Prospect for Peace in Ethiopia: The Obasanjo Factor

 The High Representative of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission for the Horn of Africa, the former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, issued on 13 November 202 a statement on the prospects of peace in Ethiopia. According to the statement, Mr Obasanjo “have had encouraging meetings with the leaders of Oromia and Amhara regions while I have scheduled to meet with the leadership of Afar region upon my return to Ethiopia. I have also met with leaders across the region including the Presidents of Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, South Sudan, Somalia and the leadership of Sudan” (p.1). These “encouraging meetings” seemed to have convinced the High Representative to be “optimistic that common ground towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict can be secured” (p.1).

 Mr Obasanjo underscored the significance of halting military offensives from both sides and creating opportunities for dialogue. The democratically elected Ethiopian government and the outlawed TPLF are considered in the statement as equally legitimate entities for engaging in dialogues. This proposition has several flaws and hence cannot be considered a just way of approaching the Ethiopian conundrum. Considering the two as equally legit entities is unjustifiable for several reasons and can have wider unwanted ramifications not only for Ethiopia but also for the entire continent of Africa.

One, the TPLF has already wasted golden opportunities to spare itself and its entire entourage from the wrath of the Ethiopian people. Ethiopian politicians including the incumbent PM Abiy, notable individuals, religious leaders, a group of Ethiopian women representing all the mothers of Ethiopians, the Ethiopian military, and even fellow Africans have offered to TPLF, on different occasions, olive branches. The intention of all these efforts was clear, to encourage the TPLF to abandon its defeating thoughts and atrocities so that a ‘safe passage’ is opened for them to leave and live in peace enjoying the fortunes they usurped from the Ethiopian people. Another missed and misused golden opportunity was when the government of Ethiopia unilaterally halted military operations in June 2021. To the bewilderment of the world society, TPLF used that opportunity to declare an all-open war on the people of Ethiopia living in the Afar and Amhara regions. Hence, TPLF as an organization does not deserve another chance for a safe exit.

Two, because of its insistence on and indulgence in aggression, the Ethiopian parliament categorized TPLF as a terrorist organization. Any effort to slip the TPLF through the negotiation table is tantamount to breaching or compromising Ethiopia’s unity, integrity, and stability. TPLF was and is a terrorist organization and should be forever recognized so in Ethiopian history. The AU through the High Representative seems to challenge the political and legal structures and integrity of the Ethiopian government and its people. This will send encouraging messages for terrorist organizations that operate in several countries around the world. If TPLF is unconditionally given the luxury of participating in dialogues, we should also embrace Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other classified organizations.    

Three, because of the TPLF-initiated and sustained war, thousands of innocent lives are lost; thousands of Ethiopians turned handicaps; innocent women and girls are gang raped; millions of Ethiopians are internally displaced; hard-built public property including infrastructure are destroyed; and due to all these, most Ethiopians are psychologically distressed. All these also concern innocent Ethiopians of Tigray origin. The naming and shaming of Ethiopia at the regional and global levels is equally hurting.

In the presence of all these incalculable damages made to humanity, is it fair to consider the TPLF as a credible and fit partner for dialogue? Can we afford to simply ignore all these and happily sit with TPLF in a round table? Could any other country do this if all these devastations were done onto them? And where will be the place of social justice and accountability? It is thus legally and morally absurd to bring TPLF for a dialogue with the Ethiopian government and people.   

Four, assume that the Ethiopian government accepts the High Representative’s insistence to see the government to sit with TPLF for dialogue. Do you think that Ethiopians in the Amhara and Afar regions, who are suffering the most from the brunt of the war, are going to accept the move? Is it really that easy to embrace this idea particularly for those Ethiopians living and suffering in those regions daily? I do not think that the government takes this risky trajectory.

Five, if Ethiopia accepts to make dialogue with TPLF, we are setting bad example for the future. Anyone or a group of disgruntled individuals can draw their AK 47’s against the government, hoping that they can also break a deal of some sort. Including TPLF as an organization in national dialogue simply rewards lawlessness and sends a message that the government is weak and maneuverable. This will in the end check on the integrity of the government and that of Ethiopia as an independent nation. Genuine partners of Ethiopia including the AU are thus advised not to insist on this trajectory. Afterall and as repeatedly expressed by the government, there is a national ambition and plan to initiate and lead national dialogue. The only viable way for all (foreign) partners is to support such Ethiopian-led efforts which normally embody social justice. Any move to the contrary would be counterproductive.      

The best the AU and the High Representative could wish might rather be to hold top TPLF leaders responsible and accountable for their deeds. They should face justice. The rest of TPLF members including ordinary fighters and cadres should be given amnesty should they immediately lay down their arms and ask for amnesty. I do not think that Ethiopia has the capacity and even willingness to prosecute and persecute all that are affiliated to the TPLF organization.  

 In sum, genuine efforts for dialogue and then national reconciliation should underpin an in-depth understanding of the circumstances that led to the war. The AU needs to openly acknowledge that TPLF has started the war and that it has not respected the unilateral cease fire made by the Ethiopian government. It is the TPLF who has penetrated deep into the regional states of Afar and Amhara which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent Ethiopians. Hundreds of innocent lives are lost. Unless the High Representative is crystal clear on these, Ethiopians will continue to be suspicious of his mandate. If a change of perspective is not made, the Obasanjo factor is not going to contribute to solving the ‘equation’. It is simply a rearticulation of the kind of communiques repeatedly made by Western countries and international organizations.

However, it is commendable that Mr Obasanjo calls on “all people of goodwill and leaders in Africa and the international community to continue to support our mediation efforts and to refrain from actions or rhetoric that will, wittingly or unwittingly, worsen the conflict” (p.2). Yes, embassies headquartered in Addis Ababa, Western broadcast and social media, multilateral organizations (the EU and the UN), and Western countries and a few African countries need to refrain from disseminating fake news about Ethiopia. Mounting psychological and political pressure on Ethiopia does not contribute to solving the problem; it simply further complicates it. Above all actors, the AU has a special responsibility to support its founding member, Ethiopia, to overcome its own challenge. This is possible only when the AU distincts itself from Western rhetoric about the situation in Ethiopia. The saying “African solutions to African problems” should be considered the guiding principle for peacemaking efforts in Ethiopia.

 

PS- this article is an appropriation of my own article published at Zehabesha.