The key points are temporarily unavailable. You can still read the full Story below.
Main Points
In a recent editorial published by the Addis Standard, author Gebremichael Negash argues that Eritrea’s independence was the result of a long history of foreign domination, political marginalisation, and failed attempts by successive Ethiopian governments to address Eritrean demands for self‑determination. The piece contends that the separation was not a single decision by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) or the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), but rather the culmination of decades of conflict and repression.
Negash traces Eritrea’s political trajectory from the Ottoman Empire and Egypt to Italian colonisation and the post‑World War II federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia. He notes that the promised autonomy for Eritreans was progressively eroded after the federation was dissolved and Eritrea was incorporated into Ethiopia. The article states that successive Ethiopian administrations used military force to suppress Eritrean aspirations, leading to a protracted armed struggle that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced entire communities.
According to the editorial, the Eritrean independence movement was not an overnight political decision but the outcome of a prolonged conflict and the failure of Ethiopian governments to create a voluntary and equitable union. Negash warns that the same historical patterns—foreign intervention, coercive centralisation, and exclusion—present a danger for Ethiopia’s current relationship with the Tigray region.
The article highlights the ongoing crisis in Tigray, describing the war that began in November 2020 as having caused mass killings, displacement, sexual violence, and the collapse of essential services. It notes that, even after the Pretoria peace agreement, millions of displaced people remain unable to return home and that questions of accountability, territorial administration, and political representation remain unresolved.
Negash argues that a state’s first responsibility is to protect the security and dignity of its citizens. When state institutions fail to do so, the social contract breaks down, leading citizens to view political grievances as questions of collective survival. He suggests that if Tigray is pushed toward a separate political future, this outcome should not be automatically attributed to the ambitions of a single organisation but must be understood as a consequence of exclusion, repression, and collective punishment.
The editorial draws parallels with international examples such as the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the independence of South Sudan, and Singapore’s separation from Malaysia. It stresses that political unity is not maintained by suppressing national, ethnic, or regional identities; instead, repression often strengthens the very forces that central governments seek to defeat.
Negash calls for Ethiopia to build a political order that allows Tigrayans and other peoples to remain within the federation by choice rather than fear. He stresses that Ethiopia’s constitutional framework recognises the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples, including the right to self‑determination, but that these guarantees are meaningful only when implemented in practice. The article concludes that Ethiopia must reject collective punishment, chauvinism, and the use of military force as a substitute for political dialogue, and that a durable Ethiopian state must be built on equal citizenship, accountable institutions, negotiated political settlements, and respect for the rights of all communities.
Editor’s note: Gebremichael Negash is a refugee who was displaced from Western Tigray and is now an active member of Tsilal (ፅላል), a civil society organisation dedicated to the people of Western Tigray. He can be reached at wele63776@gmail.com.
Article and image source: allafrica.com
