Policymakers considering how to shape effective conflict responses in the Ethiopian and Sudanese borderlands need to expand their notions of the types of commodities that contribute to violent outcomes. They should also ensure that holistic interventions target cross-border, as well as domestically driven, causes of conflict.
The sesame-producing regions of Ethiopia and Sudan sit at the centre of a set of interrelated conflicts. Cross-border tensions over Al Fashaga have soured recent bilateral relations. Both countries are also facing acute internal crises, complicated by external influences. All of these destabilizing factors are playing out against a backdrop of entrenched intra-regional rivalries and local grievances.
Focusing on the sesame industry, this paper has argued that – in the context of current conflict and political volatility – superficially unremarkable trading arrangements in this commodity do more than merely connect Ethiopia and Sudan to each other and the broader region. Economic processes associated with cash crops can also drive trade in ‘conflict commodities’. This trade not only fuels and sustains conflict but is enabled by it. The implications for conflict risk and mitigation go far beyond the immediate economic impact on national balance sheets or local livelihoods.
Given the conflicts and internal political challenges both countries are facing, the unresolved dispute over Al Fashaga remains a key flashpoint. If political and economic conditions in Al Fashaga remain unaddressed, they could escalate swiftly beyond this specific border area and into Sudan and Ethiopia’s wider political economies. Any broader escalation, however accidental, could have devastating consequences for both countries and more widely across the Horn of Africa.
Significant political uncertainties continue to affect conditions in Al Fashaga. In Sudan more broadly, uncertainty remains over the evolution of the country’s civil war, and over the development of the war economy and its impact on eastern Sudan. Meanwhile, in Ethiopia political tensions continue to create uncertainty over the future trajectory of the deepening conflict in the Amhara region between the Fano militia forces and the Ethiopian federal government, as well as over the role of Eritrea and the sustainability of any resolution to the Tigray conflict (such resolution remains elusive).
These unpredictable conditions make policy prescriptions incredibly difficult to pin down. The following recommendations are aimed at helping sharpen the focus of policymakers – both domestic and international – who hope to propose and shape effective interventions. As such, some of the recommendations target policymakers in Ethiopia and Sudan, while others are intended primarily for regional and international actors seeking to support peaceful political transitions in both countries.
Local conflict and cross-border considerations
Policymakers and development partners need to:
- Understand and address the transnational dynamics that trigger armed conflict. Conflict resolution cannot be considered a purely domestic – local or national – matter for either Ethiopia or Sudan, but needs to navigate the interests of all sides, often across distant geographies. Policy interventions in one area can affect or be affected by processes across national borders.
- Pay attention to the economic aspects of conflict. The region, its political economies, agricultural production and supply chains, local livelihoods and history are fundamentally interrelated, and intersect with conflict dynamics. Any changes in one part of the system can have profound impacts across borders. Conflict resolution efforts should factor in the intersection of conflict with issues of political economy in both countries, including the external economic interactions that facilitate conflict. Interventions or reconstruction programmes – even those concerned with technical issues of agronomy or local livelihoods – need to be carefully considered.
- Broaden ideas of conflict goods. Illicit minerals, weapons or drugs are not the only items or goods that can drive and shape violent outcomes. A legal and seemingly innocuous commodity such as sesame can also generate conflict dynamics – indeed, in some cases such commodities may be more important than conventionally defined conflict goods, given the impact of changes in agricultural production and trade on livelihoods at the local level and on the war economy more broadly.
- Think beyond ‘licit’ and ‘illicit’. Policymakers considering conflict economies should give greater focus to the interaction between licit and illicit trade, with the latter often labelled as ‘smuggling’. Extensive literature exists on this subject. Smuggling has emerged as part of the accepted cultural fabric of borderland communities in Ethiopia and Sudan, and is often a necessity due to the lack of alternative livelihood options and to impediments placed on trade by state and non-state actors. Trade outside official channels has proved to be a vector for community survival and resilience. It may help to keep resources out of the hands of members of political or business elites who might otherwise use control of trade to fuel conflict, or to advance their own political or commercial interests to the detriment of local communities and local or regional stability. Policymakers should show a degree of flexibility in tolerating informal trade, and should support the regularization of such trade in licit commodities because of its necessity for everyday existence.
- Foster ‘bottom up’ initiatives. There is a long history of local cohabitation and collaboration across the Ethiopia–Sudan border. As state power and control continue to diminish in both countries, it will be important for development partners to support the establishment and strengthening of engagement and relationships at subnational and local levels. Action is needed to improve local economic livelihoods, as well as to sustain and enhance cross-border cooperation and interstate relations, even during periods of political tension. The promotion of cross-border civic platforms that seek to bolster relations and dialogue – such as the Ethiopia–Sudan People’s Friendship Association, or a platform bringing together universities on either side of the border – could help to minimize the impact of national-level tensions, ensuring that channels for engagement remain open between border communities, traders, local civil society organizations and universities, as well as local authorities. Grassroots-level dialogue platforms should also be established along the shared borders of Amhara and Tigray. Communities such as those from Welkait and Raya share cultural and linguistic tenets from both regions, and can help to build trust and bridge differences.
- Reactivate bilateral border cooperation agreements. Ethiopia signed an agreement with Sudan in 2009 to collaborate on bilateral and international issues of common interest. An Ethiopia–Sudan border commission and other related mechanisms already exist. These should be reactivated or revitalized to explore solutions to ongoing issues, with the aim of establishing a formal land-use agreement through which citizens of both countries can peacefully cultivate the land. However, this will likely require a resolution of the war in Sudan or at least a permanent cessation of hostilities. In future, at a more appropriate time, and once confidence-building measures have been established, the border commission could revisit more contentious issues such as the demarcation of territorial boundaries in disputed areas.
- Identify cooperative cross-border measures that build trust. Restoring trade routes and the shared operation of the farmlands in Al Fashaga, particularly with respect to the production of valuable crops like sesame, could bolster efforts to secure durable political settlements in Ethiopia and Sudan, including by reducing tensions between Amhara and Tigray over Western Tigray/Welkait. The idea would be to transform sesame from a ‘conflict commodity’ into one that helps to support livelihoods and sustainable peace, internally and across borders. Mechanisms exist for citizens of both countries to cross the Ethiopia–Sudan border and engage in official trade, and to access weekly cross-border market days. Enhancing these mechanisms would help build economic alternatives to smuggling and develop more effective governance. Mechanisms for enhanced trade could be made more responsive to local needs if shaped by members of local communities on either side of the border, in consultation with each other and their respective local authorities. Despite the war in Sudan, efforts to pursue such cooperation should still be feasible at the local level, given the relative stability in the east of the country. If successfully implemented and consolidated, such policies could provide the basis for longer-term regional stability.
- Ensure local dynamics inform transnational and regional responses. Mediation processes have invariably failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the local issues at play. It is important that local dynamics inform transnational and regional responses, and vice versa. Therefore, any track one mediation efforts should be closely connected with track two dialogue processes – involving local and non-state actors on both sides of the border. This could include a de-escalation mechanism monitored by an external organization or entity to reduce the likelihood of any incursions or incidents having broader implications for local stability. There is a clear need to ensure active involvement from local communities throughout the process. This is due, in particular, to the increased risks of the Al Fashaga dispute being politicized on both sides of the border by subnational actors seeking to link the dispute with the broader political settlement in each country.
Geopolitical and regional considerations
Policymakers and development partners need to:
- Understand the impact of regional relationships and external influences. Political alignments in the Horn of Africa continue to shift. These realignments will need to be accommodated by regional and international policymakers to prevent worsening insecurity in border areas. Ethiopia’s convenient partnership with Eritrea during the Tigray war is fast becoming a relic, with the government-to-government relationship deteriorating and the spectre of another conflict between the two countries looming. In response, Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afwerki, has sought to strengthen ties with the SAF, which controls eastern Sudan along the border with Eritrea, and to rekindle ties with Egypt (one of Ethiopia’s rivals). At the same time, the UAE – which as recently as 2022 was mediating the trilateral dispute over the GERD, and which also tried to negotiate a deal between Ethiopia and Sudan on Al Fashaga – has been supporting militarized solutions in relation to its interests in Sudan. The evolution of these dynamics could have negative consequences for relations between Ethiopia and Sudan.
- Provide support for external/multilateral dialogue and mediation. Sudan’s civil war and Ethiopia’s intra-state conflicts are likely to be protracted. As such, it is difficult to imagine the two countries being able to ensure the security of their border areas. However, there is a need to prevent border tensions from escalating, as otherwise this will worsen the already complex internal crises in both countries and lead to further regionalization of conflict. There is also a need for dialogue between members of the Amhara and Tigrayan elites. It is vital to understand which partner countries or multilateral bodies are well placed to be effective mediators and which are not.
- Bolster cross-border regional mechanisms. To date, the AU and IGAD have had limited influence on resolving the conflicts in Ethiopia and Sudan. But, with support from partners, they can play active roles in defusing cross-border tensions between Ethiopia and Sudan and promoting integration over the long term. Both bodies have pre-established cross-border programmes. The AU Border Programme was created in 2007 with the aim of promoting peace, security and stability through delimitation and demarcation of borders, cross-border cooperation, and capacity-building between member states. The AU chairperson urged Ethiopia and Sudan to resolve their border issues under the auspices of this programme at the peak of the border conflict in 2021. IGAD also helped to defuse tension between the two countries by bringing their leaders together in Kenya in 2022. Moreover, the Horn of Africa Initiative, established in 2019 to achieve deeper regional integration, offers a credible platform to advance the development of trade corridors, including around Al Fashaga. Triangulating efforts among Ethiopia and Sudan’s international partners, as well as multilateral institutions such as the African Development Bank, will be pivotal to promoting sustainable peace in the border areas. This could help to bridge the funding gap, recruit necessary technical capacities and support conflict avoidance mechanisms.
- Coordinate Horn of Africa envoys and resources. Those countries or multilateral bodies that have appointed regional envoys – the AU, China, the EU, France, Germany, the UK, the UN and the US – should seek to coordinate their approaches and allocation of resources. This could help to moderate hitherto securitized and transactional approaches to engaging in the Horn of Africa, instead enabling policies that prioritize peace and stability – including through the prisms of food security, maritime security and ports, and through diplomatic mechanisms that support the foundations for longer-term regional stability and economic integration. Such coordination could afford an opportunity to reset relationships and boost cooperation between Ethiopia and Sudan. With its experience in the region and engagement in high-level mediation and grassroots conflict prevention, the UK is well placed to support enhanced triangulation and joined-up thinking between like-minded allies such as the EU (plus its member states) and the US, as well as between regional partners including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
