Friday May 19, 2000
The Guardian

You rightly say that Ethiopia is "primarily responsible for the latest upsurge in violence" in the conflict with Eritrea (Leader, May 18). After a ceasefire which had lasted since June 1999, Ethiopia launched a massive offensive against Eritrea on three fronts and is wholly and solely responsible for an act of aggression which contravenes the UN charter and international law. The OAU had been trying hard to get agreement on a peace formula based on a framework agreement which the two states had accepted.

In proximity talks held in Algiers at the end of April, Ethiopia refused to sign the documents, ostensibly on the grounds that the technical arrangements for their implementation had still to be agreed, but in reality because they couldn't sign up to peace when their preparations for relaunching the war had reached their final stages.

This offensive was not planned and executed in a few days; it was a premeditated act of aggression, prepared while the Ethiopian foreign minister was going through the motions of talking peace in Algiers. The present military operations are not designed to recover the small amounts of territory claimed by Ethiopia, but to crush the Eritrean army and dictate the terms of a settlement.

 -----------------

Finding permanent solutions to divisions in Africa
Thursday November 3, 2005
The Guardian

You say (Leaders, October 31) that only the UN appears to have noticed the danger that hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea will flare up again. I have raised this matter frequently and have a question for answer in the Lords next Monday, when I shall be asking the government "what further steps they will take in the UN security council to prevent hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to find a permanent solution to the border dispute between the two countries".

Because the security council has failed to enforce the decision of the boundary commission, which both parties had agreed to accept, Eritrea has now imposed restrictions on UN peacekeepers. The prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, while accepting the decision in principle, says the boundary cannot be demarcated mechanically by splitting villages. The demarcation directions provide that the line may be varied only on the basis of an express request agreed between and made by both parties. The security council should now insist that demarcation be started and the secretary general should offer to facilitate any such requests for minor adjustments as may be are necessary to prevent the division of communities.

Eric Lubbock
House of Lords

------------------------------

Ethiopia has consistently pressed for talks with Eritrea to resolve the demarcation dispute. In November 2004, in an attempt to kick-start the process, Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi submitted a five-point proposal, with the backing of the Ethiopian parliament, which recognised that lasting peace could only be achieved if disputes are resolved through negotiation. Ethiopia accepted in principle the boundary commission decision and called for immediate dialogue with the view to implementing that decision in a manner consistent with the promotion of sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the two peoples. To implement the border decision as it stands will dissect villages and homes, which could become a permanent source of tension.

Wagaye Berhanu
Ethiopian embassy