basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,005
- 2,220
- Banned
- #1
relationship between the United States and Ethiopia took shape during the waning years of European colonialism in the second half of the twentieth century. In the decades that followed, that relationship underwent several transformations, marked especially by alliances formed during the Cold War and the “war on terror.”
Despite the changes, a thread of continuity runs through the entire period. Washington has consistently elevated geopolitical interests above any concern for democracy and human rights. In so doing, it has contributed significantly to the problems afflicting Ethiopia and the wider region.
in 2022, Having expected an easy victory, Abiy was frustrated by the strength of the resistance his forces encountered. Determined to starve the population into submission, Addis Ababa intensified the weaponization of food supplies, depriving civilians in Tigray of this basic necessity. The prospects of mass starvation drove the TPLF to the bargaining table, where it accepted a deal widely perceived as a surrender.
In accords signed on November 2 and 12, 2022, the Tigrayan representatives agreed to dissolve the TPLF-led regional government and to disarm its defense forces within thirty days. In exchange, the federal government would end its blockade of humanitarian aid, and “foreign forces” would leave the region. Addis Ababa pledged to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during the war and ensure the reintegration of a new regional government into the national governing structures.
Although hailed in the United States as a significant development, the peace deal in reality contains little that is new. Since January 2022, Tigray has made concessions and the Abiy government has accepted them before Eritrea has undermined those concessions and Addis Ababa has withdrawn its commitments. The United States, and the international community more broadly, have imposed no penalties.
Prospects for the future are uncertain. Tigrayan civilians, who had no role in making the deal, may reject it. Eritrea, which has been charged with the most serious human rights abuses and has subverted past deals, was not a party to this one. For decades, the government of Isaias Afwerki has been hostile to the Tigrayan leadership, with whom it waged a devastating border conflict between 1998 and 2018. It is not clear that Eritrea will willingly withdraw its forces from Tigray.
There is no clarity either about how the problems of contested land or the reintegration of millions of refugees and displaced people are to be resolved. Perhaps most importantly, the accords do not address the root causes of the conflict, including Abiy’s strengthening of central government authority at the expense of regional powers, which has angered the regional governments in Tigray and other areas. Finally, there are no provisions to ensure governmental accountability to the victims of the conflict nor discussion of reparations other than rebuilding the region’s infrastructure.
The devil, as always, is in the details. Tigray’s pledge to disarm its troops within thirty days is, according to experts, unrealistic. There is no blueprint for implementing or monitoring the accords. Nor is it clear that Amhara militias, who have fought alongside the Abiy government, will relinquish their claims to the western Tigray region. Reports indicate that the militias are continuing to execute Tigrayans.
The agreement specifies that Tigrayan disarmament will be concurrent with the removal of foreign (i.e., Eritrean) forces. However, Asmara is likely to balk at leaving, and Tigray will not disarm until Eritrean forces have withdrawn. Finally, the Ethiopian government continues to use hunger as a weapon, allowing aid only into territory that it controls.
foreignpolicy.com
Despite the changes, a thread of continuity runs through the entire period. Washington has consistently elevated geopolitical interests above any concern for democracy and human rights. In so doing, it has contributed significantly to the problems afflicting Ethiopia and the wider region.
in 2022, Having expected an easy victory, Abiy was frustrated by the strength of the resistance his forces encountered. Determined to starve the population into submission, Addis Ababa intensified the weaponization of food supplies, depriving civilians in Tigray of this basic necessity. The prospects of mass starvation drove the TPLF to the bargaining table, where it accepted a deal widely perceived as a surrender.
In accords signed on November 2 and 12, 2022, the Tigrayan representatives agreed to dissolve the TPLF-led regional government and to disarm its defense forces within thirty days. In exchange, the federal government would end its blockade of humanitarian aid, and “foreign forces” would leave the region. Addis Ababa pledged to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during the war and ensure the reintegration of a new regional government into the national governing structures.
Although hailed in the United States as a significant development, the peace deal in reality contains little that is new. Since January 2022, Tigray has made concessions and the Abiy government has accepted them before Eritrea has undermined those concessions and Addis Ababa has withdrawn its commitments. The United States, and the international community more broadly, have imposed no penalties.
Prospects for the future are uncertain. Tigrayan civilians, who had no role in making the deal, may reject it. Eritrea, which has been charged with the most serious human rights abuses and has subverted past deals, was not a party to this one. For decades, the government of Isaias Afwerki has been hostile to the Tigrayan leadership, with whom it waged a devastating border conflict between 1998 and 2018. It is not clear that Eritrea will willingly withdraw its forces from Tigray.
There is no clarity either about how the problems of contested land or the reintegration of millions of refugees and displaced people are to be resolved. Perhaps most importantly, the accords do not address the root causes of the conflict, including Abiy’s strengthening of central government authority at the expense of regional powers, which has angered the regional governments in Tigray and other areas. Finally, there are no provisions to ensure governmental accountability to the victims of the conflict nor discussion of reparations other than rebuilding the region’s infrastructure.
The devil, as always, is in the details. Tigray’s pledge to disarm its troops within thirty days is, according to experts, unrealistic. There is no blueprint for implementing or monitoring the accords. Nor is it clear that Amhara militias, who have fought alongside the Abiy government, will relinquish their claims to the western Tigray region. Reports indicate that the militias are continuing to execute Tigrayans.
The agreement specifies that Tigrayan disarmament will be concurrent with the removal of foreign (i.e., Eritrean) forces. However, Asmara is likely to balk at leaving, and Tigray will not disarm until Eritrean forces have withdrawn. Finally, the Ethiopian government continues to use hunger as a weapon, allowing aid only into territory that it controls.
Will Ethiopia’s Peace Deal Last?
Without political reform, economic stability, and accountability, there is a risk conflict could resume.
foreignpolicy.com
