regional tensions: This latest dispute between the two countries has arisen against the background of increasingly mounting regional tensions. This tension involves neighboring and regional states. Initially,the changes of leadership in both countries brought blossoming relations between the two countries. Sudan’s new leaders praised the Ethiopian leader for his role in their country’s transition as he intervened to ease tensions between the military and civilian protesters. Relations between the leaders were initially warm. Since then, however, relations between the two countries have suddenly deteriorated. Observers believe that the shift in relations between the two leaders is partly due to a “lack” of communication between them. Sudan also disregarded the efforts of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), to help resolve the conflicts. Sudan seems to be goaded by Egypt.
Conclusion: The main reason for Sudanese aggression is the GERD. It is projected that the completion of the dam leads to poverty reduction in Ethiopia. Tensions have mounted as the dam approached completion. Sudan’s position on the dam has oscillated over time. At first it opposed it but soon changed in support of it, perceiving benefits for Sudan. It is obvious that the GERD could produce cheap electricity for Sudan and regulate water flow to boost irrigation, reduce flooding and enhance electricity production by Sudan’s own Blue Nile dams. But Sudan agonizes if its interests will be protected and seeks assurances from Ethiopia, which has repeatedly confirmed of higher benefits that would accrue to Sudan.
The Sudanese government should learn from its own people about their deep-rooted love and respect for Ethiopians. Similarly, the Ethiopians admire and respect the Sudanese people for their culture, character, code of conduct and morality. They are more than neighbors. The Sudanese government should, therefore, respect its own people’s friendly and positive attitude toward Ethiopians. Thus, it needs not look for ignition of internal conflict within Ethiopia. It should rather create peace within its border without affecting a friendly neighboring country. Such actions win the Sudanese government respect from all, including the AU, for contributing to a peaceful coexistence in the Horn of Africa.
Editor’s Note: The views entertained in this article do not necessarily reflect the stance of The Ethiopian Herald
The Ethiopian Herald August 5/2021
