Ethio–Sudan bilateral diplomatic relation Since 2011: Review on economic relation

Abstract

Ethiopia has had long-standing bilateral relations with Sudan dating back to ancient period. However, they formally established their relations in 1960s immediately after Sudanese independence. This research attempts to assess their relation since 2011 by focusing on their diplomatic and economic conducts as the main focus. It aims at understanding the factors that contributed for their positive economic relations, by trade and investment as a main focus. To achieve this objective, the study employed qualitative research approach. Data have been collected both from primary and secondary sources by using in-depth interviews were conducted. The findings of the study show that the economic relationships between the two countries are in favor of Sudan. The study identified Ethiopia’s role in settling the longest civil war of two Sudan’s, The Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, mutual interdependency and frequently exchanging high-level visits from both sides are the major factors that shaped the post 2011 Ethio–Sudan relations. Of particular relevance, trade and investment have been the most important sectors boldly visible in the post 2011 Ethio–Sudan economic relations. Foreign direct investment inflow from Sudan also increased in general since 2011; however, it has been low in comparison with their potential.

Keywords:

• Ethio-Sudan
• economic relation
• bilateral trade
• diplomatic relation
• investment

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Ethiopia and Sudan have a long historical, ethnical, geographical, political, economical, social and cultural ties for many years. The premium objective of this article is to clearly show bilateral diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan since 2011 in particular reference to the political and economic aspect. While, the study reveals that over the past decade in particular, the two sisterly nations were working together to elevate their relation in bilateral, regional, continental and international levels. However, the relations between Ethiopia and Sudan have steadily improved with increasing diplomatic contacts and growing economic, trade and investment, but there are issues like boundary and the respective countries internal unstable condition with regional political economic dynamism being challenging the system of relations, whereas the relationship between the two countries further needing close and strategic cooperation on the principle of a win-win political and economic development.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

International relations studies about the interaction between two or more states, which are often complex and influenced by a variety of geopolitical, historical, social, religious, and ideological factors. These relationships among state and non-state actors have a form of cooperation and conflict (Spanier, 1987, p. 10). Obviously, all states maintain some kinds of relations with other states. Rosecrans stated as “this is an obvious fact; since there is no state that is self-sufficient and capable of existing independently from others in the context of increasing interdependent world” (1995:20).

Ethio–Sudanese relations, refer to the bilateral relationship between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) and the Republic of Sudan (RoS), have had a very long history dated back to, the ancient times of Axum and Merowe. The history of Ethiopia and Sudanese relations exhibits an age-old political, economic, social and cultural bond. Apart from their relations as neighbors, Ethiopia and Sudan have many common features. As Yacob (2007: 193) noted, the term “Ethiopia” is a Greek word for “dark” or black”. Similarly the term “Sudan” is an Arabic word for “dark” or “black”. Some ethnic group like Nuer, Anwak and Berta live in both Ethiopia and Sudan along the border areas. Tributary rivers like Atbara, Blue Nile (Abay), Mereb and Sobat flow to Sudan from the highlands of Ethiopia.

However, despite the long history, the commonalties that beget age-old bond had never yielded progress and fraternal relations to the people of the two nations. In the modern history, in particular, the last king of the Solomonic Dynasty, Emperor Haile Selassie and the military Dergue regime’s foreign policy and strategies, which took Ethiopia’s neighbors as historic enemies, failed to nurture the historic relation between the two nations. Worse still, the siege-mentality that sprang from the view that considers our neighbors as opponents, forced the two countries into a destructive policy of harboring and supporting the other’s rebels until the downfall of the Derg regime in 1991 (Ethio-Sudan Growing Ties Paving A Way to Economic Integration, n.d.). Destabilization and mutual intervention largely remained the characterizing features of Ethio–Sudanese relation. In other words, the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” became the hallmark of the relationship between the two countries. For instance the fact that Ethiopia’s foreign policy during Haile Selassie’s imperial rule was dominated by religious view which was contributed to the deterioration of relations between the two countries. While the Marxist-Leninist Derg’s rule was also underpinned by ideological outlook, and supported the SPLM/A while the Sudanese government established a strong link with the ELF and later EPLF in their fight against the Ethiopian government.

Conversely, after the downfall of the Dergue regime, Ethiopia saw a paradigm shift in its foreign policy approach. Militarism and siege-mentality driven foreign relation was replaced by a forward-looking policy that upholds a win-win approach and mutual benefit. As a result, since 1991, Ethiopia has given due attention and prime focus to engagement with its neighbor countries, Africa as a continent, and South-South cooperation in general. As it stated in the current Ethiopian foreign and national security document, Ethiopia places utmost consideration to working closely with its neighboring nations to promote trade, investment, development, and infrastructure with a view to hasten economic integration. (The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Foreign Affairs and National Security Policy and Strategy, 2002: 57–59).

Due to this policy shift, Ethiopia and Sudan’s bilateral relation has seen dramatic change. Over the past decade in particular, the two sisterly nations were working together to elevate their relation in bilateral, regional, continental and international levels. In recent years, the cooperation has taken the form of increased volume of trade and flow of foreign direct investment. This research would investigate the increasingly complex and dynamic relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan since 2011 by giving due attention to their economic relation.

1.2. Methods and materials

Kothari stated that research methodology not only implies the use of various research methods but also the logic behind the selection of methods, the rationale behind the study undertaken, the means through which the problem is identified as well as the way data are collected and analyzed (2004:8). Therefore, this study was employed qualitative research methodology. So that, focusing on the Ethio–Sudanese relations, this thesis attempted to assess the growing economic, trade, investment and diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan.

1.2.1. Research design

The research study has employed purely qualitative approach for collecting and analyzing data. The researcher preferred qualitative approach due to its accessibility to gather and analyze data which requires in-depth understanding of the complex characteristics of phenomena that cannot be quantified, but only can be explained, elaborated and described. The focus of descriptive research is to describe and interpret what the variable is. It aims to describe the state of affairs as it exists (Abiy et al., 2009, p. 29). Therefore, this study has used qualitative research method with descriptive design to assess the growing trade, investment and diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan which can be clearly investigated through analyzing written documents and conducting in-depth interview with pertinent personality.

1.2.2. Sampling techniques and sampling size

The study was employed purposive sampling method. This type of sampling is very useful as the study needs to construct a historical reality, describe a phenomenon or develop something about which only a little is known (Kumar, 2011, p. 207). Accordingly, the researcher purposively selected respondents for the interview from the total population of divergent categories based on their closeness to the problem which includes informant from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Ethiopian Investment Commission (EIC), and Ministry of Trade (MoT), Ethiopian Foreign Relations and Strategic Studies Institute (EFRSSI) and Center for Dialogue, Research and Cooperation (CDRC).

Therefore, the researcher conducted in-depth interview purposively with selected officials from MoFA two, two from EFRSSI, and one from MoT. However, the total numbers of higher official interviewed were accounted five. In addition the researcher conducted the key-informant interview with two experts from MoT, and one expert from EIC. Further, extra interview was held with one academician and researcher on the issue from Center for Dialogue and Research Center (CDRC) and one expert from MoFA totally four in number. All the samples were selected purposively, in which the researcher identified respondents who were believed to be an appropriate person to provide reliable information. Generally, total the key informant interviews held with nine selected informants from total population of selected five institutions.

2. Method of data collection

2.1. Source of data

The thesis is based on the study and analysis of both primary and secondary sources. In-depth interview become the basic source of primary data for this research. In-depth interviews enable researchers to explore the feelings and experiences of people in detail. The main reason why to choose in-depth interview is it helps the researcher to use open-ended questions and discuss an issue in detail and in a flexible manner with informants. In another word, it allows researchers and informants not to be bound by an already prearranged question so that it is open for further questions and answer opportunities to be raised during the session of discussion. In light of this, semi-structured in-depth interview is employed to explore the views of the selected key informants. Key informants are those individuals who have a privileged social position in the research setting, which in turn gives them specialist knowledge about other people, processes and happenings (Payne & Payne, 2004). Information from key informants is valuable and useful, since it is likely to be more extensive, detailed and privileged than ordinary peoples (Ibid).

For this study, the key informants were selected purposively on the basis of their area of expertise of knowledge and positions they occupy from Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ethiopian Investment Commission, Ministry of Trade, Ethiopian Foreign Relation Strategic Study Institute (EFRSSI) and Center for Dialogue and Research Cooperation (CDRC). Whereas, secondary data sources was another sources for the study and it was collected from books, internet sources, and journal articles, published and unpublished materials, news releases, agreements, magazines, thesis, reports and other documents dealing with Ethio–Sudanese diplomatic relations were exhaustively referred and these have significance in data analysis and triangulation.

2.2. Data collection instruments

For qualitative research, data is collect through examining documents, observing behavior, or interviewing participants (Creswell, 2009, p. 175). Thus, in order to collect the necessary data, this study employed semi-structured interview with open-ended questions and content analysis techniques. Key informant interview provides information from knowledgeable persons and the opportunity to explore unanticipated ideas, key informant interview is the most widely used technique for conducting social science research. Besides, in-depth interview is more suited to qualitative approaches due to allowing the respondent to give a free response on sensitive issues. Semi-structured interview involves a series of open-ended questions for study participants, particularly in the two countries bilateral relations based on the topic areas to be covered by the study. It allows the researcher to flexibly probe participants to ask further questions and gain participants elaboration during the session of interview. Content analysis is main instrument of data collection from the secondary sources. Content analysis was used because it helps for a systematic examination of documents, such as a government publication, official document, official website, books and articles which were relevant sources for this study.

2.3. Data analysis techniques

The data collected from the above methods (interview and content analysis) were analyzed qualitatively. Accordingly, data having common features have been organized in the way that may give meaning. Finally, all data collected from various sources have been triangulated with each other and analyzed qualitatively in such a way that they are compiled to give meaning for the study based on its research questions.

2.4. Ethics, consent and permission

As ethics is the backbone of research, the researcher took the mandate to adhere to ethical principles while collecting data and conducting research as a whole. First, when interviewing informants a researcher obtained the willingness of the informants and clarified that the study is for academic purpose. Second, confidentiality and polite way of interaction with interviewees was strictly emphasized (Patton & Michel, 2002, p. 6). As such, when reviewing literature, the researcher relied on principles and regulation of research namely avoiding plagiarism, data falsification, exaggeration, understatement, bias, and prejudice. Furthermore, the ideas, quotes, and concepts from secondary sources were duly acknowledged.

3. Finding and discussions

3.1. Ethio-Sudan economic and trade relation since 2011

3.1.1. Introduction

In this section, the Post 2011 Ethio–Sudan economic relations is analyzed by taking trade and investments as points of analysis. This section is divided into three sections. The first section discusses about the crucial factors which enhanced the progressive growth of Ethio–Sudanese diplomatic and economic relations since 2011. The second section examines the Post-2011 Ethio–Sudan trade relations. This section provides a broad picture of data regarding Ethiopia’s import products from Sudan and Ethiopia’s export products to the Sudanese market. The third section discusses about an overview of the Post-2011 Sudanese investment in Ethiopia.

3.2. Major factors that encourage the bilateral diplomatic and economic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan

3.2.1. Factors that encourage the bilateral diplomatic relation

Concerning political relations between countries, scholars raise several factors those positively contributes for the strengthen the relationship between the two countries. These factors may vary from time to time depending on the nature of the existing political and economic situations. The basic factors which further strengthen the diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan in since 2011 includes:-

3.2.1.1. Strong political support from both governments

First, the bright and promising development of relations between the two countries has been facilitated by the strong political support from both governments. Both Sudan and Ethiopia have shared similar historical background and both of them are on the same developing levels. Mutual cooperation’s in the time of hardship from both Ethiopia’s and Sudan’s perspective whatever is going on in each other is crucial not only because of their vicinity but also because of their special, long standing relations between them. Hence, if Sudan catches a cold, Ethiopia sneezes, and vice versa. In difficult times, the two peoples have helped each other consistently. Some of such scenarios expressed in many ways, even more specifically as follows: the two countries have had very close relations for years, ever since the days of the last Emperor that reigned here for decades. In fact when there was the civil war between north and south Sudan, it was the Emperor who had taken the initiative to bring the two parts to the round-table discussions and peace talks leading a delegation of the then Organization of African Unity member states in 1972 (Young, 2007, p. 12). Ethiopians have been taking refuge in Sudan for decades and there are still thousands of Ethiopians who have made their home in Sudan. Similarly, there have been thousands of Sudanese nationals taking refuge here during moments of crisis and violence in Sudan. Ethiopia has always welcomed home Sudanese brothers and sisters as has Sudan to Ethiopians.

In political perspective, the two countries support one another. Ethiopia stood on the Sudanese side when the International Criminal Court (ICC) accused the Sudanese president Al-Bashir. Ethiopia has argued that ICC has been interfering in African and other developing countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of Human Rights violations and human crimes. The Ethiopian government seriously rejected the attempts of the ICC to hijack the Sudanese president while he were in South Africa to attend African meeting. Besides, the two countries have been cooperating to maintain peace and stability in the region. As a result of their cooperation, a terrorist group trained in Eritrea and attempted to cross the Sudanese border to Ethiopia were caught and taken to justice before they hit their targets which was destroying the Ethiopian Tekeze hydro-power Dam (ibid).

The continuous support of the Sudanese government for the accomplishment of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project is another demonstration of the kind of relations the two countries enjoy. Here the support of Sudan is key because it gives a sense of belongingness and mutual trust and friendship between the two nations.

• The Ethio–Sudan Bilateral Diplomatic Relation Scenario in post Hailmariam Regime

Following the demise of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in August 2012, Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn was required to immediately step up to the plate. Earlier planned negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan started immediately in Addis Ababa after the funeral. He has vowed to continue the active engagement with the Sudan’s in the spirit of Meles. Ethiopia is positioning itself actively in relation to the development of Sudan and South Sudan. This is enlightened self-interest. The stakes for Ethiopia are high, given the tremendous development challenges it faces, ranked as the 173 out of 187 countries in the Human Development Index. An active engagement with the two Sudan’s and a constructive relationship with the international community will be instrumental to developing and managing Ethiopia’s potential. The development of Ethiopia’s economy is contingent on territorial and political integrity of the Ethiopian state as well as on the ability to extract its natural resources (UNISCI Discussion Papers, 2013).

Therefore, Ethiopia should continue to develop its dams program on the Blue Nile, based on an active engagement with all relevant countries including Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan and western countries for financial support. The most visible engagement with Sudan and South Sudan is the UNISFA peacekeeping mission. By making its military intervention conditional to UNSC approval, Ethiopia has demonstrated that it can play a constructive part alongside the more traditional “international community”. The mandate area of the Ethiopian staffed peacekeeping mission UNISFA was expanded from initially the region of Abyei to include the complete border area or Safe Demilitarized Border Zone (SDBZ) in December 2011. As it balances its role as a peace mediator and a peace keeper, Ethiopia carries a special responsibility. Ethiopia’s most significant interests are in Sudan. Through building an active and constructive relationship with Khartoum, Ethiopia will want to have Sudan’s support vis-à-vis Egypt on its dam construction program. Through offering the export of electricity and market potential for Sudanese agricultural products, this can be an interesting premise.

The growing internal problems undermined Hailemariam’s premiership, however, and, after losing control of growing Oromo and Amhara resistance to the central government, he was compelled to resign in February 2018. On 2 April, it was announced that Abiy Ahmed an Oromo, would be prime minister of Ethiopia and chairperson of the EPRDF.

In the early period of coming to the power, Prime minister Abiy deeply understand geopolitics of its neighboring countries and developed the philosophy of synergy or Medemer to financially, politically and socially collaborate with the countries of the Horn. This is evidenced by his role of Eritrea peacemaking with Ethiopia and peace deal of north Sudan conflict between the oppositions. Among the efforts of the philosophy of Medemer for neighboring countries are as follows, avoiding conflict, attracting financial support, coordinating efforts on security matters, promoting capacity-building and knowledge exchange, and enhancing Ethiopia’s international profile with neighboring countries of south Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia in particular and the horn of Africa in general to the minimal the idea help Ethiopia to strengthen its (Girma et al., 2021).

But with nature of regional dynamism, Abiy’s role as prime minister introduced an element of uncertainty into Ethiopian–Sudan relations, because Sudanese political and military officials had developed close relations with the Tigrayans who dominated the spheres until then. At first things looked positive on 1 May 2018 Ethiopia and Sudan agreed to set up joint forces to protect the Renaissance Dam, which is only 20 Km from the Sudanese border with Ethiopia, and two days later Abiy made a two-day visit to Khartoum, however Abiy warned al-Bashir and his government not to meet with TPLF, which was now held to be politically defunct (John, 2020).

On 9 July 2018, two month after Abiy’s visit Khartoum, it was announced that Ethiopia and Eritrea had reached a peace agreement, and in September the border that had been closed between the countries since 1998 was reopened. Sudan initially felt threatened by these rapid developments and claimed Eritrean interference in its domestic affairs.

Ethiopia has taken a pro-active role since the ouster of Bashir, while in the TMC’s (Transitional Military Council) entreaties, Ethiopia has clearly been identified as a key country to influence. The Ethiopian prime minister quickly issued a statement after Bashir’s overthrow expressing support for the protestors, while “appreciating” the military council for overseeing the transition. The first foreign delegation from the TMC visited Addis Ababa, and held talks with both the Ethiopian Government and the AU. Newly appointed Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew also visited Khartoum in early May and held meetings with both the TMC and the Declaration of Freedom and Change civilian opposition. Furthermore, TMC leader Burhan stopped in Addis Ababa on 28 May 2019, as part of his first major trip abroad.

The transitional government’s approach to foreign policy is yet to be revealed, but past experience suggests that the Sudanese people would like it to be independent and balanced against this background it is noteworthy. The great unknown is the shape of the Sudanese transitional government. The question remains as to whether the civilians and generals who make up the government can work constructively with each other, and there are doubts as to whether the government will survive as its designated. The roughly 20 years of cooperative and stable relations between Ethiopia and Sudan have come to an end, and both countries are entering unpredictable territory that will also have a marked impact on the wider region (John, 2020).

Leaders of the two countries have recently met on several occasions and discussed on a range of bilateral and regional issues of common concern. The Sudanese Head of State and Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan paid a visit to the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa where he held talks with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Abiy and al-Burhan held the discussions on the sidelines of the Tana High-Level Forum on Security in Africa, which is took place in Bahir Dar city of the Amhara region. The two leaders met on the sidelines of the UN climate change summit in Egypt last week and at an IGAD meeting held in Kenya on 5 July 2022. Also, at 21 November 2022 (NAIROBI) Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, on Monday discussed bilateral relations with Ibrahim Gabir a member of Sudan’s military-led Transitional Sovereign Council who is touring the IGAD countries. According to the Office of the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed and the visiting Sudanese delegation led by General Gabir discussed bilateral and issues of mutual concern. Gabir further briefed Ahmed about a road map prepared by Sudan, the Chairman of IGAD, to activate the role of the east African bloc in the areas of security, economic integration, and expanding the cooperation with non-traditional partners, read, a statement released by the Sovereign Council in Khartoum (Sudan Tribune,29 October 2022).

4. Mutual high level visits

The second driver is bilateral political relations between Sudan and Ethiopia have been undergoing a healthy and sustainable development since 2011. Since 2011 period, there were 18 times totally high level visits to Ethiopia from Sudanese government and the latest example was the visit of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to Ethiopia (April 2018). In the same period, Ethiopia paid 15 times high level visits which sent by governments and official institutions to Sudan and the highest visit was that Ethiopian Prime Minister Haile Mariam visited to Sudan in August 20 December 201213 November 2014, and August 2017 (Sudan Tribune). There were also visits of foreign ministers of the two countries.

According to Belete Belachew(PHD)

Bilateral relations between Ethiopia and Sudan are founded on common democratic principles and are marked by a high degree of trust and mutual respect. Relations grew significantly following the South Sudanese referendum in 2011. In the last decade, both economic and political interaction between Ethiopia and Sudan has enhanced. Today, Ethiopia is amongst Sudan’s most important partners both bilaterally and in the regional context. This is strengthen by the frequent high level official visits of both countries. (Interview 19 March, 2019)

Contemporary diplomatic relation between Ethiopia and Sudan encompassed bilateral political consultations and various bilateral and multilateral negotiations through regional and global frameworks. Both Ethiopia and Sudan jointly work to ensure peace and stability in the great horn region through IGAD regional framework. Ministry of foreign affairs of the two countries signed the protocol of cooperation in 2012 which laid a framework for political consultation.

4.1. Ethiopia’s Role in settling the two Sudanese Civil war

The third driver is Ethiopia’s role to settlement of the civil war in Sudan. The Sudan civil war, the longest one in the continent, was a manifestation of several security complexes in the Horn sub-region (Mesfin, 2010, pp. 2–8). Ethiopia is the only country in East Africa that borders both Sudan’s. Throughout the peace process resulting in South Sudan’s independence, Addis Ababa tried to project impartiality and maintain good relations with both Khartoum and Juba (Tewoderos & Halelluja, 2014, p. 11).

To remedy such tragic occurrences, a number of peace building initiatives have been attempted among which the most significant ones include the 1972 Addis Ababa Accord Agreement signed between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and rebel groups in South Sudan (El-Gaili, 2004). It also helped Under the IGAD’s forerunner, the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD), Ethiopia launched a peace initiative in Sudan at Addis Ababa summit of 7 September 1993. A Peace Committee made up of the heads of State of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda and Kenya was established. This initiative issued the 1994 Declaration of Principles that identified the essential elements necessary for a just and comprehensive peace settlement to end the civil war in Sudan. Ethiopia have played a role in assisting the Sudanese government and the SPLA to reach out an agreement signed in 2006, under the helps of the AU and IGAD. IGAD, at the initiative of Ethiopia, promoted the CPA and later worked closely with partners such as the US, the EU and the UN, towards the implementation of the CPA. CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) and finally to be held a referendum in Southern Sudan in 2011. The referendum held in 2011 to decide the fate of the Southern Sudanese heralded their secession from the North. Such process witnessed a great role played by Ethiopian governments (Martell, 2010, p. 18).

Interview with Thomas G/Mariam, Expert on Ethiopian Foreign Relation Strategic Study Institute, 18 March 2019 consecutively Ethiopia initiated Sudanese to engage in the discussion with its Southern counterpart. But it did not bring any fruitful result initially and as a time went on Sudanese engaged themselves by understanding Ethiopia’s genuine interest in mediation process. At the core of the Ethiopian government’s interest in Southern Sudan’s referendum process is its aim to create peace and stability in the region to reduce its vulnerability. This stands from Ethiopia’s stance on its foreign policy. Because of this Sudanese developed positive attitudes toward Ethiopia. In this regard, Belete Belachewe (PhD) rightly stated that:

There was ups and downs on Ethio-Sudanese bilateral diplomatic relations. But onwards 2011 there was development of friendly relationship, which was resulted by Ethiopia played impartial, active and leading role in settling two sedans civil war which brought catastrophe to both conflicting parties.

Moreover, Addis Ababa’s Agreement on Abyei expressed the trust Ethiopia enjoys from both the Sudanese parties in Khartoum and Juba signatories to the July 2008 Arbitration Agreement on Delimiting the Abyei were each prepared to accept Addis Ababa’s good offices (Mehari, 2017:31). For the AU and the UN as well as the IGAD, the presence of Ethiopia’s peacekeeping troops in Abyei confirms the credibility of its partnership with the international community and the country’s continuing important role in global efforts to resolve the crisis in Sudan. The agreement on Abyei also paved the way for the rapid deployment of UNISFA forces. (Marta M and Nicoletta P, Edi. 2015:52–53).

4.2. Dr. Abiyi’s Role in mediating Sudan’s political crisis (2019)

The widespread protests that have been since 19 December 2019, this demonstration against Sudanese’s deteriorated economic situation is calling for the end of the regime posing the greatest challenge for al-Bashir. The recent political crisis in Sudan is resulted by, the independence of South Sudan in 2011 resulted in a loss of 46 percent of the national income from oil revenue resulting in a major shock to the Sudanese economy, the military has always interfered into the Sudanese politics pausing as a stabilizing factor in the country, and the crisis further aggravated by the rising cost of food and shortages of fuel, but as this was only the tip of the iceberg they developed into protests against the President, Omar al-Bashir. As the result of the cumulative effects of the above-mentioned factors, uprisings widening up in Sudan. After six months of protests that collapsed Omar al-Bashir, the country’s dictator for 30 years, and sparked hopes of a democratic renaissance, Sudan’s dream of change appeared to go with the wind as indiscriminate killings drew the attention of the major countries of the world who failed to take an immediate action while the UN and the African Union have called for an investigation (ENA NEWS, 1/17/2019).

From Ethiopia’s perspective whatever is going on in Sudan is crucial not only because of its vicinity but also because of the special, long standing relations between the two. Hence, if Sudan catches a cold, Ethiopia sneezes, and vice versa. In difficult times, the two peoples have helped each other consistently. Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed lost no time to mediate on the Sudanese crisis in cooperation with the AU, helping to resolve African problem in the African way. In immediate mediation by Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, who spoke separately to the two sides in Khartoum with the country’s ruling military council and leaders of the Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces, an alliance of protesters and opposition parties (Reuters, 8/30/2019).

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed became the first foreign leader to meet with members of Sudan’s ruling military council and pledged his support for the neighboring country.In attempting to resolve the crisis, Ethiopia took a firm and meaningful stand by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed appointing a higher official, Ambassador Mohammed Dirir as a chief negotiator in the entire process. Ethiopia Supports Sudan on Principles of Non-Intervention, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Dr Abiy Ahmed on April 16th met a delegation headed by General Galaledin Alsheikh, Member of the Transitional Military Council of the Republic of Sudan. The Sudan delegation called on the Government of Ethiopia to continue its longstanding support to the country, particularly in this time of transition, according to the Prime Minister’s office. Prime Minister Abiy reaffirmed the support of the Government of Ethiopia to the people of Sudan, stressing that this support is based on respect for Sudan’s sovereignty and on the principles of non-intervention (7Dnews 17 April 2019).

4.3. Why Ethiopia Embarked on swift action?

The principle of peace and peaceful mutual socio-economic and political cooperation on mutual trust is one of the pillars of Ethiopia’s foreign policy and diplomatic relations with the neighboring countries. Ethiopia paid a special attention to the crisis in Sudan also because of: first both countries share a boundary that extends to more than 1000 kilometers on the top of their strategic partner. Moreover, Ethiopia shares AU principle of solving African problems by the Africans themselves. Second, Ethiopia’s relations with Sudan are based on long lasting historic, social and economic relations. First, the reciprocity of mutual interest in peace and security of both countries demanded swift response from Ethiopia mainly because the prevalence of serenity and security in Sudan adds a greater value to peace, stability and security of Ethiopia. Third, moreover, the age old bondage of inter-culturality between the two countries and their experience in mutual benefits from public diplomacy rightly justifies Ethiopia’s urgent response. Fourth, likewise, Ethiopia and Sudan have developed common economic relations in mutual investments, hydropower sharing and cooperation in ascertaining security in the border areas between the two countries. Fifth, both countries have shared interest in developing their infrastructural facilities to promote bilateral trade through railway, road and port development. Sixth, Ethiopia has long realized the tactical maneuvering of terrorists in larger Horn of Africa including Al-shabab and ISIS. The crisis in Sudan could have been a breeding ground of terrorists as in the case of Libya. Therefore, Ethiopia was determined to curb any expansion of terrorist organizations in Sudan which can use the country as a spring board from which they can make disruptive activities in Ethiopia. Last, Ethiopia and Sudan are located in a strategically volatile area in which a number of countries are already competing for the control of the Horn of Africa and creating a sphere of multiple influences in the countries of the Horn. This could sooner or later affect the domestic political and economic developments in the area. Pushing for peace process in Sudan will help to create conducive environment for the social and economic development of the two countries.

4.4. Different Agreements and memorandum of understandings

Fourth, in terms of bilateral diplomatic and political ties, the relations between Ethiopia and Sudan in the post 2011 period are outstanding more than ever before. They have signed many memorandums of understanding, protocols and agreements of friendship and cooperation at various times. Currently, more than seventy agreements are signed in various fields between the two countries.

The current relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan saw a healthy and continuous development with a number of mutual visits at high levels and increasing interchange of personnel being done by both sides. There were a number of visits by high level officials of the two countries. This list includes the head of the states of the two countries. This joint official visit had resettled in a number of cooperation agreements between the two countries that covered a wide area of cooperation such as those in the fields of border security, trade, investment, economy, culture, and military affairs. The multi-dimensional relation between the two Horn of African countries are now producing practical results. Over the past few years they have signed a number of agreements to enhance their bilateral diplomatic relations some of the most important cooperation agreements signed between the two countries include:

• Agreements on Utilization of Border Minerals (June 5,2011);

• Agreements on Annual Action Plan to Boost Ties (February 22, 2012);

• Cooperation Agreement on Legal assistance in criminal issues (December 4, 2013);

• Agreements to form Joint Force along border (February, 2014);

• Agreement on Free Trade Zone (June 15, 2015);

• MoU to enhance collaboration and cooperation on cross-border animal health and livestock trade program (August 24, 2016);

• MoU to enhance joint security and military cooperation to fight terrorism (October 30, 2016);

• Number of Agreements to promote economic relations and strengthen ties (April, 2017);

• Agreements to Building facilities on Port Sudan (August 30, 2017);

• Agreement on the Development and Administration of Port Sudan on the Red Sea (January 05, 2018);

• Deal to boost and diversify business to take a stake in Port Sudan (May 112,018);

• MoU on Economy and Trade (March 2, 2019);

• Protocol to Deploy Joint Border Force (March 12, 2019);

Source: (Sudan Tribune 7 June 2011, Xinhua| 03–01, 2019, Port Strategy, 11 May 2018, Sudan Tribune, 13 March 2019, Sudan Tribune, 22 February 2017, Sudan Tribune, 23 February 2012, The Reporter 2 March 2019,Addis Chamber, 23 January 2017, The Africa Report, 17 May 2012, Tigrai Onlne,v 9 April 2014, Sudan Vision, 17 June 2015, Geeska Afrika, 24 August, Geeska Afrika, 30 October 2016, 2016).

The successful implementation of these agreements will enable to achieve common objectives and further deepen the existing relations. This of course requires trust, confidence and tireless efforts from both sides at all levels.

4.5. The issue of boundary

The fifth driving factors for the development of Ethio–Sudanese bilateral diplomatic relation are the border issue. Most writers on boundary disputes in Africa agree that much arbitrariness accompanied the boundary delimitation exercise agreed upon by the colonial powers at the Berlin Conference (Nwokedi, 1984, p. 85). The then African boundaries were established by handing out territory in order to suit the imperialist powers (MacMillan et al., 2003, p. 372). Accordingly Whittlesey describes that, “the political map of Africa today, is the product of diplomatic chess game amongst the colonial powers, a game played on European council tables since the 1880’s by men who never saw Africa” (1934). Consequently, externally imposed boundaries are among the more frequent causes of war in Africa (Zartman, 1965, p. 155).

Ethiopia is the only country in the Horn that shares a border with all the other countries in the region. Its long and porous borders with countries such as in the east by Djibouti (349 km), in the south-east by Kenya (861 km), in the north by Eritrea (912 km), in the south-west by Somalia (1 600 km) and in the west by Sudan (769 km) and South Sudan (837 km) this mean that Ethiopia is more affected by regional issues than any other state in the Horn.

International borders in the Horn of Africa region have been a major source of conflict between state and non-state actors over the past century, and the international boundary between Ethiopia and Sudan makes no exception. The most persistent threat to Ethiopia’s national security is the frequent border clashes with Sudan and the continual ethnic military conflicts among various groups in border areas created sleepless nights for the Ethiopian military. In spite of their differences, intensive efforts have been made to improve the relationship between the two countries. Accordingly, since 2011, there are tremendous reduction of tension between Ethiopia and Sudan could thus be described as follows:

The diplomatic stance adopted towards the Sudanese border was far less direct, however. Bilateral negotiations began in 1965, a few months after the first armed clashes between Ethiopian and Sudanese forces along the frontier (Puddu, 2017, p. 36).

Short of a comprehensive settlement of the boundary problem, the protracted negotiations ultimately produced temporary arrangements that often encounter abuse rather than endorsement (Mesfin, 2012, pp. 91–93; Gallab, 2008) further compromised whatever genuine desire the two harbored for a meaningful boundary agreement.

4.6. Al-Fashaga region claim implication on Ethio–Sudan relation

Although there is prospect of a war between Ethiopia and Sudan over al-Fashaga region is increasingly going to unstable environment in the region and beyond and poses new challenges to Ethiopian–Sudanese relations. By early 2020 and the formation of a new government in Khartoum, the Al Fashaga border problem had yet to be resolved, but historic border disagreements between Ethiopia and Sudan, suggest that such disputes only become threatening when state-to-state relations are poor. While the Al Fashaga issue has repeatedly flared up, it is part of a broader problem of border demarcation (Young, 2020).

Accordingly, Amhara regional militias and Liyu Police (sometimes referred to as “Special Forces”/Liyu Hayl or as Amhara Regional Forces) have since responded, attacking Sudanese forces in areas occupied by Amhara farmers since the mid-1990s. These actions have placed Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in a difficult position. On the one hand, Abiy depends on his alliance with the powerful Amhara elite to continue military operations in the Tigray region. On the other, he can hardly afford an international conflict that would certainly involve other actors like Egypt given contestations over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). It is likely that the leadership of the Sudanese army is utilizing the conflict for internal political gain, and is unlikely to be as invested as it claims it is in the actual matter of land ownership. Whilst this would suggest that neither Khartoum nor Addis has an interest in escalating the fighting, there is a risk that continued conflict will generate its own momentum and logic (https://epo.acleddata.com/al-fashaga-border-dispute/ accessed at 11/28/2022) (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Al Fashaga Border Dispute.

Source: https://epo.acleddata.com/al-fashaga-border-dispute/ accessed at 11/28/20

Andarege BereheMoFA, addresses the reality in the following way

Boundary disputations have contributed to the absence of an all rounded agreement between Ethiopia and Sudan for a long time. Recurrent attempts to seek a comprehensive solution to the problem have often ended in failure. Because of this along the poorly defined borders of Ethiopia, there is a proliferation of human traffickers and illegal movement of migrants. In addition, these areas are centers of illicit trade and organized crime such as drug trafficking. To avert this situation both Ethiopia and Sudan highly encouraged economic activities of border people specifically onwards 2011. (Interview 13 March, 2019).

The matter remained suspended until the 1991 regime change in Ethiopia. Relative understanding between the two countries after 1991 facilitated the continuation in serious of the demarcation process. The May 2001 agreement to establish a Joint Boundary Commission with the task of demarcating the common boundary symbolized the latest effort. Subsequently, a Joint Commission was set in Khartoum, in December 2001.

The Joint Commission was delegated with the task of demarcating the boundary based on the 1902 and 1907 Ethio-British Agreements and the letters the two countries exchanged in 1972. On 11 April 2005 the two sides signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding contentious settlement areas and farm lands between Metema (Galabat), Guang (Atbara) and Angreb (Bahreselam) Rivers. The Memorandum of Understanding provided for the establishment of the Joint Field Work Committee—JFWC.

Serious talks on the Ethiopia–Sudan boundary resumed in deep following 2011 which affirmed the readiness of both parties to respect the boundaries as defined in the existing treaties, agreements or protocols. This agreement also provided for the establishment of the Joint Boundary Commission of Experts composed of surveyors and administrators, was created with the mandate to demarcate and to fix boundary marks covering the whole frontier between Ethiopia and Sudan.

According to Abebe Aynete research directorate in Ethiopian Foreign Relation Strategic Studies Institute expressed that till now the countries had no comprehensive agreements to manage their border. Rather they put different mechanisms or apparatus to follow up their border developments.

Andarege further argued that:

Friction along the two countries’ borders had considerably reduced as a result of bilateral meetings held at various governmental levels and joint committees. Increased cooperation between Sudan and Ethiopia has led to fruitful joint efforts in policing the borders. Consequently, criminals operating around the borders e. g. armed robbers and car snatchers find it difficult to dispose of stolen goods.

BeleteBelachewe (Phd) shared this idea and argued as:

The relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan has been spoiled over the years by the frequent occurrences of border clashes between the two countries. This led to a deterioration of political relationship between them. Consequently, Ethiopia and Sudan established different joint committees among these Border demarcation committee, Security committee, Ethio-Sudanese joint defense committee and joint border committees are the major ones. These joint committees give the chance to both countries the opportunities to address their common boundary problems. (19 March, 2019)

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir on the state funeral on 1 September 2012 late Ethiopian Prime Minister MelesZenawi said that

Sudan and Ethiopia despite tensions along the border between farmers and because of cross-border attacks by Ethiopian rebel groups developed good relations and established a number of joint projects. Also regular meetings are held between the governors of bordering states from the two sides.

In the meantime, the two countries continued to exploit every opportunity and for a better part of their relations and intensified their mutual cooperation’s through joint mechanisms. For instance, many institutions are functional such as Border Demarcation Committee, Joint Security Committee, Joint Border Committee, Ethio-Sudanese Defense Committee, Joint Military Force, and Ethio-Sudan Joint Steering Committee, are work hand in hand into each other’s borders. So Ethiopia and Sudan have made boundary an issue of development and cooperation rather than of conflict. But the boundary of Ethiopia and Sudan is not actually demarcated, yet the actual work on the ground remains a homework to both countries only because it is beyond their financial capacity.

4.7. A UNISFA delegation of Ethiopia’s role in ensuring peace versus Sudan claim

Primarily, it has a crucial place in the maintenance of peace in the region. It serves as a trusted partner for peacekeeping in the border areas of South Sudan and Sudan. Ethiopia is playing a vital role in the process to build a viable state in South Sudan and serving as a trusted partner for peacekeeping in the border areas of South Sudan and Sudan. Facilitated by Thabo Mbeki, chief of AU-High-level Implementation Panel, the Addis Agreement on Abyei was signed by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) forces and the Government of Sudan (GoS) in Addis Ababa on 20 June 2011. The main objective of the Addis Agreement on Abyei is to ensure that this border area remains demilitarized until proper demarcation is undertaken. The same agreement provided for the deployment of the UNISFA under the UN Security Council Resolution 1990.

UNISFA entirely composed of 4250 Ethiopian troops, includes civilian police and is unique for many reasons. Unlike most peacekeeping missions in the World, UNISFA as a mono-troop contingent is entirely composed of Ethiopian peacekeeping troops. Under normal circumstances, the deployment of troops takes a long time, as it requires convincing troop contributing countries, mobilizing resources and deployment. UNISFA was deployed on 22 July 2011, a month after the authorization of the mission by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Resolution 1990 on 25 June 2011.

A delegation of United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) led by Colonel Mack Tok has visited the 24th motorized battalion of peacekeeping force mission post. During the visit, Head of the delegation, Colonel Mack Tok said Ethiopia has been applying its longs standing and profound experience in peacekeeping in ensuring peace in the region. Ethiopia is bringing about incredible results in restoring peace and stability in the region and addressing communal disagreements in the Abyei and surroundings. The Ethiopian peacekeeping force has played indispensable role in bringing normalcy and creating peaceful environment for communities of the area, he added (A UNISFA delegation commends Ethiopia’s role in ensuring peace in Horn region—Welcome to Fana Broadcasting Corporate S.C fanabc.com (accessed at 18/1/22).

However, Sudan has demanded that the United Nations to replace the Ethiopian soldiers deployed in the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) in the disputed Abyei region on the Sudan-South Sudan border with other soldiers, because “it is not reasonable to have Ethiopian forces in the strategic depth of Sudan at a time when the Ethiopian forces are gathering on the eastern borders of Sudan”, Minister of Foreign Affairs Maryam El Sadig El Mahdi has confirmed. Minister El Mahdi also referred to “the Ethiopian encroachment on the eastern borders”, underlining that “there are great interests for Ethiopia in Sudan that must be preserved” Dabanga Radio TV Online (dabangasudan.org) accessed at 19//1/2023.

Since 2021, Sudan has requesting the withdrawal of UNISFA forces from Abyei after having then began to consider Addis Ababa as a non-neutral party. The border strip between the two countries is witnessing a military build-up, in light of fears that the situation will slip into an armed conflict, which could then spread to the entire region. The relationships between both Sudan and Ethiopia have soured recently due to the Renaissance Dam issue, and Sudan’s restoration of its lands in al-Fashaga from the grip of the Ethiopian forces and militias. UN to withdraw over 3,000 Ethiopian troops from Abyei—AlTaghyeer accessed at 19 January 2023.

4.8. Mutual interdependency

The sixth driver according to Tomas Geberemariam and Abebe Aynete (EFRSSI) pointed out that factors that strengthened the existing political and diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan can be seen from the views of both sides. On the Ethiopian side, a number of factors have been enhanced its relations with Sudan. Among the strong factors that could be worth mentioning are the following:- One, Sudan supports Ethiopia on different international issues, and considers Ethiopia especially in terms of its strategic importance (on connecting with Arabs), Sudanese support on GERD and market potential for Ethiopian products. Second, Ethiopia could be a commercial launch pad for Sudanese companies. Third, although some observers believe Ethio–Sudanese relations are also based on oil imports by Ethiopia from Sudan, there is little evidence to back this up. Since 2011, Ethiopia has received petroleum products from Sudan at below cost price. Sudan has also important interests in Ethiopia and hence attached importance to develop its relations with the country for many reasons: -First, as the source of the Blue Nile, the seat of the African Union. Ethiopia’s is situated at a strategic location and plays important role in African politics. Second, with a population of over 100 million people Ethiopia offers potentially a very lucrative market for Sudanese products, trading and investment opportunities. This interdependent official economic relations need to pay attention to confirm the political relations in the interests of the peoples of both countries (Interview 15 March 2019).

Ethiopia is an important economic partner for Sudan. As the most populous country in the Horn of Africa, and the closest neighbor to some of the most developed parts of Sudan (in particular, Khartoum, Gezira and Gedaref states), Ethiopia offers business and trade opportunities that Sudan can ill afford to ignore. One example of the deepening ties between the two countries is the electricity exports from Ethiopia to Sudan. In late 2013 a 296 km electricity transmission connection was inaugurated between Metema, near the border in Ethiopia, and Gedaref in Sudan. The transmission line was built with the help of a US$41 m loan from the World Bank and enables Ethiopia to export up to 100 mw of electricity to Sudan. Conversely, Sudan exports fuel to Ethiopia additionally Ethiopia is the largest landlocked country in the Horn of African region needs Port Sudan from its growing economy and also Ethiopia needs Sudanese diplomatic as well as economic support for its huge hydroelectric power project on Nile. So Sudan maintain cordial relations with Ethiopia, for the sake of both economic and political benefits vice versa (The Economist, 18 July 2014).

In economic term, most Ethiopians who had moved abroad, moved to Sudan. And of those, many have settled there and established themselves among the working class. These people are still sending back remittances to their families which provide an increasing level of foreign currency income to Ethiopia. The fact though, that remittances are a growing source of foreign currency income, still ought to be a good reason to further develop and sustain the relationship to both Sudan and Ethiopia.

4.9. The issue of Nile

The seventh positive factor for the development of Ethio–Sudan bilateral diplomatic relation is their cooperation on GERD. Ethiopia shares cross border resources with its neighboring countries. One of which is water resource. Ethiopia has many cross border rivers flowing in many directions to its neighboring states such as River Nile, which is the longest river in the world flowing to Sudan and Egypt; River Tekeze flows to Sudan and Omo to Turkana.

Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt have been involved in conflicts and wars at different times through their stories. Mostly, the main cause of their dispute is the Nile River (Zewede, 2002). The Nile River flows in ten countries, crosses Egypt and ends in Mediterranean Sea. 85% water comes from Blue Nile, Ethiopia and 15% from Lake Victoria. Egypt needs to control and utilize it does not want the upper countries to share it. Whereas Sudan and Ethiopia together with the other seven countries demand their share. The three counties tried to solve the issue through negotiations, but later Sudan changed its mind and cooperate with Ethiopia whereas Egypt still took a firm stand and rejected any kind of development over the Nile River by any of the basin countries.

In 31 March 2011, Ethiopia launched one of the biggest hydroelectric power dams in the world on the Nile River called The Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The dam is 170 meters high and contain 63 billion cubic meters of water and that can generate 6,000 MW. It costs USD 5 billion. According to Ethiopian government the cost will be covered by Ethiopian government and fund raising by selling bonds and public contribution. The dam is the first in Africa and one of the biggest ones in the world.

Immediately, Egypt and Sudan reacted and opposed the construction of the dam. Their concern is the dam will reduce their water share and violates colonial era treaties. Egypt also strongly argued that its existence is fully dependent on the Nile River and anything, which is constructed on the river directly affects its sovereignty.

According to Dessalegn (2016), Egypt has depended upon the waters of the Nile from times of antiquity. However, on the other hand, Ethiopians have been claiming that Ethiopia has the right to use Nile waters as long as it not affects the interest of Egypt. Ethiopia’s approach to the GERD Project, as it has repeatedly emphasized, is essentially based on the principles of four pillars: a win-win approach, equitable and reasonable utilization, no significant harm and genuine cooperation. The sole objectives of the GERD are poverty eradication and support for regional integration (Ejegu, 2014).

Interview with Ojige Osso, Neighboring Countries Affair Director in Ethiopian MoFA, 21 March 2019 Sudan, first opposed the construction by fearing the reduction of the volume of water and it fluctuates the regular flow of water, but later after detail discussions and dialogues with Ethiopia, Sudanese reformed their mind and supported the construction of the dam. The Sudanese government understand that the dam would not affect its water share. It also said that it would keep the constant flow of the river throughout the year. In this regard Abebe Aynete Research Directorate in Ethiopian Foreign Relation Strategic Study Institute rightly stated that: Both Ethiopia and Sudan are a close ally of the huge project, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam under construction on the Nile (Interview 15 March 2019). The leaders of Sudan and Ethiopia have been on the same wave length in this project and whatever uncertainties entertained regarding it have been cleared thanks through repeated discussions. This tradition needs to continue despite regime change anywhere: Khartoum or Addis Ababa. For instance When Ethiopia changed government just a year ago, the leaders made it clear that they give maximum priority to the enhancement of the relations between the two peoples and governments.

The continuous support of the Sudanese government for the accomplishment of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project is another demonstration of the kind of relations the two countries enjoy. Here, the support of Sudan is key because it gives a sense of belongingness and mutual trust and friendship between the two nations. In line with this Thomas expressed that the support of Sudan on the dam is not only favoring Ethiopia. Ruther it is for the sake of their own economic benefit of its people.

To sum it all up, the silent diplomacy followed by the governments of Ethiopia and Sudan and the refrain from unfaithful public rhetoric against each other when disagreements arise has definitely contributed to most smooth relationship they achieved than ever in their history. The economic and security interdependence Ethiopia and Sudan built since 2011 has so far shown to be a far sighted investment for both and The GERD has a potential to take this mutual interdependence to a higher level and come to be an irreversible point for a lasting partnership between these two neighbors. It is also a model for other nations of the region as well as the continent with regard to pursuing the win-win approach of cooperation to sustain regional integration through economic cooperation.

4.10. Institutionalization of the relation

The eighth driver is the two countries have also several institutionalized arrangements to discuss bilateral political and economic issues. Some of such mechanisms are; Joint Ethio-Sudanese Ministerial Committee, Ethio-Sudan Joint Defense committee, Ethio-Sudan Technical Advisory Committee, Ethio-Sudan Friendship Association, Joint Ethio-Sudanese Higher Economic Committee, Security Committee, Joint Technical Committee, Border Demarcation Committee, Joint Border Committee, Joint Military Force, Joint social Affairs Committee, Ethio-Sudan Joint Steering Committee.

The Joint Ministerial Committee is the highest one which is responsible for political, economic and social issues and also manages the implementation of agreements and decisions made at the Head of State and Ministerial levels. The second institutional arrangement to facilitate the Ethio–Sudanese diplomatic relation is the institutional arrangement to administer the most sensitive part of their bilateral diplomatic relation that is the border issue. In regards to this both countries organized different joint border committees to examines border security, immigration, refugee and health matters; and the Joint Border Sub-Committees, which react and give on the spot solution to problems that may arise along the common border. In general, since 2011, this institutional arrangements widened and deepened and they have their summit meeting mechanism between the political leaders of Ethiopia and Sudan. Ethiopia and Sudan have good political and diplomatic relations and cooperation’s.

4.11. Factors to encourage the bilateral economic relation

Evidently, a number of factors have strengthened the current economic relations between Sudan and Ethiopia, and make the bilateral relations indeed bright and promising. However, there were different factors for growing of trade relations between Ethiopia and Sudan. Among others, the main factors that contributed largely to the consolidation of the bonds between Ethio–Sudan trade relations were:

4.11.1. The existence of strong political relation

The frequent exchange of visits by high level officials and business men’s; the successful signing of agreements on a number of significant bilateral trade issues and following this the trade relations between the two countries have been become strong and the number of Sudanese investors in Ethiopia has been increased significantly. Trade and capital flows are important factors shaping international relations between countries because they affect broad economic developments that include resource transfer, job creation, and knowledge transfer. The trade flows between countries are influenced by the quality of political relations. In a case study focusing on Ethio–Sudan relations and the two-way interconnection in between them the results suggest that economic relations support and constrain political relations, while positive political developments could promote trade somewhat. There is no doubt that the political relations are important for them and it plays a role to strengthen their economic relations but this is not only the political relations, which decides their trade relations, there are other determinants to the bilateral trade.

The Ethio-Sudanese economic cooperation is historical and age old. Within this time, various bilateral agreements have been signed between Ethiopia and Sudan. As Fikiru (29 March 2019) stated, The economic relation between Ethiopia and Sudan is highly supported by strong political facilitation from both governments.

Since 2011, Ethiopia and Sudan signed many agreements in different areas, but specifically the agreements focuses on trade and boosting economic activities, these agreements include:

• Agreement concerning the Utilization of Border Minerals (2011);

• Ethio-Sudanese Agreement on Free Trade Zone (2015);

• Memorandum of Understandings to enhance collaboration and cooperation on cross-border livestock trade (2016);

• Agreements on promoting economic relation (2017);

• Agreement on building port facilities (2017);

• Agreement on development and administration of port (2018);

• Memorandum of Understandings on economy and trade (2019).

These agreements have enabled to increase trade and investment between the two countries.

As stated by Andarge, Ethiopian government has made a fruitful effort in creating conducive economic environment for the economic relation with Sudan. Ethiopia and Sudan have conducted many higher level official exchanges and they signed number of agreements, concerning trade and investment. (Interview 13 March 2019).

4.11.2. Geographical proximity and shared value

Ethiopia and Sudan are two major country of Horn of Africa and a long common historical past and similar cultural and social evolution. These two East African neighbors whose complimentary nature of economics coupled with geographical proximity and political relationship enable them to hold high hopes to trade prospect and economic cooperation. Ethiopia and Sudan has enjoyed tremendous cordial and friendly relations as they are foremost business partners in the East Africa region. They share common values; common vision for the sub-continent and Ethiopia always supported Sudan on all major issues (mediating civil war and current Sudanese crisis) within and outside Sudan as Sudan also stand by Ethiopia anytime she has to do so (support of The GERD). This relationship has made Sudan to become one of Ethiopia’s most valued trading partners. Thus, the economy of the two countries are closely linked.

4.11.3. Mutual need

Sudan needed resources and market to grow its economy. Similarly the new Ethiopian government wanted to strengthen economic ties with Sudan, for trade exchanges and port for its growing economy. That was approved when the two parties signed the agreement on building facilities at Port Sudan in August 2017. Land-locked and non-oil producing Ethiopia needs the Sudanese port services and oil supply. This is as well to the interest of Sudan as it can generate hard currency in its commercial dealings with Ethiopia for its weak economy.

So during the last decade, Ethiopian government has provided a stable political environment for the investors to do business smoothly. At the same time, the Ethiopian government continuously provided FDI incentives, such as tax holidays and tariff-free policies for FDI equipment imports.

Accordingly, Kewi expressed:

Most of the investors choose Ethiopia for their investment activities because of many factors among this the incentives we are provided for investors is very much interesting EIC provides experts without any price for investors to advise them on their visibility study and also we are giving plane ticket and two weeks hotel facilities in the time of searching places and licensing for those in need of investing Ethiopia. More importantly most investors interested because of the relative peace and stability we have and economic development we have witnessed attract and choose Ethiopia for their investment. (Interview on 08 March 2019)

These incentives have proved to be a large motivation for Sudanese firms ‘investment in Ethiopia, especially for the manufacturing industry.

5. Infrastructural facilities

5.1. Existence of public transport

The power integration is translating to other forms of economic, political and cultural cooperation as well. The cross border highway (The Ethio-Sudan public transport) stretching from Addis Ababa to Khartoum is open for traffic has commenced on March 2017 has opened a new chapter of convictions and social interactions among the two countries, and enhanced people-to-people relations between the two countries at large. The service is said to further strengthen bilateral ties in addition to enhancing trade, investment, tourism and social ties between the people in the two nations. These opportunities allowed the people of the two nations to celebrate their shared values in religion, history, culture and languages.

Public Transport Quality Assurance Director with the Authority, Tesfaye Belachew, said that Ethiopian and Sudanese people are strengthening ties in trade, tourism, and agriculture since the commencement of the new road public transport; and promoted the Sudanese Investors to feeling home and thereby facilitate trade as well. (Walt News, June 4,2018)

Further, Ojige Osso elaborated that

… the significant achievements registered in the security of the border were sources of inspiration to redouble joint efforts … The completion of the Metema-Galabat-Gadarif road and the micro-wave link project and public transport from Addis Ababa to Khartoum as well as Ethiopia’s plan to connect with railway have paved the ground for enhanced cooperation between the two sisterly countries economically. (Interview 21 March 2019)

5.2. The implication of South Sudan secession on Ethio–Sudan trade relations

However, Sudan faced daunting challenges in the conduct of monetary policy following the secession of South Sudan in 2011. Its economic conditions deteriorated rapidly, with GDP growth rates plummeting from an average of 7.5% in the five years preceding secession to 0.9% in 2011, with a slight improvement to 1.4% in 2012. Though GDP growth rates started to slowly pick up and reached 4.9% in 2015, the basic fundamentals of the economy remain very weak, with only modest growth of about 3% and 3.5% projected in 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Whereas, macroeconomic stability in Sudan is undermined by several other factors, including a narrow export base, quasi fiscal operations of the government, an unconducive investment climate, failure to deepen reforms by agreeing with the IMF on the 14th Staff Monitored Program (SMP) in 2015, a multiple exchange rate system, sanctions, and ill-targeted subsidies.

While, the economic impact of Southern Sudan secession on the economy of North results indicate that the economy of the North has been badly affected by the Southern Sudan secession. Hence, the value of the Sudanese Pound against the dollar has deteriorated drastically, while the balance of payment deficit has even widened, and at the same time inflation rates rise steadily to around 28%. In contrast, per capita income has increased, but this was due mainly to the reduction in number of population that took place as a result of Southern Sudan secession. Alternatively, public debt still remains high at 38 billion dollar, with the two parties yet to reach to an agreement over debt apportionment issue (Hassan Khalid, 2013).

According to (Mahjoub Ebaidalla, 2016), the trade between Sudan and Ethiopia has declined after 2011, which can be explained by the loss of 75% of Sudanese oil after the secession of South Sudan.

5.3. The Planned Ethio-Sudan railway

There is a plan to connect Ethiopia and Sudan through railway. The government is considering the construction of a 1,512 Km standard gauge railway line that will connect Ethiopia with Sudan. The project will present a strong case for economic development in the Horn of Africa by reducing the costs of doing business by facilitating the movement of persons and goods, providing infrastructure to transport goods and services supporting trade, industrialization and regional integration (Walta News Wed, 10 July 2019).

According to the Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn,

… .the two countries have agreed to establish a free economic zone very shortly. He further revealed the plan for a new railway line that connects the two countries. The railway line accelerates the existing strong trade relations the two nations possess. He added, “We work together through a shared vision especially in security, military and economic cooperation,” pointing that “any threat to Sudan is a threat to Ethiopia’s national security”. (The Ethiopian Herald, 13 April 2017)

5.4. Post-2011 Ethio–Sudan Trade Relations

5.4.1. Bilateral trade between Ethiopia and Sudan

Economic interests remain the basis to bringing states closer to each other. These could be either through trade and investment or one or two of them. Predominantly improvement of relations between Ethiopia and Sudan was clearly observed in the development of trade relations.

The history Ethio–Sudanese trade relations is very old. Economically, both countries have been faced with similar economic problems of mass poverty and misery. In the same vein, the bilateral relations between the two countries, Ethiopia and Sudan, have come a long way. According to Tages Alemu,

Sudan and Ethiopia have been trading in various goods and services for the past many years. As the two largest economies in East Africa, the relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan is a crucial one for the countries particularly and the region in general. (Interview 18 March, 2019)

Both Ethiopia and Sudan are increasing their horizons through different socio-economic and political cooperation since 2011. The notion of South-South Cooperation, the bilateral trade relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan is increasing from time to time. The data from Ethiopian Ministry of Trade (MoT) (2019) shows that both import and export between Ethiopia and Sudan increased from 2011 to 2018 tremendously.

As illustrated in Table 1, within seven years, the value of Ethiopian exports to Sudan increased from USD 2,443,726,245 in 2011 to 2,742,088,167 in 2017; while the amount of imports rose from USD 8,616,504,842.53 in 2011 to 14,735,196,988.99 in 2017.Today, the bilateral trade relation between the two countries has grown gradually and as there has been no pause in the dialogue between them, one has observed an advancement of this tie.

Table 1. Ethiopia and Sudan Trade Summary (2011–2017)

YEAR	Export Value (USD)	Import CIF Value (USD)	DIFFERENCE IN Value (USD)
2011	2443726245	8,616,504,842.53	−6,172,778,597.53
2012	2628569361	11,165,142,008.06	−8,536,572,647.06
2013	2441987006	10,353,847,191.98	−7,911,860,185.98
2014	2826097413	14,363,274,669.08	−11,537,177,256.08
2015	2570907876	15,095,622,774.79	−12,524,714,898.79
2016	2511875431	15,912,497,792.62	−13,400,622,361.62
2017	2742088167	14,735,196,988.99	−11,993,108,821.99
Total	18165251499	90242086268	−72,076,834,769.05

Source: Bilateral Trade Division: Federal Ministry of Trade (2019) soft copy

5.4.2. Ethiopian export products to Sudan market

5.4.3. Trade Deficit between Ethiopia and Sudan

As regards the balance of trade between the two countries, the balance of trade has always been in favor of Sudan from 2011 to 2017. Ethiopian exports into Sudan have grown from US$ 2443726245 in 2011 to 2,742,088,167 in 2017. However, the year-on-year growth rate has been characterizing by slight fluctuations. In 2012, exports from Ethiopia to Sudan declined from USD 2,628,569,361 to USD 2,441,987,006, in comparison to 2013, and this was followed by continued ups and downs until they recorded their peak of USD 2,826,097,413 in 2017. On the other hand, Sudanese exports into Ethiopia have shown relative stability. They increased from US$ 8,616,504,842.53 in 2011 to 14,735,196,988.99 in 2017. After registering minor declines during 2012–2013, Sudanese exports to Ethiopia have been continuously increasing.

It is quite obvious that Sudan’s exports to Ethiopia have been far greater than its imports from Ethiopia, resulting in a large trade surplus in favor of Sudan (Table I).

Bilateral trade between Ethio-Sudan has grown over a period of time. In Table 1, we can see total trade between two countries increased. Share of import is greater than export in Ethiopia’s total trade with Sudan. Ethiopia’s trade balance with Sudan was became deficit and increased further. The main reason behind the increase in Ethiopia’s trade deficit with the Sudan is an increase in the prices of petroleum products and oil.

Evidence from this study indicated that there is a huge trade deficit between Sudan and Ethiopia which favoring Sudan. However, trade deficit has been become constant and increased from time to time and Ethiopia could not equally benefit from trade with Sudan. Among others, one of the main reasons for trade deficit between the two countries was that the nature of export-import items of the two countries. Ethiopian exports were highly dominated by primary agricultural commodities and raw materials which have been negative implications on Ethiopian trade performance and resulted in trade deficit (Table II).

In another ways, primary commodities were vulnerable to price instability as their prices were determined in world markets and export of primary resources were economically detrimental and can be resulted in trade deficit. Also Ethiopia imports from Sudan in general, comprised finished manufactured goods. Generally speaking, regarding to the implication of the dominance of Sudanese trade relations with Ethiopia in the short and long term, the major point was that the perception that Sudan benefits more and Ethiopia less in the short term and long term although the two countries must considered themselves as strategic partners and not to put each other’s interests in problems.

However, given their relatively small and undeveloped markets, Ethiopia’s foreign policy strategy plays down the role that its poor neighboring countries (Sudan) can play in the economic development of the country. Despite the fact that the Strategy also plays down their role in this respect, it does mention a number of areas where the two countries’ geographies and industries can complement each other. Relative to the region, particularly northern Sudan is still a potentially significant market for Ethiopian produce and according to the Strategy: “has the potential to go far in development” (World bank Final Report June 30, 2019).

Regarding to trade deficit, although some observers believe Ethio–Sudanese relations are also based on oil imports by Ethiopia from Sudan, there is little evidence to back this up. Over the last years, Ethiopia has received petroleum products from Sudan at below cost price. However, these imports were quite limited in scale and because of the bad road connections between the two countries, these products largely still need to pass through Djibouti to reach the industrial centers of Ethiopia (UNISCI Discussion Papers, 2013).

However, the two states using informal economic activities and sector to come up these problem and advancing economic bilateral relationship these can be seen in first, the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Benishangul-Gumuz, which is being built with support of the World Bank and various other international partners is another incentive to further develop the Ethio–Sudanese relations. Second, the recent construction of the Merowe Dam in 2009 and the heightening of the Sudanese Roseires Dam in 2013 (only 20 km from the Ethiopian border) indicate that Sudan would be reluctant to become dependent on Ethiopia for a significant part of its power supply. Lastly, the dictatorial regimes and wars in the region have caused many displacements across the borders over the last decades. Most Ethiopians who had moved abroad, moved to Sudan. And of those, many have settled there and established themselves among the working class. These people are still sending back remittances to their families which provide an increasing level of foreign currency income to Ethiopia. The fact though, that remittances are a growing source of foreign currency income, still ought to be a good reason to further develop and sustain the relationship with both Sudan’s (World bank Final Report June 30, 2019).

5.5. Overview of the Post-2011 Sudanese Investment in Ethiopia

In the last seven years, the Ethiopian-Sudanese relationship has grown stronger in terms of investment. This success of Sudanese companies might be explained by the economic ties of both countries. This shows that Sudanese investments in Ethiopia are starting to make some impact and Sudan’s overall role in the Ethiopian economy is likely to grow from time to time. It is from this spirit that Interview with expert from EIC on 8 March 2019 in Addis Ababa, stated

The relations between Ethiopia and Sudan have been strengthened day by day, particularly the cooperation between the two countries has significantly increased in the last few years in areas of trade and investment. In this regard Sudanese investments in Ethiopia have benefits for growth of the economy, creation of markets for export items, generation of foreign exchanges for investments and creation of jobs.

To attracting massive amount of FDI Ethiopia had plentiful comparative advantages in terms of human capital, land resource and investment incentives to materialize this plan of attracting foreign investment. In addition to attracting investment, the Ethiopian Government gives a due attention to make projects operational within short period of time. The idea of providing incentive by the Ethiopian Government is well honor by Kewi in his exclusive interview with the researcher described that; Ethiopia provides different incentives to investors coming from Sudan or elsewhere. The incentives provided by the government are like tax-free, accessible land leases, clear and fast custom duty, strong and accountable civil services, accessible industry zones and others (Interview; 8 March 2019).

Clarifying this argument, Awad al-Kareem, president of the Sudanese Investors Society in Addis Ababa explained:

The amount of capital investment made in Ethiopia by Sudanese firms has reached around $2.4 billion. Al-Kareem said more and more Sudanese firms are investing in Ethiopia due the favorable investment opportunities created by the government comparing the existing difficulties in Khartoum to acquire investment licenses among others. (Sudan Tribune, 2014)

Consequently, foreign direct investment projects are on the increase since 2011. Reports released by international organizations dealing with international investment and trade activities also affirm Ethiopia’s effort to attract FDI. For instance, the report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade & Development (UNCTAD) showed that Ethiopia was the third largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa (UNCTAD, 2015) (See Table 2).

Table 2. Major top 10 exported products from Ethiopia to Sudan and Imported products from Sudan (MoT, 2019)

Major Exported products to Sudan	Major Imported products from Sudan
Coffee, Not Roasted or Decaffeinated	Benzene Regular or Super
Tropical wood	Petroleum Oils
Ox	Waters (Incl. Minerals and Aerated)
Natural Gums, Resins, Gum-Resins Natural Oleo. Ins/Balsams(Excl. Gum Arabic)	Instruments and Apparatus for Medical, Surgical, Laboratory sterilizers, Dental, Veterinary Sciences
Camels	Furniture
Natural Honey	Textile Products
Live Sheep, Goat	Edible Sunflower and Safflowers Oil
Footwear with Rubber	Seat Nest
Beer made from Malt	Machines, Having Individual function use for Industries
Upper and Parts Thereof (Excl. Stiffeners)	Soap in powder

Source: EIC 2019 Softcopy.

5.5.1. Development of Sudanese Investment in Ethiopia

The database used in this study is generated by the Federal Investment Commission of Ethiopia, where all investments need to be registered before they get licensed to operate in Ethiopia. Based on these registrations, the bureau prepares data spreadsheets including information on the name of the company investing, its home country, the Ethiopian region in which it invests, and what form the investment is of (implementation, operation, and pre-implementation). Table 3 shows the amount and types of licensed Sudanese investment in Ethiopia.

Table 3. Summary of Licensed Sudanese Investment projects in Ethiopia by sector and status since 2011

Sector	No. of projects	Pre-implementation	Implementation	Operation
		No of projects	No of projects	No of projects
Real Estate Development	5	2	2	1
Tour operation	8	5	—	3
Establishing medical center	14	7	3	4
Processing meat products	8	5	1	2
Star Designated,Hotel	15	4	3	8
Farm poultry, oil cotton	13	9	2	2
ICT	27	17	—	10
Medical Training center	7	3	2	2
Water well Drilling	10	5	2	3
Casting of Iron and Steel	2	—	2	—
Building contractor	14	12	2	—
Construction machinery Rental	14	8	4	2
Manufacturing	74	47	11	16
Car Assembly	1	1	—	—
Civil Engineering	5	3	1	1
Consultancy mkt, ICT,Business	25	11	6	8
Supply of Petroleum	4	3	—	1
Total	246	142	41	63

Source: EIC 2019 soft copy.

Some of Sudan’s investment projects are conducted through joint ventures with Ethiopia and different other countries. The largest joint ventures of the Sudanese investors are made with Ethiopian investors. They are participating both in rural and urban development in Ethiopia. This has been accelerating in the last few years. Besides, out of the licensed 246 Sudanese projects in the period 2011–2019, only 63 has gone operational 41 under implementation and 142 are under pre- implementation (EIC, 2019). Accordingly, Sudan’s foreign direct investments in Ethiopia are showing significant expansion. Sudanese companies have invested in areas such as manufacturing (74 projects), construction (28 projects), business and engineering consultancy (25 projects), star designated resort and hotel (17 projects), and establishing medical sector (14 projects), respectively, has priorities.

As Kewi (2019) explained, Sudanese investments are creating hundreds of job for Ethiopians. Referring to this, possible to say that Ethio-Sudanese investment cooperation is good example of South-South Cooperation because it is driven by the countries’ overall struggle to boost their socio-economic and political development. The cooperation between Sudan and Ethiopia has been assisted by political commitment of the two Governments; and it has both economic and political considerations from both sides.

6. Conclusion

Ethio–Sudanese formal diplomatic relations have been established in early twentieth century. However, this study mainly elaborated the development of Ethio–Sudan diplomatic and economic relations, especially with particular reference to post 2011. Accordingly, the study identifies the number of factors that positively affect historical and contemporary bilateral relations. Ethio-Sudan economic cooperation is historical and strategic based on mutual friendship and non-interference principle of South-South Cooperation and their respective foreign policies. Since the initiation of official diplomatic relationship immediately after Sudanese independence, Ethiopia and Sudan has signed different agreements to strengthen their economic cooperation in general and increase trade in particular. Trade between the two countries is surging and investment is increasing.

This paper mainly elaborated the development of economic and political relations between Sudan and Ethiopia especially post 2011. In this paper, four main factors driving the bilateral relations between Sudan and Ethiopia have been elaborated: First, the bright and promising development between the two countries has been facilitated by the strong political support from both governments. Ethiopian government provided a stable political environment for the investors to do business smoothly. Second, mutual economic interest is indeed the strongest wing of the two countries ‘cooperation. On the one hand, Sudan needed markets. On the other hand, Ethiopia needs to open to international trade to develop her economy to implement Ethiopia‘s endeavor at poverty reduction and alleviation. Third, Sudan and Ethiopian relations have been the result of common political and economic strategic interests that were bolstered by common experiences base on principles of mutual respect. Sudan and Ethiopia also developed political interactions through exchanging high level visits, consultation mechanisms and mutual support on regional and international issues which offered immense opportunities for strengthening their ties. Fourth, the energy linkage and Ethiopia’s strong commitment to build infrastructural facilities like road which is already started Addis-Khartoum and there is a plan to link the two countries with railway, taken as a factor to boost the relationship.

With regard to trade relations, the values of Ethiopian exports have shown progress and growth in recent years. It is also noted that the imports of the country have shown even more pronounced increase during the same period and causes deficit on Ethiopia. The major reason for the trade imbalance is that Ethiopia continued to export agricultural products which realized lower price as compared to manufacturing goods that Ethiopia imports from Sudan. This means the sector is dominated by few primary products that account for a lion’s share of the country’s export earnings have contributed for this trade imbalance. To reduce this trade imbalance, Ethiopia has tried various strategies, including export diversification, import substitution, export oriented liberalized approach which may help to promote investment from Sudan.

When it comes to politics, a cordial political relation is also manifestation of the post 2011 Ethio– Sudan relations. Frequent diplomatic contacts between higher officials of the two nations and cooperation over regional peace and security have witnessed strong political relations between the two states. High-level officials’ visits have improved diplomatic ties in the meantime opening the way for expanded interaction on development cooperation and trade.

However, positive relations continued after Meles’ death in 2012, but with the 2018 rise to power in Ethiopia of Abiy Ahmed and the coming to power of a joint military—civilian government in Sudan in August 2019 after al-Bashir’s overthrow, these countries’ ties are once more uncertain. External actors—including the Gulf States, Egypt, China, and the United States—continue to influence relations between the two countries in complex ways.

List of abbrevations
AU	=	African Union
AEC	=	African Economic Community
CDRC	=	Center for Dialogue of Research Cooperation
COMESA	=	Common Market for East and South Africa
CPA	=	Comprehensive Peace Agreement
EDU	=	Ethiopian Democratic Union
EFRSSI	=	Ethiopian Foreign Relation Strategic Study Institute
EIC	=	Ethiopian Investment Commission
ELF	=	Eritrean Liberation Front
EPLF	=	Ethiopian People’s Liberation Front
EU	=	European Union
EPRDF	=	Ethiopian People Revolutionary Democratic Front
FDI	=	Foreign Direct Investment
FTA	=	Free Trade Agreement
GATT	=	General Agreement on Tariff and Trade
GERD	=	Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam
GoE	=	Government of Ethiopia
GOS	=	Government of Sudan
HoA	=	Horn of Africa
HRM	=	Human Resource Management
ICBT	=	Informal Cross Border Trade
JFWC	=	Joint Field Work Committee
MNC	=	Multi-National Corporation
MoFA	=	Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MoT	=	Ministry of Trade
NIF	=	National Islamic Front
OAU	=	Organization of African Union
OLF	=	Oromo Liberation Front
RCC	=	Revolutionary Community Council
SPLA	=	Sudanese People Liberation Army
SSC	=	South South Cooperation
TPLF	=	Tigrean People Liberation Front
UNISFA	=	United Nation Interim Security Force Abyei
UNCTAD	=	United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
US	=	United State
USSR	=	Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

Acknowledgments

Praise to almighty God! As such, our best gratitude goes to all our informants who helped us to accomplish this research work in wondering manner. Lastly, we ever fill unforgettable moment of their effective encouragement, brotherhood and humble character of our friends Berhanu Milku (Commander-Batala), Tadesse Eyasu (Basha) and Natnael Lea (Gittanchchaawu) to accomplish our research work.

Disclosure statement

Hereby we declare that this research work is entitled the Ethio–Sudan diplomatic relation since 2011: Review on economic relation is our original work and has not been presented anywhere. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal complain that could have appeared to influence the work of this paper.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for the research work.

Notes on contributors

Tamirat Dela Wotango

Tamirat Dela Wotango attended his undergraduate study in Political Science and International Relations at Department of Political Science and International Relations, Wollega University, Ethiopia. He also pursued his postgraduate study (MA) in Foreign Policy and Diplomacy at the School of Governance and Law, Hawassa University, Ethiopia. Currently, he is working as Lecturer at the Department of Civics and Ethical Study, Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia. In addition to teaching, he actively engages in research and community service activities, working also as research personnel, advisor, policy analyzer, consultant, trainer, preacher and politician. He has more than five published article and from these the four article were published in alone and the remaining are published in group.

Muluken Ayele

Muluken Ayele Tadesse has a MA in Foreign Policy and Diplomacy from Hawassa University, is a Lecturer at Mizan Tepi University, Civics and Ethical Studies Department and who published two research articles.

Appendex I: Key Informant Interview Questions

How do you describe the historical diplomatic relations between Ethiopia and Sudan? What unique characteristic does it have?

What are the major factors encouraged the bilateral political and economic relations between them since 2011?

How does the relationship between Ethiopia and Sudan manifested through diplomacy, trade and investment since 2011? How do you generally describe their relations, in all these areas?

How about balance of payments? What did it indicate? (If deficit) what should be done to improve?

What are challenges and/or prospects of their relations? What would you recommend to reduce challenges and tap on the prospects?

How do you see the nature and capital of FDI inflow from Sudan?Types/sectors and areas of investment?How do you see the trend since 2011? Rapidly growing or slowly growing? What factors are responsible for such trends?

What are the challenges that Sudanese investors facing in Ethiopia? What they expect from Ethiopia (prospects)? What are the efforts to attract further investment from Sudan?

How would you describe Ethio–Sudan trade relations? When did it start and how it is going?

What are the major items of trade between the two countries? What Ethiopia import from Sudan and export too?

What are the different factors that help for the improvement of trade exchanges between the two countries?

While the trade relation between Ethiopia and Sudan is growing, it is largely in favor of Sudan. What are the major factors for this trade imbalance? In relation to this, what are different measures that your Ministry may take to minimize this trade imbalance? What are the different commodities that Ethiopia can export to the Sudanese market and it imports from Sudan?

What are the factors which enhanced the bilateral economic relations between Ethiopia andSudan since 2011?

What measures your ministry may take to increase the export of Ethiopian products in order to exploit Sudanese market?What are the challenges/prospects?

Appendix II. List of Key Informants

Table

No	Name of Interviewee	Ministry/Institution	Position	Date
1	Abebe Aynete	EFRSSI	Research Director	15 March 2019
2	Yadesa Lelisa	MoT	Export promotion Director General	13 March 2019
3	Kewi Jarso	EIC	Data and IT Expert	8 March 2019
4	Belete Belachew(Phd)	CDRC	Senior Researcher	19 March 2019
5	Fikiru Tadesse	MoT	Bilateral &Regional Trade Relation and Negotiation Directorate Director	29 March 2019
6	Ojige Osso	MoFA	Neighboring Affairs Director	21 March 2019
7	Andarge Berehe	MoFA	Bilateral Affairs Expert	13 March 2019
8	Tages Alemu	MoT	Bilateral Trade Relation &Negotiation Expert	18 March 2019
9	Tomas G/Mariam	EFRSSI	Higher Expert	25 March 2019
10	Dawano Kedir	MoFA	Permanent secretary of Economic Diplomacy	11 March 2019