Your attention to Ethiopia is welcome, but your editorial (8 October) presents an incomplete account of the crisis, framing Ethiopia’s national interests as sources of regional instability while insufficiently examining the actions of other actors.
The opening reference to the Nobel peace prize is particularly telling. By suggesting that the committee will hope its next choice “ages better than 2019’s”, the editorial invites readers to question Abiy Ahmed’s award because of the war that followed a year later. Yet the prime minister received the prize for his efforts to achieve peace with Eritrea. The subsequent war in Tigray does not erase that achievement or, by itself, establish that the award was undeserved.
Describing the rapprochement with Eritrea as having “facilitated a war with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front” implies causation without adequately explaining the evidence. Likewise, claiming Mr Abiy’s coalition is “held together by his patronage” reduces political support to personal favours without establishing that this is what sustains it.
More seriously, the editorial overlooks the broader context of Eritrean aggression. The current crisis must also be understood in the context of an Eritrean foreign policy that, from Ethiopia’s perspective, has treated a weak Ethiopia as serving Eritrea’s interests.
The call for a truce also fails to address responsibility for renewed hostilities. Dialogue is welcome, but it must not reward armed aggression with political leverage or pressure Ethiopia into concessions. Ethiopia’s pursuit of Red Sea access and its right to develop the Nile’s resources should not be portrayed as threats simply because they challenge neighbouring states’ preferences.
Whether or not Eritrea’s strategic value to Washington explains its approach, that should not eclipse the consequences of its actions for Ethiopia’s sovereignty and security.
Biruk Mekonnen
Ethiopian ambassador to the UK
