what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Eritrea about the boundary dispute with Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement.

We discuss the border dispute with Eritrea, Ethiopia and other interested parties on a regular basis. I had a long discussion on the subject with Eritrean President Isaias in Asmara in January last year, and with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles in Addis Ababa on 26 October. I hope to be able to discuss the matter again with representatives of both Governments at the African Union summit in Abuja this weekend.

I thank the Minister for that response. At a meeting with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia in November, he affirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution with Eritrea and, indeed, wanted to accept what he did not like in terms of the border dispute—he accepted the ruling of the boundary commission. Indeed, in November the Parliament of Ethiopia passed a motion to that effect. Recently, however, Ethiopia has been expressing deep concern about the attitude of Eritrea towards the boundary solution. There is concern that that country, which is not democratic and does not have a free press, might seek to return to war. That would, of course, cause devastation in the area, loss of life and loss of aid. Will the Minister redouble his efforts to discuss the situation, particularly with Eritrea, with a view to persuading that country that the peaceful way forward has to be the only way forward?

I take a close personal interest in the border dispute, having been engaged with it, one way or another, for about the past 18 months. Our assessment is that neither side wants a return to war, but it is correct to say that there is always a danger that a small spark on the border will reignite the conflict. Our approach is based on three principles: no return to war; that the findings of the boundary commission are binding; and that dialogue between the two parties must take place. Professor Lauterpacht, who was the chairman of the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary commission, has said that any issue can be discussed, provided that both parties agree. We think that that should happen, and that is the view that we are making clear to all parties, including the Eritreans.

With the deterioration of the situation in Eritrea, are not the Government there beating the drums of war as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from their numerous failings, and to strengthen their own position? Will my hon. Friend commit himself, when we next meet the representatives of either Eritrea or Ethiopia, to pursue the question with Ethiopia, whose attitude to the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary commission's final recommendations is not entirely unambiguous? Indeed, it is already entering qualifications. The removal of those would defuse the tension, would it not?

A settlement of this dispute will require both sides to move. We welcome the recent movement by the Ethiopians, which we had been urging upon them. In due course they may have to make some further concessions. At the moment it would be welcome to have some sign from Eritrea that it is willing to engage in discussions. So far there have been no such signs from Eritrea.