A Peacemaker, Who Might Oversee the Collapse of His Own Country

By Max Lyster
Staff Writer

In October, Abiy Ahmed, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, won the Nobel Peace Prize 2019. It might have been the case that many people were perplexed by this surprising announcement because they simply had no idea who Ahmed was. On closer inspection, it is clear why he won the prestigious award: being a fighter for democracy, human rights and peace.

Abiy Ahmed came to power in April 2018, inheriting a country that has long been plagued by ethnic violence, authoritarian practices and a decades-long war with its neighbor to the north, Eritrea. But Ahmed was determined to fix his country, and immediately brought about much-needed reforms aimed at promoting democracy, human rights, and economic prosperity. 

Within months of becoming Prime Minister, Ahmed ended the war with Eritrea. The two countries had been at war for twenty years over competing claims to the border town of Badme — a city with no strategic importance or valuable resources. The war turned from a petty dispute to a bloodbath with 100,000 people dying in just two years of fighting. The two countries signed a peace agreement in 2000 and a border commission was appointed to decide the fate of Badme — which was awarded to Eritrea in 2002. However, Ethiopia never recognized the commission’s decision, leading to nearly twenty years of intermittent border skirmishes and tensions between the two countries. Two months after being elected, Ahmed announced that he would honor the commission’s decision and so now the two countries have finally agreed to end the bitter war. The newfound peace has created new economic ties, spurring economic growth in both countries. The two countries had consistently opposed each other on nearly everything, including the war in neighboring Somalia, as Eritrea backed Islamist fighters, while Ethiopia supported the internationally recognized government. The newfound peace will not only bring stability to Ethiopia and Eritrea, but to the entire region, hopefully spurring economic development and stability in the Horn of Africa at large. 

In addition to ending the war with Eritrea, Ahmed has introduced many reforms in order to open up Ethiopian society. He fired incompetent bureaucrats, lifted bans on certain newspapers and websites, freed tens of thousands of political prisoners, partially privatized inefficient state-owned companies, ended a controversial state of emergency used to crack down on protestors, appointed women to his cabinet, fired the head of the prison system and shut down the infamous Maekelawi jail, a symbol of authoritarianism and torture. All of these reforms came within less than a year and a half since Ahmed came to power. Ahmed has made incredible progress in democratizing Ethiopia and fostering the beginnings of a society that respects human rights and civil liberties.

For these reasons, its clear to see why Ahmed won the Nobel Peace Prize back in October. However, today the country has been driven to the verge of collapse while Ahmed no longer seems to be the reformer the world thought he was.

By no longer cracking down on political opponents and allowing more freedom of speech, Ahmed has opened a pandora’s box. Ethnic groups that have been mistreated and silenced by previous dictators are releasing decades worth of anger and strife aimed squarely at Ahmed. This boiling over of tensions has led to renewed ethnic conflict and violence. In July, there was a coup attempt that left the president of the Amhara ethnic region and several military officers dead. In October, protests against Ahmed’s government led to the death of nearly 70 people; which was made worse by the fact that he was in Russia and said nothing about the protests. Ahmed has lost the support of many of those in his Oromo ethnic group after a very influential Oromo activist and media mogul, Jawar Mohammed, claimed Ahmed and his security forces tried to assassinate him. Meanwhile, he has failed to denounce an Oromo ethno-nationalist movement, prompting other ethnic groups to claim Ahmed is favoring Oromos in his government. Lastly, the Tigrayan ethnic group that long-held power in Ethiopia, but makes up only 6% of the population, is supporting ethno-nationalist movements across the country to destabilize the country and Ahmed’s government. 

The growing chaos in the country has led to some disturbing, autocratic decisions by Ahmed and his government. Ahmed has threatened to silence media outlets that are “sowing unrest” in Ethiopia, conducted mass arrests of political opponents and shut down the internet, while claims of torture are coming out of the country’s prisons. 

The growing unrest and subsequent crackdown by Ahmed has led many to claim there is a serious risk of state collapse in Ethiopia. If Ethiopia is to fail, there would be serious consequences in the Horn of Africa and the West. 

Within the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia is the main guarantor of stability, as it is surrounded by failed states and dictatorships like Somalia, Sudan, and Eritrea. Ethiopia’s collapse could lead to an unprecedented economic downturn and only perpetuate the instability in the region. Ethiopia’s fate has a large impact on neighboring Sudan and protests there fighting for democratic reforms. Murithi Mutiga, the Horn of Africa director for the International Crisis Group, explains that protesters in Sudan are looking at Ahmed, and if his attempts at democracy fail, it will “embolden the forces that really believe in increasing authoritarianism which have been ascendant in the Horn of Africa.”

In addition, Ethiopia now has one of the world’s largest displaced populations, with over 3 million people being uprooted from their homes because of the growing ethnic violence. Ethiopia is also home to thousands of refugees from Somalia, Sudan and Eritrea. State collapse in Ethiopia, a country of over 100 million and home to thousands of other refugees, could lead to a humanitarian crisis. Europe and the U.S. would likely see a large influx of migrants from Ethiopia and the rest of the Horn of Africa, with both areas already reluctant to taking in more refugees as it stands today. 

The U.S, the UK and the E.U. should be doing all in their power to urge Ahmed to continue democratization and implore him to engage in efforts to reduce the growing ethnic violence in his country. Ahmed is starting to stumble down a slippery slope towards autocracy, while the threat of state collapse looms large in Ethiopia. The West praised Ahmed and awarded him with a Nobel Peace Prize. It is time for the West to get more involved in Ethiopia, and ensure Ahmed stays true to his early reforms and intentions. The world must push Ahmed to ensure the people of Ethiopia are safe in their country and have their rights protected. If not, the country of Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa may plunge into catastrophic violence and instability, putting hundreds of millions of people at risk. It’s time for the world to take Ethiopia seriously.

*Photos are disseminated by Abiy Ahmed’s Office and are public domain images. The pictures are “free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.”

BLOG: WHY MALALA YOUSAFZAI DID NOT WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

By Joe Armenta
Senior Editor

Just over a month ago I was sitting at the front desk of a local Congressman’s district office fielding phone calls from angry constituents who felt the need to take part in the democratic process by yelling at an intern about their disapproval of the potential military intervention in Syria. Today, however, some of the same people are frustrated with the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s recent decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)—a key player that helped craft a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

On Friday, when the Committee announced its decision, media outlets and everyday individuals immediately lambasted the declaration, feeling that it bypassed a much more deserving individual. Among the nominees for the prize was 16-year-old Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, who survived an attempted assassination by a Taliban fighter in October 2012.

Since the attempt on her life, Malala has become an international icon for girls’ education throughout the world. In a speech at the United Nations, Malala said, “today I am focusing on women’s rights and girls’ education because they are suffering the most. There was a time when women social activists asked men to stand up for their rights. But, this time, we will do it by ourselves. I am not telling men to step away from speaking for women’s rights rather I am focusing on women to be independent to fight for themselves.”

Malala’s fight for education equality is certainly commendable. There are few words to describe how inspirational her quest for change in the region has been; however, her struggle is not worthy of the Peace Prize.

Malala is a social revolutionary—one bent on shattering the walls of the establishment by challenging people in power. While the tactics she uses are peaceful, she is engaging in an entrenched political battle rooted in regional conflict. To us Westerners, the challenge for girls’ education in itself is just and admirable; but we need to recognize that her battle is encouraging further conflict, not peace.

This is not to say that she should stop her battle, but rather to recognize the true notion of peace. Peace is far less sexy than Malala’s fight. It’s decided over long conversations in crowded conference rooms whereby stakeholders hash out negotiations on how to divide their spoils in a way that does not lead to humans massacring one another. The Peace Prize is bestowed to encourage this process and recognize its importance.

Herein lies the OPCW. Just over two months ago the United States was on the verge of military intervention in civil war-plagued Syria. After two years of fighting in the country, President Bashr al-Assad deployed chemical weapons on civilian populations in a Damascus suburb. This crossed the red line previously laid out by President Barack Obama, who quickly asked Congress to craft legislation allowing for airstrikes on Syrian chemical stockpiles.

Many analysts denounced this action, calling it an act of war detrimental to regional stability in the Middle East. The attacks, they said, would lead to further death and instability similar to that experienced in the 2003 Iraq War. While Congress shied away from the issue, by late September, it looked as if the United States was going to attack.

Peace was only achieved through the OPCW, which diligently worked with all sides of the conflict to hash out a deal that prevented an invasion. In it, Syria promised to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1925 treaty and agreed to abandon its chemical weapons stockpile. In return, the United States agreed to forgo military intervention. In doing so, the organization helped prevent international conflict and added Syria to the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.

Is there a war still waging in Syria? Of course. But with the help of the OPCW, a broader conflict was avoided and the Assad regime was forced to comply to international standards of war. This is certainly worthy of the Peace Prize.

Image by United Nations Information Centres