By 
Over the last three years, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed fell from grace to grass. Major western media outlets have covered the unfolding events in Ethiopia since 2018, including the ongoing conflicts, which according to U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, is taking the country on a path to destruction.
In recent months, the Ethiopian government has taken deliberate measures to narrow the domestic and international media space, as evidenced by the recent warning for four media organizations, namely CNN, BBC, Reuters, and Associated Press, over alleged ‘problematic’ coverage of the Tigray conflict. This much is known to both domestic and international audiences. What is less reported is the evolution of how the Ethiopian government and its allies project the unfolding situation and itself to the international community: exhibiting dual veils of Ethiopianism displayed in good and bad times. In the present piece, we address this gap.
On April 2, 2018, Abiy Ahmed assumed power primarily due to the years-long Oromo youth (Qeerroo) protest movement. His reformist agenda and promise of uniting Ethiopia after four years of violence and unrest were welcomed domestically and internationally. Abiy won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts “to achieve peace and international cooperation and his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.”
During these seemingly good times, the Abiy government put on an Ethiopianism veil that characteristically denies and sidelines Africanness, a practice that goes back a century — to present itself as a Western darling. For instance, Abiy disinvited the chairperson of the African Union from the official Ethiopia-Eritrea ‘peace deal’ signing ceremony in Saudi Araba in September 2018. He fancied himself to be way out of his African ‘brothers’ league, palling around with the Davos elite, and counting himself to be better, a decorum that has its roots in the Solomonic legends of imperial Ethiopia.
In an ignorant and dehumanizing speech in 2019, Abiy argued that African Americans had caused their own suffering and underdevelopment by focusing on past victimization. He faced slight criticism for belittling the role of slavery and systematic discrimination against African Americans. But he never apologized for the bigoted remarks.
A “law-and-order operation”
On November 4, 2020, a two-year-long tension between the federal government and leaders of the Tigray state exploded into an active military confrontation. Abiy launched what his regime labeled a swift and surgical “law-and-order operation,” targeting the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF). The campaign involved large deployments of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) and aerial bombardments, in cooperation with Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) and militias and special forces from neighboring Amhara and Afar states.
On November 28, 2020, Abiy declared the military confrontation over after the fall of the regional capital Mekelle to the federal army. However, many analysts predicted the prospect of a drawn-out insurgency, and this came to pass. Two days, Abiy told parliament that federal troops had not killed a single civilian in their offensive against the Tigrayan forces Tigray region. Abiy went even further, claiming that the Tigrayan forces have been like “flour scattered in the wind.” Both claims proved to be fanciful tales and deliberate lies.
In June 2021, after months of regrouping and recruiting new fighters, the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) began a rolling counterattack toward Mekelle. Tigrayan forces entered the city after ENDF and EDF retreated in a significant turn of fortunes in the civil war. The Ethiopian government declared a “unilateral humanitarian ceasefire” and announced the withdrawal of its forces from Tigray. TDF officials claimed a resounding victory and vowed to fight until all “enemy forces” left pre-war Tigray boundaries.
Following their success in parts of Tigray, TDF entered Amhara and is now advancing toward the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. The military defeat forced the Abiy government to change its narrative from ‘law-and-order operation’ to a ‘war for the country’s survival,’ which put on a new veil of Ethiopianism – appealing to pan-Africanism. Authorities have instituted a defacto humanitarian blockade on Tigray; in Addis Ababa, police have singled out ethnic Oromo and Tigrayans for mass arrests amid a rise in inciting rhetoric.
A matter of national survival?
On November 1, 2021, TDF captured two strategically important towns in the Amhara Region – Kombolcha and Dessie- some 235 miles north of Addis Ababa. These strategic offensives led Abiy to call on his loyalists and supporters to double efforts to fight for national survival. On November 1, 2021, Abiy issued a televised address to lawmakers, urging the public to “use any type of weapons to block the destructive [rebel push], to overturn it and bury it,” adding, “dying for Ethiopia is a duty for all of us.”
On November 2, 2021, a new alliance of nine anti-government groups, including TDF and the Oromo Liberation Army, signed an agreement in Washington, D.C., to oust Abiy’s government. These developments came as the U.S. Embassy in Addis advised all U.S. citizens to leave Ethiopia as soon as possible. Dozens of countries, including Canada, the U.K., France, Zambia, and Norway, are urging their citizens to leave. In the latest development, the United Nations has ordered the immediate evacuation of family members of international staff in Ethiopia, as rebels claim to be edging closer to the capital.
Since May 2021, the U.S. government announced visa sanctions against Ethiopian officials responsible for the violence in Tigray, restrictions against access to the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), and other assistance. Ethiopia shot back in a statement, saying, “the attempt by the U.S. administration to meddle in its [Ethiopia’s] internal affairs, is not only inappropriate but also completely unacceptable. Ethiopia should not be told how to run and manage its internal affairs.” The Ethiopian government and its diaspora allies accuse the U.S. of planning to intervene militarily to remove Abiy and his regime.
Resistance against western neocolonialism?
In May 2021, Abiy began his attempt to frame the ongoing war as a conflict between the West on the one hand and Ethiopia and Africa on the other. And that he is engaged in resistance against western neocolonial hegemony in Africa. Alex de Waal notes that some Africans appear to take at face value this appeal to African solidarity in the face of external diktat. Observes accuse Abiy of the audacity to claim a commitment to African ideals after having sidelined the A.U. from many notable events and now turning around to Africanise the problem by shrouding it as an attack on Africa. This is the other Ethiopianism veil that successive Ethiopian elites wore in times of crisis.
This piece acknowledges the duality inherent in the concept of Ethiopianism, which shifts back and forth between claims of a “Semitic” identity and non-black heritage when appealing to the White, Christian, occidental hegemonic power center, and claims of an African identity when cultivating the support of sub-Saharan Africa while, at the same time, ruthlessly practicing racism, state terrorism, and continued subjugation on the indigenous Africans (notably the Oromo, Sidama, Tegaru, Somali, Qimant, Agew, and Ari) who are struggling for self-determination. This veil of Ethiopianism is intolerant even to a call for peace. The case of Tariku Dangisho, from Ari, a YouTube sensation, is worth mentioning here. In November 2021, Tariku was one lone voice for peace at the government’s pro-war rally in Addis Ababa. However, he was later forced to apologize on live T.V. tearfully for his daring and courageous act. Fans and friends criticized him for ‘going off script.’
At the time of writing this piece, TDF and OLA rebels have staged a dramatic comeback, and they may now launch an assault on the seat of the African Union. Thus far, one can forecast that Abiy’s government will escalate the narrative that western governments plan to remove an elected African leader.
In conclusion, in Ethiopia, a conflict that at one point is labeled as a domestic law-and-order operation could at another time be labeled as an African problem. It is a uniquely Ethiopian phenomenon – the dual veils of Ethiopianism. We call upon fellow Africans and pan-Africanists to understand this dualism and reject any dubious attempt by the regime in Addis Ababa from using pan-Africanism as a convenient garb one puts on and off expediently.
Comments