“We have to deal with anyone who is still shooting,” said Getachew Reda, spokesperson for the Tigrayan forces, early this month. “If it takes marching to Addis to silence the guns, we will.” In fact, Tigray’s army has already covered about a third of the distance to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, since it took back its own provincial capital, Mekelle, in late June.
The fighting has been bloody, for the Ethiopian army is much larger, but the Tigrayan army is more professional and determined. Not only has it liberated all of Tigray except the far west, but it has also seized around one-third of neighbouring Amhara, the province which is the historic core of the Ethiopian empire.
Seven million Tigrayans defeating the army of a country of 110 million people may seem odd, but Ethiopia is a patchwork quilt of different ethnic groups, languages and religions that was held together in the past by a centralised monarchy or dictatorship backed by ruthless military force. Until quite recently, it was Tigray that provided that force.
The Tigrayans earned that job by being the most effective guerrilla force in the long struggle to overthrow the former Communist regime, the Derg. They parlayed that role into an ethnic dictatorship that lasted from 1991 until just a few years ago. But the other ethnic groups then united to instal a new prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, who started to dismantle that corrupt autocracy.
He did it, but the Tigrayan military elite withdrew to their own homeland and sulked. It was a well-armed sulk, for almost half the Ethiopian army was based in Tigray and it consisted largely of ethnic Tigrayans. When it became clear that Abiy’s project to destroy the old ethnic pecking order was not negotiable, they rebelled.
This was all pretty inevitable, but then the Ethiopian prime minister decided to invade Tigray and end the problem for good. That was bound to end badly for Ethiopia, because he was making a direct attack on what is practically an African Sparta.
The Tigrayan army pulled out of the province’s cities for a while and by last November Abiy declared the war over. But the Tigrayan leaders were just mobilising their forces, and in June they counter-attacked. The Ethiopian forces broke and ran and most of Tigray was liberated without a fight.
If it had stopped there, some sort of Ethiopian state would have survived, albeit with a semi-detached Tigray, but Abiy then made the serious mistake of resorting to a blockade to starve the Tigrayans out. By now many people in landlocked Tigray are close to famine, but their leaders have countered with an invasion of Amhara province.
They are now within striking distance of the roads that carry 95% of the Ethiopia’s import and export traffic between Addis Ababa and the port of Djibouti. Their success has also emboldened the Oromo Liberation Army, a rebel army seeking autonomy or even independence for Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group, to make an alliance with the Tigrayans.
Suddenly, Ethiopia starts to look a lot like former Yugoslavia just before the civil wars of the 1990s split it into six different countries. Yet Abiy is rolling the dice once again, hoping to build a rapidly expanded army that will reconquer Tigray and occupied Amhara. That is unlikely to happen.
Abiy has a few new advantages, like the same sort of armed drones from Turkey that the Azerbaijanis used last year to tear the Armenian army apart in the recent war in the Caucasus. But the Ethiopian air force is in poor condition, as most of its experienced commanders and pilots were Tigrayan.
As for the expanded Ethiopian army, trained and seasoned troops like the Tigrayans will usually defeat almost any number of inexperienced and quickly trained volunteers. So if Abiy doesn’t win, what will happen instead?
If Abiy makes a quick deal with the Tigrayans that ends the blockade and recognises their independence and borders, he may have enough troops and credibility left to suppress the Oromos and other ethnic insurgents who will soon come out into the open. If not, Ethiopia probably splinters, and it’s Yugoslavia all over again.
And what would the Tigrayans do next? Some of them are confident enough to dream of invading Eritrea and taking down President Isaias Afwerki, who sent troops to help Abiy invade Tigray. Afwerki has ruled the country of 5,3 million with an iron hand for three decades, and he is so unpopular that one in 10 Eritreans has fled abroad.
Some of the Tigrayan elite may even be speculating about uniting the two countries. After all, half the Eritrean population speaks the same Tigrinya language and joining the two together would give Tigray access to the sea, which sometimes comes in handy.
💭 War Crimes in Ethiopia | So Cruel That One’s Words Are Missing
There is war in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia. Women are brutally raped and men massacred, reports Amnesty International. Countries such as Germany must exert pressure on the government, the human rights organization demands.
The struggle between the central government and the Tigray region in the north has been escalating in Ethiopia for some time. Amnesty International has documented how much the lives of women have been and are being systematically destroyed.
Both the extent of the violence and the manner are so frightening and cruel that there are hardly any words to describe what is happening to the people there, says Franziska Ulm-Düsterhöft of Amnesty International. The actors “lost all proportionality.”
Victims would not only be attacked, but also tried to dehumanize and humiliate them. “Men are beaten up, harassed, lined up and massacred. Women are raped in the worst way. ” There have been many group rapes in which children should have watched.
The medical infrastructure, water and food supply are almost completely destroyed. However, the fighting would continue unabated and families and communities would be destroyed.
Due to the seriousness and systematics of violence, Amnesty International suspects a strategic approach that the Ethiopian Government tolerates. The human rights organization calls for an immediate end to this drastic violence and for the perpetrators to be punished.
The UN and experts in the African Union would also have to gain access to the war zone in order to conduct independent investigations. And pressure is needed from the international community, i.e. countries like Germany, which have close relations with Ethiopia, says Franziska Ulm-Düsterhöft.
➡ The infrastructure is almost completely destroyed
According to Ulm-Düsterhöft, the situation in the region is still dramatic because it is cut off from the outside world. All communication channels such as Internet and telephone would not work. Also journalist: inside, human rights observer: inside and humanitarian organizations should not enter the region. This complicates the research, so it is difficult to get a concrete picture of the situation on site.
In order to gain information, Amnesty would verify and evaluate videos, photos and satellite recordings. For example, mass graves can be identified. In addition, the human rights organization conducts interviews with medical personnel, those affected and stuff: inside refugee camps in the region.
💭 Kriegsverbrechen in Äthiopien | so Grausam, Dass Einem Die Worte Fehlen
In der Region Tigray im Norden Äthiopiens herrscht Krieg. Frauen würden brutal vergewaltigt und Männer massakriert, berichtet Amnesty International. Länder wie Deutschland müssten Druck auf die Regierung ausüben, fordert die Menschenrechtsorganisation.
Schon länger eskaliert in Äthiopien der Kampf zwischen Zentralregierung und der Region Tigray im Norden. Wie sehr dabei die Leben von Frauen systematisch zerstört wurden und werden hat Amnesty International dokumentiert.
Sowohl das Ausmaß der Gewalt als auch die Art und Weise seien so erschreckend und grausam, dass sich dafür kaum Worte finden lassen würden, um zu beschreiben, was den Menschen dort passiere, sagt Franziska Ulm-Düsterhöft von Amnesty International. Bei den Akteuren sei „jede Verhältnismäßigkeit verloren gegangen“.
Opfer würden nicht nur angegriffen, sondern es werde auch versucht, sie zu entmenschlichen und zu demütigen. „Männer werden zusammengeschlagen, drangsaliert, aufgereiht und massakriert. Frauen werden vergewaltigt, und das in schlimmster Art und Weise.“ Es habe viele Gruppenvergewaltigungen gegeben, bei denen auch Kinder hätten zusehen müssen.
Die medizinische Infrastruktur, die Wasser- und Nahrungsmittelversorgung seien fast komplett zerstört. Die Kampfhandlungen würden aber unvermindert weitergehen und Familien und Gemeinden würden zerstört.
➡ Amnesty vermutet strategisches Vorgehen der Äthiopischen Regierung
Aufgrund der Schwere und der Systematik der Gewalt vermutet Amnesty International ein strategisches Vorgehen, das von der äthiopischen Regierung geduldet werde. Die Menschenrechtsorganisation fordert ein sofortiges Ende dieser drastischen Gewalt und dass die Täter bestraft werden.
Dafür müssten auch die UN und Expert:innen der Afrikanischen Union Zugang in das Kriegsgebiet erhalten, um unabhängige Untersuchungen durchführen zu können. Und es sei Druck von der Internationalen Gemeinschaft, also Ländern wie Deutschland nötig, die eine enge Beziehungen zu Äthiopien haben, sagt Franziska Ulm-Düsterhöft.
➡ Die Infrastruktur ist fast komplett zerstört
Nach wie vor sei die Lage in der Region dramatisch, weil sie von der Außenwelt abgeschnitten sei, so Ulm-Düsterhöft. Alle Kommunikationskanäle wie Internet und Telefon würden nicht funktionieren. Auch Journalist:innen, Menschenrechtsbeobachter:innen und humanitäre Organisationen dürften nicht in die Region. Dies erschwere die Recherchen, entsprechend schwierig sei es, sich ein konkretes Bild von der Lage vor Ort zu machen.
Um dennoch an Informationen zu gelangen, würde Amnesty Videos, Fotos und Satellitenaufnahmen verifizieren und auswerten. So könne man beispielsweise Massengräber ermitteln. Außerdem führe die Menschenrechtsorganisation Interviews mit medizinischem Personal, Betroffenen und Zeug:innen in Flüchtlingslagern in der Region.
To most Americans the collapse of Afghanistan called into question Washington’s ability to manage the world. After devoting 20 years, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars to creating a stable, democratic, and liberal Afghanistan, the entire Potemkin structure collapsed in 11 days.
Hundreds of thousands fled as the Taliban successively captured provincial capitals. Tens of thousands thronged the Kabul airport in a desperate effort to escape the newly proclaimed Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. If only a few of them had joined the security forces that were supposed to sustain their country, instead of leaving the fight to those who decided the regime was not worth defending, perhaps the outcome would have been different.
Many liberal Afghans likely will be trapped in a future that looks more like the past. Perhaps stable though intolerant Islamist rule. Perhaps regime breakdown and renewed civil war. Perhaps domestic conflict spurred by foreign intervention. Whatever the outcome, Washington dramatically demonstrated yet again that militarized social engineering is an art Americans have yet to learn.
However, other crises loom around the globe and, of course, those who demanded that America stay in Afghanistan now insist that Washington take on these new responsibilities, presumably to demonstrate improved levels of competence. Consider the extraordinarily brutal tricorner battle ongoing among Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Tigray.
The complex confrontation returns a peaceful region to its terrible past of war and oppression. Eritrea spent three decades fighting for independence from Ethiopia as the latter moved from monarchy to communist dictatorship to generic authoritarian rule. Eritrea gained its independence in 1993 and created a regime so infamously cruel and repressive that it was known as the North Korea of Africa (according to Freedom House, Eritrea actually is less free than the North, rating just 2 out of 100). Five years later Ethiopia and Eritrea staged a short-lived border war, finally forging a peace treaty in 2018. Last year fighting erupted between the Ethiopian government and local security forces in the Tigray region, which long had dominated the country’s politics. Eritrea joined Ethiopia and the fighting continues. (The relationship between Addis Ababa and Asmara is complicated, but Ethiopia has enabled Eritrea’s atrocious Afwerki regime to escape what had been well-deserved diplomatic isolation.)
The conflict is largely unknown to the American republic. However, it is a true humanitarian horror. Alas, US efforts to halt hostilities have proved unavailing.
The Washington Post recently detailed the many offenses committed by the parties. For instance, Eritrean forces “have committed among the war’s worst atrocities, including civilian massacres and rapes meant to be so violent they render victims infertile. In its sanctions announcement, the Treasury Department said that Eritrean defense forces have gone house-to-house in search of Tigrayan families to evict and men and boys to execute. Those who survive must leave behind dead loved ones or face execution.”
Although Addis Ababa is slightly less repressive – only South Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan reach Eritrea’s depths, according to Freedom House – Ethiopia’s “troops have committed many of the crimes for which the United States is sanctioning Eritrea. Amnesty International reports that Ethiopian government forces and allied militias have also weaponized rape. Ethiopian soldiers have forced Tigrayan women into sexual slavery, engaged in gang rapes and targeted Tigrayan women fleeing to neighboring Sudan.”
Lest you decide to toss in your lot with Tigray, however, its forces seem no less cruel. Explained the Post: “civilians fleeing the conflict are accusing Tigrayan forces of committing a range of atrocities, including door-to-door executions, as they have widened the conflict beyond the borders of their own region. Displaced people blame Tigrayan troops for ‘killings, widespread looting and the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas,’ Agence France-Presse reported.”
This is a terrible conflict and utterly wrong for all concerned. Of course, the combat should end. But what can the US do?
The Biden administration has not been silent. The Atlantic Council’s Cameron Hudson allowed: “In fairness to President Joe Biden’s administration, its efforts have not been half-hearted. The White House has doubled down on diplomatic engagement by appointing veteran diplomat Jeffrey Feltman as the first-ever special envoy to the region, while also dispatching Cabinet secretaries, cajoling a reluctant U.N. Security Council to speak up, and corralling like-minded allies to keep the up the diplomatic pressure.”
However, the result, which should surprise no one, was zilch. If countries and regions are willing to accept the high cost of going to war, why should we expect “diplomatic pressure” to halt the fighting? It’s worth making the effort, but that is likely to have an impact only if all parties are reluctant combatants or fear losing. Neither apparently is the case here. Unsurprisingly, then, Hudson worried that the administration relied too long on diplomacy: “Now, as the death toll continues to mount and more recruits join the fray, its delay in utilizing those measures is beginning to undermine its credibility.”
He suggested applying Magnitsky Act sanctions against human rights abusers. He also urged Washington to “sanction a wider range of individuals and entities. Potential targets could include individuals who are intentionally blocking humanitarian aid shipments; those using social media and other information platforms to incite violence and foment hate; and anyone seeking to undermine diplomatic efforts to achieve a cease-fire and long-term political settlement.”
No doubt, such penalties would inconvenience the guilty. However, they would do little to change government policy. Local elites typically are more committed to the regime than to foreign visas and bank accounts.
Moreover, Hudson advocated a formal ban on arms sales, a sensible step, though sometimes doing so has disproportionate and perverse impacts on combatants. With Ethiopia continuing to purchase weapons from such countries as Iran and Turkey, a unilateral prohibition would have only limited impact, causing him to call for a UN embargo, which would require Chinese and Russian acquiescence, no sure bet.
Avoiding the quagmire of secondary and financial sanctions, by which the US penalizes other nations’ individuals and companies, Hudson advocated targeting local firms involved in the war effort, such as Ethiopian Airlines and the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia. Hudson argued that “stiff sanctions against them could curtail the government’s ability to make war and push the companies’ executives to use their own influence over [Prime Minister] Abiy to pursue peace.” These steps would damage national prestige and marginally weaken Ethiopia’s war-making ability, but businessmen would remain unlikely to challenge their authoritarian political leaders. The war almost certainly would continue.
Indeed, when have economic penalties caused governments to yield what they consider to be vital security or political interests? The Trump administration increased sanctions on a gaggle of states, some serious enough to be termed “maximum pressure.” However, the result was a complete bust. Although China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela all felt varying degrees of pain, none changed their policies as a result.
Even the Washington Post, which ran an editorial urging the Biden administration to Do Something!, acknowledged a sense of futility: “US sanctions against Eritrea probably will not force Eritrean troops out of the conflict. The United Nations sanctioned Eritrea for nine years, in part for refusing to withdraw troops from neighboring Djibouti, and the country did not relent. But they should be a warning shot, signaling to Ethiopia’s government and to Tigrayan forces that the world is watching this horrific war – and that the United States will act. The United States should use whatever leverage it has not only to end human rights abuses but also to force both sides to the bargaining table.”
This is a terribly unserious argument from a supposedly serious publication. Today the world is not watching and certainly is not acting, at least in ways that do much more than irritate Ethiopia and Eritrea. To grandly intone that “the United States will act” commits it to do so. But how? Surely not military action. Financial sanctions, to isolate the two governments from the world economy, would raise hackles across Europe, China, and Russia which have tired of American overreach wherever Washington sought to conscript the world for its political priorities. Anyway, near total sanctions were imposed on Sudan, but did not halt the fighting in Darfur and elsewhere.
Moreover, there is a downside to such measures. Admitted Hudson: “Critics may argue that the punitive measures outlined here would disproportionally harm the Ethiopian government, further imperil bilateral relations, diminish American influence and drive Addis Ababa deeper into the clutches of Tehran, Moscow and Beijing.” Such has been the case in the past; for example, Beijing gained economic influence in Burma and Sudan when both were under sanctions by the West.
Hudson expressed hope to counter the appeal of China and other states: “this is precisely why the use of tough sanctions must be accompanied by a continued commitment to diplomacy and dialogue, as well as an articulation of the conditions necessary for these sanctions to be removed.” However, if Addis Ababa and Asmara are determined to prosecute the war and can receive many of the same economic benefits from other countries, they are unlikely to go with US commitments and articulations.
The ongoing conflict in the Horn of Africa is horrendous. However, the US has little leverage over the contending parties. Long ago President George H.W. Bush proclaimed “that what we say goes,” delusional hubris that wasn’t even true then. It certainly isn’t true today. American policymakers must come to terms with the fact that the US is a hyperpower no longer.
Washington should work with European and African states to press for an end to the battle over Tigray, as well as greater freedom in Ethiopia and especially Eritrea. The US also should look for support in unusual places. Moscow and Beijing might be willing to cooperate to promote stability in the Horn of Africa for economic reasons even if they are less concerned about the ongoing human carnage.
However, Washington is likely to be most effective if it moderates its ambitions. US hubris doesn’t have a good track record of late, even when deployed with the best humanitarian intentions. These days what we say increasingly goes nowhere.
