Eritreans face severe rights violations under the three-decade rule of President Isaias Afwerki, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea has said. The small country of around 3.5 million people in the Horn of Africa is sometimes nicknamed the “North Korea of Africa”. It consistently ranks among the worst in the world for rights — in last place for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, and 175th out of 183 for human development in 2022, according to the United Nations. “Violations are systemic, and the need for accountability is urgent,” said Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea, speaking at a summit in Geneva on Monday. The single-party state has been ruled for more than 30 years by Afwerki, who led the country to independence from Ethiopia. He has violently suppressed dissent, often locking up opponents without trial for decades in horrific conditions. Civilians are conscripted for life into the army or subjected to forced labour under a national service system the UN has likened to slavery. (AFP)
Straddle
A straddle is a neutral options strategy that involves simultaneously buying (long position) both a put option (leg one) and a call option (leg two) for the underlying security with the same strike price and the same expiration date.
A trader will profit from a long straddle when the price of the security rises or falls from the strike price by an amount more than the total cost of the premium paid. The profit potential is virtually unlimited on the call leg as long as the price of the underlying security moves very sharply. The profit on the put leg is capped at the difference between the strike price and zero less the premium paid.
Sponsoring Conflict and Business Development
The intersection of business and conflict is a growing focus in global development discourse. With over 1.5 billion people living in conflict-affected regions (World Bank, 2020), the private sector plays a crucial role not only in economic recovery but also in shaping political and social outcomes. “Sponsoring conflict” in this context extends beyond direct support for violence and includes economic activities that either intentionally or inadvertently fuel tensions, alter power dynamics, or benefit from instability.
While some firms enter these environments with peacebuilding intentions, others exploit the political vacuum, resource abundance, or institutional fragility for profit. This article examines these dualities and proposes a framework for ethical engagement in conflict-affected business environments.
The term sponsoring conflict typically refers to the direct or indirect facilitation of conditions that sustain, worsen, or capitalize on political, ethnic, or economic conflict. In business contexts, this may include: financing armed groups or authoritarian regimes; resource extraction that contributes to environmental degradation and social unrest; profiteering from reconstruction contracts that overlook local needs or exacerbate inequalities and providing technologies or services that reinforce surveillance or repression. These practices may be deliberate or emerge as byproducts of poor governance, limited oversight, or the absence of international accountability mechanisms.
From a strategic perspective, firms may be drawn to conflict environments for several reasons: access to untapped markets: Conflict often disrupts traditional supply chains, leaving space for new entrants. First-mover advantage: Early investment in post-conflict reconstruction can position firms favorably once stability returns. Natural resource exploitation: Regions with extractive wealth are often at the center of violent conflict but attract high-risk capital due to potential returns. Privatization of public services: In the absence of functioning states, private companies may fill critical infrastructure and service gaps, especially in security, logistics, and telecommunications.
However, these opportunities come with high political risk and reputational exposure. Companies operating in conflict situation are at heightened risk of complicity in human rights violations. Examples include the use of forced labor, displacement of communities, and environmental degradation with disproportionate effects on marginalized groups.
There is increasing scrutiny under international law regarding corporate complicity in conflict. Even in the absence of legal consequences, companies face public backlash, divestment campaigns, and shareholder activism if perceived to be exploiting conflict for profit.
There are several Case Studies. Mineral extraction in the DRC, particularly coltan and cobalt, has been linked to armed militias and child labor. While international firms have benefited from the region’s mineral wealth, many have faced global condemnation and regulatory pressure due to their indirect sponsorship of violence.
Following the 2003 Iraq invasion, firms such as Blackwater (now Academi) and Halliburton profited from reconstruction and security contracts. Critics argue these firms profited from prolonged instability and operated with limited accountability, highlighting the dangers of privatizing security in war zones.
In contrast, Rwanda presents a model of private-sector-driven peacebuilding. Strategic partnerships between the government and international investors in technology and agriculture fostered inclusive development. However, critics note that suppression of political dissent complicates the narrative of ethical business engagement.
To balance development goals with ethical responsibility, the following principles should guide corporate engagement: Context-Specific Due Diligence: Businesses must conduct conflict-sensitive assessments to understand the local political economy and avoid exacerbating tensions. Stakeholder Inclusion: Engagement with local communities, civil society, and affected groups is essential to avoid extractive or exclusionary development models. Transparency and Accountability: Clear reporting mechanisms and third-party audits help mitigate corruption and reinforce legitimacy. Exit and Adaptation Strategies: Companies must be prepared to withdraw or revise operations if the situation deteriorates or violates core ethical principles.
To conclude, sponsoring conflict, whether intentional or inadvertent, carries profound implications for business legitimacy, ethical standing, and long-term sustainability. While conflict zones present unique opportunities for high-risk investment and business development, they also demand heightened responsibility, transparency, and accountability.
The future of ethical business in fragile contexts lies in aligning profit motives with peacebuilding principles. Firms that adopt conflict-sensitive strategies and adhere to international norms can become key partners in reconstruction, reconciliation, and resilient economic development.
A glimpse through Pretoria challenge
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.
