In 2018, Abiy Ahmed became Ethiopia’s Prime Minister and the embodiment of hope for the East African region. In 2019, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for reaching a peace treaty with Eritrea that ended 20 years of violent conflict. The international community was dazzled. One year later, developments in Ethiopia do not look as rosy. In midst of a civil war, the Ahmed administration now faces military confrontations with forces loyal to the political leadership in the northern Tigray region that could potentially destabilise the entire Eastern African region. Was this
foreseeable? And if so, has the Norwegian Nobel Committee set a wrong example?
“For his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea” – these were the words that made Abiy Ahmed the Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 2019. Rightfully so? – Today, Ethiopia is struggling with a civil war – and it is the Ahmed administration that has brought the country to this point. That, despite all the hopes that had been placed in the energetic, charismatic and rapidly promoted young leader. He seemed to be the turning point in Ethiopian history, someone with the ability to unite the country that had long grappled with ethnic strife. A reformer with both Christian and Muslim background from the Oromo community, Ethiopia’s largest ethnic community that had long complained about marginalisation.
To grasp the conflict that was brewing behind the optimistic headlines, one must look back to when Ahmed took office. The current Prime Minister came to power as part of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a coalition, which had been led by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). In 2019, Ahmed replaced the EPRDF with his Prosperity Party with which the TPLF refused to merge. The TPLF had been the dominant political force in Ethiopia for almost 30 years; its political and military power had given it complete control over Ethiopia’s economy and natural resources. It had long been accused, and rightfully so, of human rights violations and corruption – particularly of fuelling donor aid into military budgets. This had culminated in widespread protests in the Oromia and Amhara regions whose respective parties unexpectedly joined forces in 2018 and broke TPLF-hegemony by electing Ahmed Prime Minister.
Ahmed kicked off massive political and economic reforms, many of which directly threatened TPLF-dominance. He privatised state-owned enterprises, introduced new currency notes to fight corruption, lifted censorship regulations, released thousands of political prisoners and journalists that the TPLF-led government had arrested and
46
brought about balanced ethnic representation in the military and security sector. He signed a peace treaty with Eritrea which, in turn, outraged TPLF-leaders. An assassination attempt against Ahmed followed in June 2018, initiated by a former TPLF security chief, dismissed by Ahmed, who fled to the Tigray region and has not been handed over since. Meanwhile, deadly ethnic-based conflicts in all regions (except for the Tigray-region) have increased and are said to be financed by TPLF-leaders.
The conflict peaked in September 2020, when the Ahmed administration postponed federal elections due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the region of Tigray, defying the government ban, held its own parliamentary election. Since then, Addis Ababa and Tigray have accused each other of being illegal administrations. The situation further escalated: The TPLF was accused of attacking a governmental military base in the Tigray region and killing and injuring several soldiers. Ahmed called this attack the “crossing of a red line” and issued an ultimatum for the TPLF to surrender. Military confrontation began after its passing and have continued since. Meanwhile, human
rights organisations are speaking of massacres with hundreds of civilian casualties and missiles fired from the Northern Tigray-region across the Eritrean border. Thousands of refugees have already entered neighbouring Sudan. Ahmed surely has not delivered the swift and surgical military campaign he promised.
To put it bluntly, one could have seen this coming. The long-standing conflict between the TPLF and Eritrea which arose over a territory dispute, that has still not been resolved, persists. The Eritrean regime, in turn, had been supporting Ethiopian opposition groups for years, many of whom were Oromo. Ahmed, from the Oromo- community himself, antagonised the TPLF consequently when signing the peace treaty and the TPLF refused to accept the treaty as such. Admittedly, the peace treaty significantly decreased the casualties due to the border conflict. However, fighting continues between Eritrean and TPLF-led forces. Thus, the uncomfortable truth is that the peace treaty is jointly responsible for violent conflicts within Ethiopia today – because it has resolved no tensions in the region at all.
Doubtlessly, it is easy to criticise the Ahmed administration today. And this is precisely what is being done. The media is swamped with headlines about the “Nobel Peace Prize-winning bomber-jacket-Abiy.”
Was it wrong to sign a peace treaty although regional tensions had not been resolved? – Surely not if it minimized casualties significantly.
66
Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize can be equated with receiving backing from the “Western World” – or even as “a call for action” as Obama phrased it in 2009 (It surely is questionable whether he lived up to it.). However, a peace treaty is always signed by two parties and, in this case, one party is a draconian, authoritarian regime. Upholding the agreement in this way, thus, undermines living conditions of hundreds of thousands Eritrean refugees and people in Eritrea where draconian policies, that had been justified by the border war, persist. This is not to criticise Ahmed for seeking the peace agreement. However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee could have rather backed his domestic reforms instead, for they are, considering Ahmed’s background, much more revolutionary.
Still, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has not set a wrong example by putting Ahmed on the pedestal. The truth is that a militarily strong and hegemonic party will rarely cede its power to a rival without any backlash. Rooting out corruption and paving the way for democracy certainly is a precarious undertaking. The Covid-19 pandemic, as always, only added fuel to the tensions. Postponing elections is a highly sensitive move in a young democracy whose prime minister committed himself to free and fair elections as well as to strict term limits. Conditions for the Ahmed administration were and are everything but easy.
In the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia is the centre of gravity. Hopes were high that the country would give rise to a new era of stability and development. Backing Abiy’s effort to curb hostilities by the international community may still have important spill over effects. And if elections in post-corona Ethiopia are free and fair, the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly deserved. For now, we can only hope that the pacific aspirations Ahmed voiced in 2018 will lead to yet another turning point in current developments and finally bring peace to the country. I am certain no Nobel Peace Prize laureate would want to be in his shoes.
Comments