Why is Ethiopia's Tigray again on the brink of conflict?
ADDIS ABABA: More than two years after a peace deal ended the devastating war in Ethiopia's Tigray region, a power struggle within the once-dominant TPLF party has sparked fears of renewed conflict.
Could these rising tensions lead to violence so soon after one of the century's deadliest conflicts that killed an estimated 600,000 people?
The Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) ran the whole of Ethiopia for nearly three decades until Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, a non-Tigrayan, took power in 2018.
His takeover led to months of tension with the TPLF leadership, eventually leading Abiy to send troops to Tigray in November 2020, accusing their forces of attacking federal army camps.
This triggered two years of horrific war between Tigrayan rebels and government forces backed by militias and Eritrean troops. It finally ended with a November 2022 peace treaty, known as the Pretoria Agreement.
A new interim administration was created in Tigray with TPLF veteran Getachew Reda in charge, though overseen by the federal government.
But divisions have emerged in recent months between Getachew and the TPLF's leader, Debretsion Gebremichael.
Getachew faces criticism over delays in implementing the peace deal — particularly the failure to expel Eritrean forces who supported the federal government against the Tigrayans, and return the million people displaced by the war.
The Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) had previously stayed neutral in the Getachew-Debretsion dispute.
But in January, a dissident group within the TDF accused Getachew's administration of undermining 'the Tigrayan people's national interest and engaging in treason.'
One foreign expert, who did not want to be named, estimated around 200 commanders supported the letter.
Getachew described it as declaring 'a coup d'etat.'
In early March, he attempted to suspend three TDF generals and accused Debretsion's faction of trying to 'take over the whole of Tigray.'
This week, Debretsion's forces took control of the municipalities in state capital Mekele and second city Adigrat, putting their own mayors in place.
Many residents, already deeply weary of war, are panicking over the threat of renewed conflict with reports of bank runs and sold-out flights.
Getachew has asked for assistance from the federal government in Addis Ababa, though he said this should not be military in nature.
The federal government has not responded publicly.
There is concern in Addis Ababa that Eritrea, its historic rival that gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, will exploit the unrest.
Eritrea's rhetoric has been increasingly bellicose. Last month, its information minister accused Ethiopia of 'waging an intense and unacceptable campaign against Eritrea' and committing 'malicious provocations.'
A security source told AFP on condition of anonymity that armed Ethiopian convoys were heading toward the region of Afar, which borders Eritrea, in recent days.
Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki's dissatisfaction with the 2022 peace agreement, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's ambitions for a Red Sea port and geopolitical interest from the Middle East have fueled the deteriorating tensions, said Kjetil Tronvoll, Oslo University professor specializing in the region.
That has left the 'two countries inching closer to a new war,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
3 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
DELHI — In the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the state of emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country — not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralized state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system — one that would centralize executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy — even if it never fully materialized. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system, the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president — freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France — concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights — right to equality or freedom of speech, for example — of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have a two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted — was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" — effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognized it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallized into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralized executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend the President's Rule — direct federal rule — from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint — a powerful executive, marginalized judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defense Minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party — a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces — moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy — especially after 1967 — grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallized into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design — most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance — even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. — BBC
Saudi Gazette
17-05-2025
- Saudi Gazette
UK signals potential youth mobility deal with EU
LONDON — Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that a youth mobility scheme could be part of a new UK–EU agreement, in what would mark a significant step toward expanding post-Brexit ties without restoring full freedom of movement. Speaking to The Times ahead of a key UK–EU summit set for Monday at Lancaster House, Starmer emphasized that any scheme would be reciprocal and limited in scope, allowing young people to live and work abroad for a fixed period — potentially up to two years. He stressed it would not amount to a return to pre-Brexit arrangements. 'We have a red line in our manifesto about freedom of movement,' Starmer said. 'Youth mobility is not freedom of movement.' Although details such as age eligibility or quotas have yet to be finalized, the proposal would mirror similar schemes the UK already holds with countries like Australia and Canada. The UK currently offers visas for young nationals from 12 non-EU countries, including South Korea and Japan, with capped quotas and time limits. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticized the proposal, calling it 'free movement through the back door,' while Reform UK warned it could open the door to a broader EU migration return. Still, government officials argue that such arrangements would provide much-needed labor in sectors like hospitality and healthcare, particularly in London. Mayor Sadiq Khan said a mobility scheme could 'put rocket boosters up businesses,' especially those facing acute staff shortages. European relations minister Nick Thomas-Symonds last week confirmed that the government was 'actively considering' the proposal as part of a broader partnership package with the EU. He described it as a 'smart, controlled' step that could benefit both British and European youth. The upcoming summit — the first high-level gathering since Brexit — will also touch on broader trade issues and fishing rights. While the agreement expected Monday will only be 'in principle,' Starmer described the talks as a 'really significant moment' to boost UK living standards and economic opportunities. — BBC
Saudi Gazette
06-05-2025
- Saudi Gazette
Top UN court rejects Sudan's bid to sue UAE for genocide
THE HAGUE — The UN's top court has dismissed Sudan's case against the UAE accusing the Gulf state of complicity in genocide. Sudan alleged the UAE supported the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the Sudanese civil war, in which tens of thousands of people have died, forced millions from their homes and left many facing famine. The UAE categorically denied the accusations, branding the case "political theatre" and "a cynical publicity stunt". The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the case could not proceed because the UAE had opted out Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which means that it cannot be sued by other states over genocide allegations. The court said that it lacked jurisdiction and was therefore "precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan". The case was thrown out in a 14-2 vote. Sudan case had claimed that the UAE's alleged military, financial and logistical backing of the RSF — including weapons shipments and mercenary recruitment — enabled systematic attacks against non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit, in Darfur. The allegations included mass killings, forced displacement and the use of sexual violence as a weapon. Reem Ketait, the UAE's deputy assistant minister for political affairs, said the court's decision was "clear and decisive". "The international community must focus urgently on ending this devastating war and supporting the Sudanese people, and it must demand humanitarian aid reaches all those in need," she said. Both the Sudanese army and the RSF have been accused of committing atrocities, including ethnically targeted killings, obstruction of humanitarian relief and looting. Sudan's case at the ICJ was unusual because it targeted an alleged sponsor of atrocities, not the direct perpetrators. The case was seen as a test of whether states can be held responsible for fuelling atrocities abroad. While the ICJ's judges found they did not have the power to rule in the case, it nevertheless serves as a powerful illustration of how international courts are becoming diplomatic battlegrounds. — BBC
