Ethiopia does not come to rest, now the violence in the Amhara region has escalated, just a few months after the painstakingly negotiated peace agreement in Tigray. The Ethiopian government declared a state of emergency in the region in early August, and Washington is concerned that the trouble spot needs to be resolved before another major war breaks out. The conflict in Amhara could develop even more explosive force for the cohesion of Ethiopia than the war in Tigray, which probably cost the lives of 600,000 people. The most important questions and answers about the escalation in north-west Ethiopia.
What is the significance of Amhara for the multi-ethnic state?
The region is located in the highlands, north of the capital Addis Ababa. It forms the core area of the former empire, the historical legacy is still visible in many places, for example in the old imperial city of Gondar or in the pilgrimage site of Lalibela, with its famous rock churches. The Amharic people make up more than a quarter of the total population, most of whom are Orthodox Christians. In the times of feudal rule, until the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974, the Amhara were the state-supporting people of Ethiopia.
The communist regime of the dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam smashed the old order, but the Amhara were able to retain some of their influence. With the victory of opposition rebels over the tyrant in 1991, however, forces from the Tigray people in particular then occupied important positions in the state. They, in turn, found themselves disempowered almost three decades later when the new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power. He has roots in the Oromia and Amhara regions and broke the Tigray monopoly. In the meantime, Oromos are also increasingly occupying important posts, for example in the security sector.
At first, Abiy showed great zeal for reform, he pursued reconciliation with Eritrea, announced that he would lead Ethiopia into a better era; there should be more justice and less repression; he released political prisoners. On the one hand, his project created high expectations, on the other hand, it also fueled uncertainty and fears. Abiy’s ambitious vision for the country fell apart with the war against the breakaway province of Tigray, which borders Amhara. For experts it is undisputed that Ethiopia can only survive as a federal state if the rival ethnic groups – above all the Oromo, Amhara and Tigray – are integrated peacefully. Otherwise, the country, which is now home to around 120 million people, threatens to collapse.
How does the current conflict in Amhara relate to the war in Tigray, which ended in November?
In the war against the breakaway province of Tigray, the Ethiopian army under the supreme command of Abiys was dependent on special forces and militias from Amhara. Together they fought against the separatists in northern Tigray. After the peace agreement, the prime minister is now trying to integrate paramilitary units and militias – in Amhara they are called Fano – into the overall Ethiopian armed forces. This meets with strong resistance from some Amharen, they want to control their regional armies themselves, because otherwise they do not feel safe. They are reinforced in this feeling because Amharic minorities in other areas of Ethiopia have repeatedly been subjected to attacks and persecution.
The conflict in Amhara initially led to unrest and eventually escalated militarily. Amharic sources accuse the government army of marauding Amhara after withdrawing from Tigray, and the number of displaced people is growing. Abiy’s government, in turn, warns of extremist elements that threaten Ethiopia’s future. At the beginning of August, the government reported that it had lost control of several cities, and eyewitnesses confirmed shootings in numerous places. Rebels even occupied Lalibelo airport, which is used by tourists to visit cultural treasures. A suspected drone strike a few days ago killed at least 26 people, but the government that commands Ethiopia’s air force has remained silent.
Amharic militia fighters.
(Photo: Eduardo Soteras/AFP)
In the meantime, after days of fighting, the government army seems to have regained some places, and the insurgents have apparently retreated to the countryside. The Fano militias do not have heavy weapons, they organize themselves in a decentralized manner, often to protect the local community.
What complicates a solution to the conflict?
In the war against the insurgents of Tigray, Amharic fighters initially occupied much fertile land, the affiliation of which is disputed between the two regions. Amharen say they just took what was always theirs. Many Tigray were expelled from the western areas of their province or killed during the war, prompting the US to accuse Amharic fighters of “ethnic cleansing”. Later, Tigrayan troops fought back and partly advanced to Amhara. There have been many victims and extreme violence on both sides, often against women. The excesses make reconciliation difficult.
There is now great distrust in Amhara about the consequences of their central government’s peace agreement with Tigray. Many Amhars fear they will have to give back disputed land. General insecurity in Amhara fuels many fears, politicians pick them up and claim that their people have been exposed to “genocidal violence” by the Tigray since the 1990s.
What are the consequences of the clashes between local militias and the army for Ethiopia?
Abiy’s problem is that he is confronted with several trouble spots at the same time. In addition to the military conflicts in Amhara and the land disputes on the border with Tigray, he also has to resolve conflicts in Oromia, a region that is home to the largest people in Ethiopia and where rebels have also been forming for years. It can be observed that ethnic identity is becoming more and more dominant in political disputes. Within the ethnic groups, there are increasing tendencies to define oneself as a separate nation.
The 1994 constitution enshrined an “ethnic federalism” in the state. Now, however, many are wondering whether the model does not reinforce the centrifugal forces that threaten to tear Ethiopia apart. Above all, the question looms as to which form of federalism is still suitable for peacefully uniting the peoples of Ethiopia.
What is at stake internationally?
As the seat of the African Union, Ethiopia is not only symbolically important for the future of the continent. A collapse of the largest country on the Horn of Africa would be catastrophic for economic development. The fight against poverty would also suffer further setbacks in an already fragile zone where wars are already raging in Somalia and Sudan. Without solutions for Ethiopia, migration movements are likely to increase further.