General information
Type of Incompatibility: Territory
Comment on Type of Incompatibility: Observers describe the unsettled issue of border demarcation as the main source of contention and at the core of the incompatibility between Djibouti and Eritrea, as well as what underpinned the 2008 clashes between the parties.
The border demarcation issue involving Eritrea and Djibouti dates back to the map-drawing of colonial times, when borders in the region were arbitrarily drawn up by British, French and Italian colonial powers. In 1900, France and Italy signed a border delimitation protocol, defining the north-east section of the border from the northernmost point of Ras Doumeira. The protocol also established that neither party would occupy nearby Doumeirah Island, until the sovereignty issue could be resolved. A new agreement signed in 1935 re-aligned the border in the favour of current-day Eritrea, including Doumeirah Island, but the decision was never ratified and thus never enacted. Sources describe it as widely agreed upon that the 1900 Protocol still reigns. Prior to the events of 2008, the contested border area has caused confrontation between Djibouti and Eritrea on two previous occasions, in 1996 and in 1999.
According to Djibouti, Eritrea aims to control the Bab al-Mandib straits, strategically important due to the fact that they connect the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. In April 2008, Djibouti presidential advisor Najib Ali Tahir was cited as stating that Eritrea wrongfully claimed ownership of a disputed area on the border, including Ras Doumeira, or Gabla, Moulhule village, and Doumeira Island. However, the exact motives behind the Eritrean incursion in 2008 have not been made known due to a complete break-down of diplomatic relations between the two parties, and Eritrea’s unwillingness to participate in negotiations or allow access for fact-finding missions to the country. In June, Eritrea’s ambassador to the UN, Araya Desta, acknowledged skirmishes on the border, but described them as “instigated by the unprovoked attack unleashed by Djibouti against our units inside our own territory”, and stated that “contrary to the claims made, Eritrea has not taken any land that belongs to Djibouti and it does not have territorial ambitions”. This despite photographic evidence of Eritrean forces well within Djibouti territory. The fact that Eritrea denied having occupied any territory belonging to Djibouti - in spite of clear evidence to the contrary - leads the UCDP to conclude that Eritrea perceives the territory in question as rightfully theirs. According to this line of reasoning, Eritrea, thus, confirms the presence of incompatible positions in regards to the disputed territory.
Both parties have in 2008 been reluctant to concede to the presence of an undemarcated and disputed border, and Eritrea has denied having territorial ambitions in the area. Neither conflict party has unequivocally stated that the 2008 clashes were regarding the disputed border area. Some analysts claim that the value of the argument that the area is contested is limited, that the territorial dispute in and of itself is not the most significant. A host of other interlinked factors have been offered - including a continuation of the Eritrea-Ethiopia rivalry, Eritrean interests in Djibouti-based Somali talks failing, disrupting Ethiopia’s flow of goods through Djibouti, and the plans for constructing a bridge between Djibouti and Yemen - yet little is known as Eritrea has refused to make clear its intentions and motivations in its 2008 clash with Djibouti.
The same sources, however, concede to the border demarcation issue as underpinning the territorial conflict between Djibouti and Eritrea, in spite of neither party having issued statements in 2008 to that exact effect. In the lead-up to the 2008 crisis, military delegations from each side met at the disputed border area on 26 April to compare border maps and discuss troop positions, thus confirming the centrality of the issue to the conflict. Further on, the UN’s fact-finding mission urged that “reaching a final ruling on the position of the Djibouti-Eritrea border is arguably the ultimate and most rational solution to the current crisis”. When the countries met at the UN Security Council in October 2008, Djibouti appealed for a demilitarization of the border area and for the re-establishment of trust either through bilateral mechanisms or through an arbitration mechanism to resolve the border demarcation issue. It is clear that there exists a conflict over territory between the two parties, in spite of neither Eritrea nor Djibouti stating conclusively the motivations behind the 2008 skirmishes.
Certainly, while Eritrea denied having occupied Djibouti territory 2008, there was conclusive evidence pointing to the contrary, such as aerial images. Therefore, in spite of Eritrea denying territorial ambitions in the area, and in combination with earlier statements and actions on behalf of the conflict parties in regards to the border between them, the UCDP understands the 2008 conflict as primarily concerning the disputed border territory.
Territory: Common border
Date of first stated goal of incompatibility: 1996-04-17
Comment on date of first stated goals of incompatibility: The border demarcation issue involving Eritrea and Djibouti dates back to the map-drawing of colonial times, when borders in the region were arbitrarily drawn up by British, French and Italian colonial powers. In addition to the existence of several different treaties and protocols, there are several different maps and borderlines. Prior to the events of 2008, the contested border area has caused confrontation between Djibouti and Eritrea on two previous occasions, in 1996 and in 1999.
Concurrently with the 1996 Eritrean incursion, Eritrea is said to have raised the stakes by summoning the Ethiopian chargé d’affaires in Eritrea and showing him an old survey map incorporating contested border areas belonging to Djibouti and Ethiopia - including Djibouti’s Ras Doumeira overlooking the Red Sea - into its own territory. On 17 April 1996, Eritrea’s foreign minister gave a copy of the map to Djibouti’s president, as well as a message characterized as “threatening”, from Eritrea’s president Issayas Afeworki. According to Djibouti accounts, this revealed the Eritrean intention to unilaterally redraw the established border.
Reports at the time described the events as “the first confirmed clash over the sultanate of Raheita, which Eritrea claims as its own sovereign territory”, and stated that the “Eritrean government says part of the sultanate should be handed over by Djibouti because of unclear boundaries that date back to colonial times.” Other sources, however, described how Eritrea denied the incident, as well as that it had any territorial claims to this effect.
In 1996, armed confrontation was averted through the withdrawal of Eritrean forces and a restoration of the status quo. Hence, there was an incompatibility between the two parties long before clashes erupted in 2008. While there were no overt threats to use armed force to resolve the border dispute leveled in 1996 or 2008, the existence of a latent incompatibility - in combination with Eritrea being notoriously restrictive in its public statements - leads the UCDP to conclude that the conflict at least in great part is related to territorial claims on the part of Eritrea. A UN fact-finding mission, as well as a majority of observers, concludes that the contested border underpins the 2008 clashes.
Date of first use of armed force: 1996-04-27
Comment on first use of armed force: On 27 April 1996, Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) were accused by Djibouti of having shelled unmanned posts in Ras Doumeira town. Open warfare was averted when Eritrean forces withdrew from Djibouti soil. Djibouti subsequently withdrew its allegations. Intervention by France is also said to have contributed to defusing the situation. There were no reports of casualties as a result of the purported raid. While the immediate tension had been defused, the underlying border demarcation issue was not resolved.
Date of first battle related death: 2008-06-10
Comment on first battle related death: Fighting between the two parties erupted after Eritrean military officials issued an ultimatum for Djibouti to repatriate the Eritrean forces who had trickled over the border. According to the earliest reports, emerging on the first day of clashes, at least nine Djibouti forces had been killed.
Date of conflict reached 25 battle releated deaths: 2008-06-11
Comment on conflict reached 25 battle releated deaths: Between 10 and 12 June 2008
Annual information
This section contains annual information systematically collected by the UCDP.
1996
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Interstate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2008
Primary Parties: Government of Djibouti - Government of Eritrea
Dimension: Interstate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 44 |
| Best | 35 |
| Low | 35 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2009
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Interstate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2010
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Interstate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Agreement between the State of Eritrea and the Republic of Djibouti
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 2010-06-06
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The parties signed an agreement which put in place a committee led by Qatar, which had been mediating between the parties since 2009, where one representative from each party, and Qatar, were to resolve the boundary issue between the countries. Once an agreement was fully formulated a company was to be put in charge to demarcate a border according to international rules.
The parties also committed to provide lists of prisoners of war (POW’s) and missing persons so that the fate of these missing persons and conflicts relating to the border dispute could be resolved. Qatar also agreed to serve as monitor of the border until such time as when the final agreement and border had been established.
Signatories: President of Djibouti, President of Eritrea, Emir of Qatar
Third parties: Qatar
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: Qatar was involved in the process as a mediator but also agreed to be in charge of the committee that was put in place to finally resolve the border dispute and to monitor the border area until such a resolution was found.
Comment of Duration: In 2017 Qatar withdrew its peacekeeping forces from the disputed territory. On 16 June 2017 Djibouti accused Eritrea of reoccupying the mainland hill and Doumeira Island.
Full-text peace agreement
2011
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Interstate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 0 |
| Best | 0 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Conflict Archive
This section contains annual information no longer systematically collected by the UCDP.
1996 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2008 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In April 2008, reports emerged of Eritrean incursions into Djiboutian territory, in the Ras Doumeira area, near the Red Sea. It later became clear that Eritrea had since February been building a significant military presence in the border area, under the pretext of carrying out civil engineering work. A delegation headed by the Djiboutian president arrived at Ras Doumeira on 22 April and was able to confirm an Eritrean military occupation of the border area, including the Ras Doumeira peninsula and mountain overlooking the Red Sea, complete with trenches and fortifications, as well as a presence at sea. Military delegations from each side met at the disputed border area on 24 April to compare border maps and discuss troop positions. The contact was, however, suspended by the Eritrean side after only one meeting, with the declaration that responsibility for settling the border crisis should rest with the political authorities. These developments compelled Djibouti to deploy troops to the area.
As the situation developed, purportedly due to a lack of bilateral dialogue, Djibouti requested the diplomatic assistance of Eritrean ally Qatar, as well as of Egypt and the Arab League, all in the late spring, but Eritrea largely dismissed overtures to negotiate or substantively discuss the matter. In a letter dated 5 May Djibouti described the tense stand-off and appealed to the United Nations (UN) Security Council to intervene to prevent an armed conflict between the two states. According to the letter, Eritrea’s recent acts of aggression, in combination with the 1996 publishing of maps incorporating Djiboutian territory into their own indicated their intention to unilaterally redraw the border. The Eritrean response was they had “not occupied one inch of Djibouti territory”, and on 19 May Eritrean President Issaias Afeworki dismissed accounts of a military stand-off in the border area as “wild invention” with backing from foreign powers.
On 10 June, following a two-month stand-off seven kilometres inside Djibouti, Eritrean and Djibouti forces exchanged fire. Djibouti military statements described the decisive spark as having been its refusal to respond to Eritrea’s ultimatum to repatriate those soldiers who had deserted to the Djibouti side. Observers emphasize it had simply been a matter of time before the two parties exchanged fire, due to the tense situation. Significantly, experts point to the centralized and high-level decision-making praxis in Eritrea to explain how such an incident was unlikely to have taken place without explicit approval from more senior levels of command. At the time Eritrea, in turn, neither clearly confirmed nor denied the clashes having taken place, and issued an official statement declaring its refusal to engage in dialogue with Djibouti, writing that it had “no desire whatsoever to be dragged into the current diplomatic and media tit-for-tat designed to further aggravate the fabricated problem”. According to other accounts, Eritrea has stated its only aim with military action was the return of army deserters. The military campaign of the conflict lasted two days.
Eritrea’s de facto occupation of Djibouti territory continued throughout 2008, with the country failing to comply with international calls to withdraw its forces to the status quo ante following the June clash. According to Djibouti accounts, Eritrea even strengthened its positions on the border. Threats of sanctions were levelled against Eritrea, if it continues to refuse to cooperate in resolving the border issue with Djibouti.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Most sources indicate that the Djibouti side accounted for a majority of deaths, with one source stating that as many as 70 Djibouti forces were killed or wounded. One source, however, writes that Eritrean losses were heavier. According to one military source, Eritrea lost 25-30 soldiers. This cannot, however, be corroborated as Eritrea is well known for keeping its casualty figures secret."
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: Several attempts at mediation to defuse the situation were made, in addition to proposals for an international arbitration committee to resolve the underlying border demarcation issue. Eritrea, however, categorically declined to participate in such efforts. Fact-finding missions on behalf of the UN, AU, and Arab League were all denied access to Eritrea, and thus the Eritrean version of events.
Following the clashes 10-12 June, a de facto ceasefire between the parties held for the remainder of the year.
Third party involvement: NO
Third party involvement names: .
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Potential third parties to the conflict, including the United Nations (UN), the League of Arab States (Arab League), the InterGovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union (AU) and Egypt, made repeated attempts to affect the conflict positively in 2008. None, however, succeeded in substantively involving Eritrea, which continued to maintain the position that there was no conflict in need of resolution. Eritrea also rejected all proposals for mediation with Djibouti, such an offer from the President of Yemen to mediate between the two conflict parties.
Eritrea was heavily criticised for refusing to receive fact-finding delegations sent out at different points during the year on behalf of the UN, the AU and the Arab League.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2008-12-31
2009 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2010 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2011 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
