Tokyo — The Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki are two of many African leaders who attended the opening ceremony in Japan of the third Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD III) on Monday.
Although, alphabetically, the Eritrean and Ethiopian leaders should have been sitting side by side at the Tokyo conference, they were diplomatically separated by representatives from Egypt and Equatorial Guinea.
Once staunch allies, the two countries went to war in 1998 and fought a devastating two and a half year border conflict in which an estimated 70,000 people were killed. The disputed border is now manned by more than 4,000 United Nations' peacekeepers.
Addis Ababa and Asmara submitted their claims to ownership of the symbolic border village of Badme to an independent International Boundary Commission based in the Dutch capital, The Hague. Both sides agreed to accept its rulings. Last year, the Commission ruled in favour of Eritrea. The Ethiopian government challenged the decision.
Ethiopia has said it wants a new commission set up to rule on what it sees as the contested areas of its border with Eritrea. In a letter to the UN Security Council, Prime Minister Meles called the decision by the Boundary Commission to award Badme to Eritrea unjust. His letter said it was unimaginable for the Ethiopian people to accept "a blatant miscarriage of justice" - specifically over the awarding of Badme to Eritrea - a decision he called "illegal, unjust and irresponsible".
Earlier this month, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, warned that patience was running thin with the delays in demarcating the border between the two neighbours and that relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea had not improved. Annan called on the international community to do more to help both countries fulfil their commitments under a peace deal agreed by both sides three years ago.
The demarcation process has already been delayed twice and was scheduled to begin in October and the Addis government has been accused by observers of holding up the process.
AllAfrica's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, who is in Tokyo covering the Japan-Africa development conference, sought out the Ethiopian prime minister to find out more about Addis Ababa's position on the disputed border and relations with Eritrea.
Prime Minister Meles, Ethiopia pledged to abide by the International Boundary Commission's ruling on the Badme border with Eritrea. You changed your mind once it was awarded to Eritrea and questioned the decision. Now you're are asking for a review and a new commission. Why?
Our commitment is to resolve the problem peacefully. We still have that commitment. We are not going to initiate any conflict. We will resolve this peacefully and diplomatically and legally. That is the first point.
Secondly, the Boundary Commission was supposed to make decisions on the basis of the terms of reference we gave them. It was a two-way contract. We were to accept its rulings, they were to accept the terms of reference they were given. In our view, the contract has been breached by the Boundary Commission.
In what way?
Their decision is not based on the terms of reference that we gave them.
But, with all due respect, it sounds like sour grapes because the Commission awarded Badme to Eritrea rather than to Ethiopia. And people are saying that you have not honoured your pledge to accept the ruling of the Commission.
No, as I said, we honour our pledge to resolve this problem peacefully and on the basis of the terms of reference of the Algiers agreement. The breach of the contract I think is that of the Boundary Commission, it is not ours.
Please tell me specifically where you feel the Commission breached the contract.
Let me give you a specific example. They were supposed to delimit the boundary and demarcate it on the basis of two principles, the colonial treaties and applicable international law.
Now if the colonial treaty is very clear, they were to follow the colonial treaty. If the colonial treaty was ambiguous, they would follow applicable international law.
Now in the case of Badme, the Boundary Commission said the colonial treaty is absolutely clear. And they indicated where the colonial treaty boundary is. But they decided to forego that decision and apply applicable international law. We said fine. And in applying the applicable international law, they selected a principle called the established practice of the parties. We said no problem. And in applying the principle of practice of the parties they, among other things, divided a single village into two and a single homestead into two.
Now, I ask you, how could it be that the practice of the parties was such that two countries were administering one single homestead? It couldn't be. It didn't make sense. What we are saying is, please make some sense.
Prime Minister Meles, if the Boundary Commission had found in favour of Ethiopia rather than for Eritrea - with these same anomalies you claim don't make sense - would you still be challenging its decisions and ruling on the Badme border village?
Our objective is not to get pieces and bits of land. Our objective is to get justice. To the extent that they made a just decision, we would accept it. To the extent that they made unjust decisions - whichever way it went - we wouldn't be happy with it.
Are you prepared to go back to war if the Commission sticks to its original ruling?
No, no. As I said earlier on, we insist that this problem should be resolved peacefully and diplomatically. No wars!
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Not so very long ago, there were reports that Ethiopian soldiers had played football across the border, causing a bit of a diplomatic rumpus. The Eritreans called it a violation of the ceasefire. Wasn't it provocation?
Oh come on! These types of mess-ups happen all the time. What I can tell you is that the ceasefire that we agreed, that we signed with the Eritreans, six months before the United Nations' mission was in place, was scrupulously observed by both parties. And this was six months before the observer troops were in place and at a time when the two armies (of Ethiopia and Eritrea) were separated by a distance of 200 metres. So there is no serious violation of the ceasefire agreement and there won't be; not, at least, from our side.
Everyone asks, how come? How come two brothers, two close allies, Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia and President Isaias of Eritrea went to war? They point out that there is nothing more bloody than a family feud. So, how come?
Well I don't see this as a family feud. I see this as a difference of approach. On the Ethiopian side, we have always insisted on resolving problems peacefully and legally and diplomatically.
On the side of the Eritrean leadership, at least so far, the inclination has been to shoot first and ask questions later.
So can you make peace with President Isaias?
I have no problem making peace with the devil himself.
