When the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) defeated the brutal Ethiopian military regime in 1991 and assumed power in Asmara and Addis Ababa, the people of the region hoped for peace in the Horn of Africa. However, those hopes were soon dashed. Although there were some differences between the former allies, tensions were exacerbated in the border areas. The TPLF’s unilateral redrawing of the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary, with support from the German Development Agency (Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, or GTZ), and subsequent issuance of a new map was a significant factor in the devastating border conflict that ensued. The reasons behind TPLF’s dangerous decision remain unclear even today. Nevertheless, we can explore some possibilities by examining the history of the conflict.
Internal Conflicts Among TPLF Leaders
The primary players in the Eritrea-Ethiopia 1998–2000 border conflict were a faction currently known as the Tsadkan Group, which included Tsadkan Teklehaimanot, Gebru Asrat, Tsegay Berhe, Siye Abraha, and others. This group believed that Eritrea was an obstacle to their ambitions of displacing the former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s faction. Led by Gebru Asrat in Tigray, the TPLF faction worked tirelessly to create a rift between itself and the EPLF to undermine the latter. As a result, the 1998–2000 border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia had both economic and political dimensions, but these were largely orchestrated by certain individuals. Even today, these same individuals are collaborating with the Prosperity Party to dismantle the TPLF and, consequently, XIMDO. They believe that if XIMDO succeeds, their own aspirations for power in Tigray will be thwarted.
Periphery Conflict to Strengthen the Center
Throughout Ethiopian history, those in power have viewed the north as a threat to their rule. Modern Ethiopian leaders, including Menelik, Haile Selassie, the Derg, the TPLF (which led the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, or EPRDF), and the current Prosperity Party, have all engaged in conflicts in Northern Ethiopia. A common strategy used to conduct the war is the divide-and-rule policy. If we focus solely on the current Prosperity Party, we can see its tendency to divide people based on ethnicity, geography, and political ideology, inciting conflict among them. In Ethiopia, conflict has become a mechanism to strengthen the hold on power. The current widespread propaganda pushed by the Prosperity Party against the people of Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea should be viewed in light of this overarching objective.
Western Pressure to Cut Relations with Eritrea
One of Ethiopia’s main issues is its dependency on foreign aid. Western powers are uncomfortable with Eritrea’s independent political and self-reliant stance and seek to limit its influence over Ethiopia. After assuming power in Ethiopia in 1991, TPLF leaders quickly aligned with the Western world. For the West to provide aid to Ethiopia, the TPLF-led government was required to diminish its relationships with Eritrea. A similar situation arose with the Prosperity Party, which, after promising to improve relations with Eritrea, faced pressure from Western powers to sever those ties.
Main Takeaways
The observations above indicate that the border conflict between Eritrea and Tigray (Ethiopia) is largely manmade—created to gain, strengthen, or maintain power in Ethiopia. Following the Pretoria Agreement, the Prosperity Party intended to attack Eritrea with Tigray’s support. When this plan failed, they vacated the Ethio-Eritrea border, prompting conflict between Tigray and Eritrea over the border issue. However, XIMDO emerged, and we now see results contrary to the Prosperity Party’s initial expectations. As anticipated, the Tsadkan Group, in collaboration with the Prosperity Party, is actively working to dismantle XIMDO. The opposition to XIMDO emanating from Prosperity activities in Southern Tigray exemplifies this strategy. Why would peace in the areas bordering Tigray and Eritrea be perceived as a threat to people in Southern Tigray? The answer leads us back to the original motivations behind the border conflict: the desire to gain, strengthen, or maintain power. Both the Tsadkan Group, eager to usurp power from the TPLF in Tigray, and the Prosperity Party, which seeks to solidify its control in the center, oppose the fostering of people-to-people relationships along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border.
Is XIMDO an Alliance for War?
Before addressing this question, it’s important to understand who is currently advocating war in the Horn of Africa. Since the Tigray Civil War ended with a peace agreement, Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party has been provoking its neighbors and ignoring calls for restraint. Government-funded social media activists and state-run television stations continuously broadcast messages of aggression against Eritrea and the ruling party in Tigray. There is no evidence to suggest that Tigray and Eritrea plan to wage war against the Prosperity Party. If conflict arises, it would likely be defensive in nature. So, how is XIMDO positioned as an alliance for war? Naturally, we do not expect those opposed to XIMDO to portray it differently.
Benefits of XIMDO
XIMDO serves as a vanguard for lasting peace along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. It is a mechanism for preventing war, healing wounds, building mutual respect, and fostering trust while respecting territorial integrity. XIMDO aims to ensure that borders do not serve as walls of separation. The northern part of Ethiopia (Tigray) and Eritrea have endured numerous intermittent conflicts, leading to hunger, property destruction, and a decline in population. XIMDO seeks to combat these issues and restore normalcy to the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. The truth is that the people of Eritrea and Tigray possess the strength to resist any warlike ambitions of those in power and their advocates. This is why XIMDO represents a strategy for enduring peace.
XIMDO Must Continue
It is true that the Prosperity Party and its allies in Tigray—such as remnants of the Tsadkan Group and the so-called Global Society of Tigray Scholars and Professionals (GSTS)—will fiercely oppose XIMDO. If they succeed, the current peaceful atmosphere along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border will deteriorate. Hopeful developments at the border will cease. It is in the interest of all peace-loving individuals to support XIMDO. This initiative goes beyond a few engagements; it has the potential to transform the image of the Horn of Africa forever. At a time when Tigray is experiencing significant economic and political challenges, it is crucial for Tigrayan scholars to envision a future without the looming threat of war and destruction.
Conclusion
XIMDO is a grassroots initiative for lasting peace that, despite facing numerous challenges, must continue to operate in a thoughtful and organized manner. Given the Pretoria Agreement connecting Tigray with the Federal Government, formal involvement from political parties in Tigray may be challenging. Therefore, community leaders, church leaders, and civic organizations from both sides of the border should take on the responsibility of promoting peace and sustaining the initiative. XIMDO should never be a pawn in political negotiations with any party; it must belong to the people and serve their interests. Western powers seeking peace along the Eritrea–Tigray (Ethiopia) border should support XIMDO. Opposing XIMDO threatens peace and risks bringing the region back into cycles of war and destruction.
Awet N’Hafash and eternal glory to our martyrs.
