The take away of the recent interview of the two leading negotiators of Pretoria agreement platform signals the pervasive tension between acknowledging the problem and not discussing the prominent issue fearing the consequences. It is obvious that the unspoken truth was the elephant in the room.
The decision not to dive on the contestable boundary issue fearing the fragile dynamic creates a dilemma or devils alternate on the unsolved shared challenge. This left the issue to be a serious home work for both parties. Just avoidance doesn’t eliminate the problem rather it appoints it as a permanent ghost or shadow that always follow the two units till it is solved.
At Pretoria, it may be right to shy away from it just for the sake of saving life by giving priority for cease-fire. But the issue was like a live wire and no one can pretend on the risk of its capacity to electrify everything to prevent truce. All the same, a glimpse through the Pretoria cracks indicate that the burden of unfinished work is for both units.
What possible late time advantage can be obtained shall be seen down the road. Yet, for better or worse, things will change. What future are we banking on by waiting is not predictable easily. The only choice is whether the two parties can shape that change or allow the change to shape the matter for the better in the future.
The agonizing tension between immediate survival and long-term resolution has kept the ceasefire agreement as both a lifeline and a potential illusion. Pretoria’s dilemma mirrors image of the agreement where the conflicting parties prioritize “stopping the bleeding” as urgent leaving the wound unstitched beneath the bandage. That’s what one can draw as per the reflection of the two leading negotiators in their recent interview.
Truce undoubtedly was a short-term but prominent gain. But that alone cannot justifies everything around. While avoidance the core matter might offer a sense of relief, providing a temporary escape from the discomfort or distress associated with a problem, it cannot serve as long safety card. Not addressing the “live wire,” in the ceasefire agreement left the ticking clock to run free till long-term solution is found against possible risk. Certainly, there is a need to stop grievances from festering around by all means.
Both Amhara and Tigrai people used to live in these contested area. But over the past 30 years, Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism system has shaped regional boundaries and governance along ethnic lines. The restructuring of regional boundaries under the EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, dominated by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, TPLF, until 2018) allegedly favoured certain ethnic groups in administrative decisions, including land allocation and political representation.
This opened easy way for abusive political manoeuvre which changed the demography of the land for the last 30 years [U1] leveraging the regional ethnic right. This situation created deeply rooted complex historical and political dynamics in in these areas. There was a lot of grumble on the mal practice of the administration which ethnically dissect the society[U2] to benefit only one group. No one can fake innocence on this issue as there is bold constitutional right given to support benefit to one group of society in the region. Areas like Welkait, Raya, and others areas at borders of two ethnicgroups are flashpoints, where it is rather difficult to fairly dissect peole because they are ineremingled with marriage or blood line relations. One ethnic groups cant claime these territories which were long united with history, cultue, religionyand other social ties. Pretoia challenge is part of such ethnic fabric region but administratively annexed to Tigray under the TPLF-led government.
This system has often been criticized for exacerbating ethnic tensions, particularly in localities where demographic composition has been historically mixed or disputed. Thus just going for referendum at this tense condition may be challenging.
Hence the critic’s argument stating that it’s hard to take the Pretoria agreement as the end of the game to arrest any unlikely event in the coming time is valid. Though the agreement unquestionably froze violence, it cannot grant a permanent solution. On the other hand, training local mediators (women’s groups, veterans, clergy) to pursue reconciliation during the pause may help to bring lasting peace.
The, long overdue delays is not advised as it risks erosion of morale to focus on the matter. Less attention to the core matter or resource may introduce fatigue-driven undue compromise and this may harden hatred among blood related people of the area.
After all it is not the people who create the problem. But a few manipulators. If we help to create whole heartedly a situation to reunite separated or displaced people, the means to solve will not be hard and far for the people. Let’s allow people to people sympathetic understanding, communication and absolving culture reign to solve the problem.
Let’s leave aside the polarized tribal loyalties level of political interference. Let’s give the chance for the longstanding culture, religion, even the intermarriage bloodline intermingles of social ecosystems means or dialogue of the people solve the problem. Let’s keep the elite role limited only to play a vigilant part for law and order and security management just in case of disagreement over cultural means. Let security forces duty be limited as protectors of all people, not tools of one group
This is a call to bypass the manipulators and empower the natural bonds of community to heal itself. This approach should recognizes that the deepest solutions often lie in restoring human-scale connections rather than allowing battle with polarized tribal loyalties narratives. Leverage the ceasefire to insert peace building terms to allow joint humanitarian corridors with civilian oversight boards. This may help reunite displaced families, to revive shared cultural spaces. Manipulators should lose power till communities rediscover the need of their interdependence bond reestablishment.
Let officials help grassroots reconciliation prevail over top-down manipulation. local conflict-resolution traditions should be allowed to revive marginalizing external agitators. Identify the easiest cross-community reunifications. Let displaced farmers return to harvest together and amplify their success. It is better to train local mediators (women’s groups, veterans, clergy) to lead reconciliation during the pause. The approach need to focus in replacing zero-sum narratives with stories of shared survival and dignity.
Restore common markets, churches, mosques if any and establish joint security to build trust. Establish interfaith leaders to co-manage religious places as and when it is required. Help to establish or revive local conflict-resolution traditions. Empower village councils, not politicians. True healing begins when people reconnect on a human scale, transcending tribalized narratives. History judges ceasefires not by the signatures, but by what prevented frantic situation.
Thank you for reading this little piece.
