Ethiopia Cannot Afford Another
Disaster
15 June, 2026
Ermias Amare
ETHIOPIAN SEMAY
photo: African Union High Representative for the Horn of
Africa, Olusegun Obasanjo, meets Tigrayan political leaders, including
Debretsion Gebremichael, in Mekelle amid growing concerns over renewed
tensions. 11 June 2026.
Ethiopia
Cannot Afford Another Disaster
I do not live politics. It has never been a priority in my
life. But no one can truly escape it.
Politics is a double-edged sword: if you stay away, you risk being
governed without a voice; if you engage, you become accountable to the public.
For some time now, I have chosen to step back from commenting
on Ethiopian politics. The constant churn of competing agendas makes it
exhausting to react to every new development. In that distance, I found
clarity, more time with family, greater focus on work, and even the simple
satisfaction of tending my yard and watching new grass grow.
Yet one truth persists: it is impossible for me to remain
indifferent to Ethiopia, especially Tigray, the place I come from. Silence, in
this case, feels less like neutrality and more like absence. The two-year
conflict that ended with the Pretoria Agreement was, in many ways, a Pyrrhic
victory. While it brought a cessation of large-scale hostilities, the cost—in
human lives, social fabric, displacement, trauma, and economic devastation—far
outweighed any political gains. It will likely stand as one of the most
needless and tragic wars in modern Ethiopian history. And yet, the lesson
remains fragile.
If we become nonchalant—if we normalize brinkmanship, ignore
warning signs, and treat political escalation as a routine bargaining tool we
risk sliding back into another devastating conflict.
The consequences of such a relapse would not be contained
within Tigray or Ethiopia. They could destabilize the wider region and create
another cycle of suffering, paid for by ordinary citizens rather than the
leaders who miscalculate.
Peace Deficit
There appears to be a shared reality across the country:
people are exhausted by war. But fatigue alone does not produce peace. Both
sides remain uncertain about how to move beyond the narratives that sustained
the conflict. It is easier to mobilize people through fear than to persuade
them toward compromise.
Declaring peace, a strategic choice requires courage and
statesmanship. It demands leaders willing to absorb political costs in exchange
for long-term stability. That kind of leadership is urgently needed.
Recent diplomatic engagements, including the visit of
international envoys led by Olusegun Obasanjo to Mekelle to discuss conflict
prevention and the implementation of the Pretoria Agreement, suggest that
concerns about renewed hostilities are being taken seriously by a range of
stakeholders.
Assigning blame at this stage offers little value. Both the federal government and the TPLF bear responsibility for the slow and incomplete implementation of the Pretoria Agreement.
Years after the Pretoria Agreement, ordinary citizens
continue to pay the price of Ethiopia’s unresolved crises. Tigrayans remain
trapped in prolonged uncertainty, displacement, and economic stagnation, while
many Ethiopians across the country are increasingly disillusioned by persistent
insecurity, political fragmentation, and the lack of meaningful progress toward
national reconciliation.
If there is one lesson we should have learned, it is this:
propaganda cannot permanently replace legitimacy. No government can sever its
relationship with the people it governs and expect lasting stability.
Likewise, no political movement can remain trapped in wartime
thinking while claiming to prepare its people for peace.
Politics-Dangerous Signals
Recent developments only heighten concern. The Prosperity
Party’s landslide electoral victory consolidated power, but consolidation of
power is not the same as consolidation of legitimacy.
Critics have described Ethiopia’s current political order as
electoral authoritarianism, one in which elections are held, but meaningful
competition and political space remain constrained.
At the same time, the TPLF’s decision to reinstate its
regional governing structures risks undermining the fragile balance established
by the Pretoria Agreement. Whether intended as administrative restoration,
political signaling, or a response to federal actions, such moves carry
consequences that could reignite tensions.
These developments reflect a deeper pattern: critical decisions are too often made in isolation, without sufficient consensus, inclusion, or regard for long-term consequences.
There is also a tendency among political actors to assume that pressure, brinkmanship, or displays of strength can produce favorable outcomes. Ethiopia’s recent history suggests otherwise. Once escalation begins, events often move beyond the control of those who initiated them, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the consequences.
Such miscalculations may deliver short-term tactical
advantages, but they risk imposing long-term costs on ordinary citizens.
This is where restraint becomes essential. Before any side
takes bold or experimental steps, it must ask a basic question: who will pay
the price if this fails?
History has already answered that question. It is rarely the
political elite. It is the farmer, the student, the mother, the displaced
family, the business owner, and the young generation asked to inherit the
ruins.
Wider Conflict
It is increasingly clear that this conflict cannot be
understood—or resolved—as a binary struggle between the federal government and
the TPLF.
Other actors—Eritrea, Fano forces, regional interests, and
various armed groups—have become integral to the conflict’s trajectory.
Ignoring their role is not merely an analytical oversight; it is a strategic
mistake.
The risk today extends beyond the relationship between the federal government and the TPLF. Regional rivalries, neighboring states, and non-state armed actors have all become intertwined with Ethiopia’s internal dynamics. Any future conflict would likely be more complex, less predictable, and far more difficult to contain than many assume.
The number of stakeholders has expanded. Any meaningful path to peace must expand with it. A narrow agreement between two actors may pause a conflict, but it cannot resolve a crisis if other armed and political forces remain outside the process.
This time, the table must be wider. The conversation must be
more honest. The objective should not be to humiliate one side or rescue
another, but to prevent another national tragedy.
No Alternative
The idea that a lasting resolution can be achieved through military means has already been tested and disproven at great cost. The previous war should have settled a difficult but important question: military victories do not automatically translate into political solutions. Even when battlefield objectives are achieved, the social, economic, and humanitarian damage can leave societies weaker, more divided, and less stable than before.
Politics
Those who view renewed conflict as a path toward security,
influence, territorial ambitions, or political leverage should consider whether
any potential gains could outweigh the costs already paid by millions of
Ethiopians during the last war.
Continuing down that path will only deepen suffering and
delay recovery. Extremist ambitions whether framed as disintegration, de facto
statehood, access to Assab, territorial expansion, or revenge offer no
sustainable future. They may excite the most radical voices, but they do not
feed families, rebuild towns, return the displaced, or heal a broken society.
What is required is a genuinely inclusive political process, one that goes beyond symbolic agreements and brings all relevant actors to the table with a shared commitment to stability.
Peace should not be treated as a slogan. It must be designed,
negotiated, implemented, monitored, and protected.
Final Appeal
I neither support nor condemn any party in this conflict.
That is not the purpose of this reflection.
My aim is to offer a simple but urgent reminder: political
miscalculations are not abstract. They carry real and often irreversible
consequences for millions of people.
Before taking bold or experimental steps, leaders must
consider not only their immediate objectives but also the broader impact of
their actions. They must invite dialogue, widen participation, and prioritize
the collective interest over narrow gains.
Ethiopia cannot afford another Pyrrhic victory.
Before advocating escalation, leaders and political movements
should be prepared to answer a simple question: what outcome could possibly
justify another cycle of displacement, loss, and destruction? If that question
cannot be answered convincingly, then restraint becomes a moral responsibility.
Peace is a deliberate and strategic choice. And today, it is
the only choice that can prevent history from repeating itself, at an even
greater cost. While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia
Insight will correct factual errors.
Ermias Amare
Ermias is an Ethiopian-American architect and Senior Planner
who lives in New Jersey. e.amare@gmail.com
or followed on Twitter @ErmyH_NYCPolitics
No comments:
Post a Comment