u/JEmergencyNet6098

To proclaim that the solution to achieving peace in Ethiopia is further division seems asinine. Yet that is my contrarian idea. To bring forth a contrarian argument in response to a seemingly futile question, one that has escaped us for what feels like our entire existence, seems adequate.

The Ethiopian state, whether one likes it or not, is historically a state of war. Although external wars are romanticized in songs and collective memory, the internal wars are often forgotten in the meloe of time, despite the latter being far more common and seemingly bloodier.

To bring forth a resolution to this almost perpetual state of warfare requires taking inspiration from the Europeans. Europeans, much like us, had their history deeply tainted by internal fighting. Yet today, a war within Europe seems almost impossible. This is because Europeans seemingly no longer possess the same zeal for war. They increasingly forgo major collective issues and grow indifferent toward the politics of their countries. Ironically, this has allowed them to achieve perhaps the longest stretch of peace in recorded history.

I attribute this partly to Nietzschean-style politics pushed by certain intellectual currents: the elevation of the self over the group. Today, the average European will not bear arms to protect his nation because he scarcely even knows his neighbor. Although this initially appears negative, it actually signifies something profound: he no longer identifies himself primarily as a member of society, but rather as an individual merely residing within one. That distinction is crucial.

Looking at events such as the Second World War, many frame it as a war of ideologies. I disagree. At its core, it was a war to determine who would become the economic hegemon of the world. Regional actors merely intensified the differences between societies and weaponized them. Veterans often proclaim that they fought so their children would not have to speak German. This is a romanticized and convoluted framing. A colder, perhaps more accurate interpretation, is that they fought to determine which economic system and reserve currency would dominate global trade.

The war became far bloodier than people anticipated. In its aftermath, certain intellectual and political groups increasingly promoted the primacy of the self. This manifested through dividing people across countless minute identities, because fragmented individuals seldom form sufficiently large groups capable of collective mobilization.

Today, and even more so tomorrow, the average Briton may define himself not primarily through nationhood, but as a heterosexual male of x religion, with x views on abortion, x political beliefs, and x social preferences. This individual often cares less about the success of the country itself and more about how high he can climb the social ladder. This is summarized through consumerism and hyper-individualism, ideas loosely tied to Nietzschean notions of the self overcoming collective identity.

However, on central issues such as language and economic systems, we are simultaneously witnessing convergence, and that convergence will likely continue to grow.

To achieve peace, this may very well be the price societies must pay. If people are serious about ending perpetual ethnic and sectarian warfare, then they will increasingly employ these methods.

Today, one cannot convincingly argue that the average Ethiopian fighter fully understands what he is fighting for. Ethiopia still struggles with widespread illiteracy and poor political education, making this a reasonable assertion. So why does he fight? Because he identifies with x group and feels that group has been persecuted, rightly or wrongly.

But how did he arrive at that conclusion? Through collective narratives shaped by political actors, elites, and institutions. If one fails to see how easily such identities can be manipulated and corrupted, it is by choice.

To solve this, the solution is paradoxically simple: promote the primacy of the self over the collective. Once people cease identifying absolutely with the greater community, political actors lose the ability to mobilize entire populations into perpetual conflict through identity alone.

The other solution is the Chinese or Lee Kuan Yew model. Crea national identity and punish those who deviate too strongly from it. This would likely include a central language, perhaps Amharic, alongside a far more aggressive state apparatus capable of suppressing competing national identities. In essence, rule through the baton of order, much like China historically has.

I understand that the image I have painted of the first solution appears bleak, perhaps even Orwellian in nature. Yet, as Thomas Sowell argued, all decisions are comparative. Policies are not judged against perfection, but against the available alternatives. In comparison to perpetual ethnic warfare, hyper-individualism may appear significantly less destructive.

What seems foolish to me is pretending that no choice must be made at all, or believing that endless appeals to unity, morality, or rhetorical reconciliation alone can resolve deeply entrenched conflicts.

P.S. If you choose to comment under this post, do not assign hereditary blame. If everyone were to kill their oppressors, humanity itself would perish. Ironically, through the peculiar nature of ancestry, we may very well be closer to the perpetrator of a crime than the very person we have accused of inheriting it.
:::

Idiosyncrasies aside, I have a hard time wrapping my head around any Eritrean opposing reunification with Ethiopia. I do not want to absolve the history the two countries have shared. However, as any civilized people must, we have to unshackle ourselves from the burden of the past. The past is just that: the past.

People often misunderstand wars and see them as matters conducted between two wholly differing peoples. However, analyzing history, we can see that seldom is that the case. Wars, much like in Shakespearean plays, are often waged between groups that have far more in common than they care to admit. They accentuate seemingly inconsequential differences and elevate them into causes for conflict. The economic benefits of reunification are a banal matter that anyone can discern. Almost a century ago now, Eritrea was the industrial hub of Ethiopia.

Looking at Eritrea today, it is a despot state where a seemingly uneducated ruling class has outlawed even banal matters such as construction. The Eritrean leadership often reconciles itself by abdicating the grievances of its people to Western powers. That is asinine. Eritrea, at its core, is not truly a country but a geopolitical mechanism designed to prevent the Heartland from solidifying. For anyone with a scintilla of geopolitical knowledge, this resembles the prerogative outlined in Mackinder’s Heartland Theory: that maritime powers, later embodied by Britain and the United States, would seek to diminish the power of continental civilizations before they could consolidate influence.

Meles Zenawi, considered by many an anchor statesman, understood these intricacies acutely and allowed the abdication of Eritrea. Some believe he acquiesced to the might of the Eritrean army but, as Sun Tzu said, “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” The notion that Ethiopia simply folded out of fear is idiotic.

Isaias was, in many ways, the ideal candidate for Meles Zenawi, though I believe Meles ultimately miscalculated him. He likely saw him as a sort of Cesare Borgia figure: pragmatic, ruthless, and ultimately controllable, much like Borgia viewed Ramiro de Lorqua, the tyrannical governor he empowered to pacify Romagna before later discarding and executing him once his purpose had been served. In hindsight, that was a grave miscalculation. He overestimated the longing for freedom within the Eritrean people. People fear the abyss of freedom Dostoevsky often alluded to in his writings, which is precisely why dictators so often remain in power. The contempt Meles held toward Isaias was probably a strategic mistake. .

Forgoing these historical matters once more, Isaias’ non-regal demure and malleable language has run laps around the congeniality of Eritreans. Today, he can walk freely across towns in Eritrea because many fail to see what he truly seeks: power. Power, as J.P. Newton stated, is the ability to define phenomena and make it act in a desired manner.

Focusing on today, I find it puerile for Ethiopia to seek reunification with Eritrea by force. As Sun Tzu proclaimed, if you wait long enough by the river, the body of your enemy will float by. Today, more than 500,000 Eritreans live in Ethiopia. The only hope and dream of many Eritrean children is to vacate their land and people in search of a better life elsewhere.

Pari passu, one could level similar accusations toward Ethiopia. However, walk across any city in Ethiopia and, though I acknowledge war still rages and peace often evades the country, unlike Eritrean cities they are not ossified. Ethiopia still possesses motion, ambition, commerce, and a visible yearning for development. As many have proclaimed, peace often follows prosperity. The opulence reunification could garner may provide at least a transient peace, one capable of evolving into something more durable.

For those who struggle to see its value, look no further than one of the greatest powers in history: Aksum. Ethiopia bowed out of history when it turned inward, and that remains the case today. The economic emancipation of both peoples relies upon the projection of influence. Today Eritrea, sitting upon land that once birthed and staged one of the greatest empires in history, has become barren. Through a unified front, as Western imperialism seemingly begins to wane, the Habesha people could once more radiate influence not only across Africa but across the world through control of the Red Sea.

Looking at the demographics of the two countries, one can easily discern a nation trending toward embedded catastrophe. Ethiopia, although an inconsequential power in today’s world order, still possesses over 120 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom are young. Eritrea, by contrast, continues to hemorrhage its population. Thus, the reunification of the two countries may simply become a matter of time. The only thing left is for Eritreans themselves to stand up and say: enough suffering.

I often reconcile this with what Robespierre proclaimed during the trial of Louis XVI: “I am inflexible toward oppressors because I am compassionate toward the oppressed.” Whether one agrees with the sentiment or not, there is truth within it. A people cannot perpetually suffer under stagnation while being told that endurance itself is patriotism.