US

Being a truly complex phenomenon the war posed a real challenge for the international community. From the outset of the conflict, however, there has been a great deal of controversy over international involvement and especially over the role of the United States as a peace-broker.

From Ethiopian point of view, containment of the militant Islamic fundamentalism in Sudan was American priority in the region.
Therefore, to the US, the Ethio-Eritrean war represented a strategic
setback for no longer could both Ethiopia and Eritrea be its allies against Sudan. Moreover, Eritrea’s forged links with Sudan and Libya compelled the US to look for Eritrean appeasement rather than implementations of the principles of international law. As the Ethiopian Foreign Minister,
Seymoun Mesfin, stated:

“The US watered down its position and became reluctant to take a firm stand to impose pressure on the invader when the Issayas regime defied both the US and Rwanda and the OAU proposals.” [14]

With all certainty, the American policy was strongly orchestrated by the US interest in the Horn of Africa. But, still, its efforts to broker peace were significant, especially considering complexity of the conflict.
Thus, Ethiopian allegation of the US for being ineffective and adopting double standards seems to be unjustified.

Ethiopians cheer militia entering Tigray
June 2000

The "proxy war"

The other controversial area of international involvement touches on
the “proxy war”. According to the BBC presenter, Patrick Gilkes, both Ethiopia and Eritrea engaged themselves in a “proxy war”, meaning their attempts to use opposition in each country for their own interest. [14]
As an illustration, Eritrea tried to gain support amongst Ethiopian opposition movements such as Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) as well as amongst Djibouti opposition Front
pour le Restauration de l’Unite et de la Democratie (FRUD).

Ethiopia, on the other hand, backed the creation of regional administrations
in Somalia. Also, both countries largely used international military support.
For example, Ethiopia supposedly exchanged coffee for ammunition with China as well as purchased arms and helicopters from Russia. Eritrea, in contrast, acquired weaponry from the Eastern European countries.
To call this abhorrent practice to an end the United Nations (UN),
in its 1227 Resolution, urged all states
“to end immediately all sales of arms and munitions to Ethiopia and Eritrea”

Yet, its intervention, as well as other attempts of international community to put a lid on the barbaric war, turned out to be far from fruitful.

Remarks on Ethiopia-Eritrean Peace Agreement
signed in Dec. 2000; by the
Secretary of State, Medeleine Albright

The statement of the European Union on the Ethio-Eritrea war;
released on 03/10/999

Homepage I Causes of War I Territorial I Economic I Nakfa
Divergent economic policies I The ports
International Involvement I US role I Peace negotiations
Aftermath of war I Bibliography I Related Sites