Turning a Blind Eye – The Politicization of Genocide: The Case of Ethiopia | ትኩረት አለመስጠት ፥ የዘር ማጥፋት ፖለቲካ፡ የኢትዮጵያ ጉዳይ

BITCHUTE VIDEO

RUMBLE VIDEO

😔 ብዙዎቻችን የምናውቀውን እጅግ በጣም አሳዛኝና ዛሬ በወገኖቻችን ዘንድ እንዲህ በአጭር ጊዜ ውስጥ እየተተወና እየተረሳ የመጣውን በጣም አንገብጋቢ የሆነውን የዚህን የጀነሳይድ ጉዳይ በጣም ድንቅ በሆነ መልክ ያካፈለችን የአሜሪካ ዩኒቨርሲቲዋ ዮኻና ሱ-ሂ ሮት ናት። ገና አሁን ማየቴ ነው፤ ይህን መሰሉ ዜና ይታፈናል፣ 'ጀነሳይድ' የሚለውን ቃል ለሌለ 'የፍልስጤም ዕልቂት' ብቻ ለመስጠት እየሞከሩ ነው። ተከታታይ ቤተሰቦቼ በጣም አዝናለሁ፤ ይህ የኔም የወርድ ፕሬስ ድህረ ገጽ፤ ስለ “አዲስ አበባው ዋሻ ሚካኤል ኤምባሲዎች የምድር ሥር ከተማ እና ጫካ ፕሮጀክት” እውነትን የያዘ መረጃ ካቀረብኩበት ዕለት ጀምሮ እየተዘጋ ነው። ስልኬ ሁሉ መታፈኑን እና እነማን እንደሆኑም ደርሼበታለሁ። አይይይ! ወደ ምዕራቡ ኮሙኒዝም እየመጣ ነው!

ይህን የኮርያ-አሜሪካዊቷ እኅታችንን መረጃ ማንም የኢትዮጵያ ሜዲያ ወይም በትግራይ ስለተፈጸመው ጀነሳይድ 'እቆረቆራለሁ' የሚል ሜዲያ/ድሕረ ገጽ ወይም ቻነል በዚህ መልክ አላቀረበውም። ከእኔ ጀምሮ እንደዚህች ኮርያዊት-አሜሪካዊቷ እኅታችን ስለ ጀነሳይዱ አሳዛኝ ክስተት ይህን ያህል በጥልቁ ተሰምቶት፣ እንዲህ ተቆጥቶ እና የዓለም ዓቀፍ የሰብዓዊ መብት ሕግጋቱን እና ደምቦችን እያጠቀሰ 'ኢትዮጵያዊ ነኝ' ባይ ወገን እንኳን አንድም የለም። ምን ነክቶን ነው ወገን? የተጎጂው ሕዝብ ድምጽ መሆን፣ መናገር፣ መጻፍ እኮ በጣም ቀላሉ ግዴታችን ነው። እንዲያውም በያለንበት ለተገቢው ፍትሕ፣ ለተጠያቂነት እና አግባብ ላለው በቀል የምንነሳበት አጋጣሚና ወቅት እኮ ነው። ሰላም ሳይኖር፤ 'ሰላም! ሰላም! ሰላም ነው የምንፈልገው!' ለሚሉት አጭበርባሪ የሉሲፈራውያኑ ቅጥረኞች ለእነ አቶ ልደቱ አያሌው እና አጋሮቻቸው በድጋሚ ወዮላቸው! ከጨፍጫፊዎቻችን ጋላ-ኦሮሞውች እና አጋሮቻቸው ባልተናነስ ነው ተጠያቂ የምናደርጋቸሁ። የእግዚአብሔር ቁጣ እና ፍርድ እንዲህ በማጭበርበር የሚታለፍ እንዳይመስለን!

ኮርያ-አሜሪካዊቷ እኅታችን ያጋራችንን በከፊል ታች ቀርቧል። እናስታውስ፤ በጀነሳይዱ የመጀመሪያ ወራት ከትግራይ ሕዝብ ጋር አብሮነትን ያሳየው ብቸኛው ሕዝብ የቲቤት ሕዝብ ነበር። የእኛዎቹ ያላሳዩትን። በወቅቱ ቲቤታውያን፣ ኔፓላውያን እና ኮርያውያን ከአክሱማዊቷ ኢትዮጵያ የፈለሱ ሕዝቦች ሊሆኑ እንደሚችሉ ጠቁሜ ነበር። እኔ እንኩን በልምድ ከተገነዘብክቱ ጥንታውያኑ ኮርያውያን፣ ከቲቤታውያን ኔፓላውያን እና በደቡብ አፍሪካ፣ ናሚቢያ እና ቦትስዋና ለብዙ ዘመናት በባንቱ አፍሪካውያን እና በአውሮፓውያን ክፉኛ ከሚበደሉት ጥንታውያኑ የሳን/ኮይሳን ሕዝቦች (ልክ ባንቱዎቹ ጋላ-ኦሮሞዎች በጥንታውያኑ ኢትዮጵያውያን ላይ እንደፈጸሙት በእነርሱም ላይ ጀነሳይድ ተፈጽሞባቸዋል) ጋር ለብዙ ሺህ ዓመታት የዘለቀና የተለየ ውስጣዊ ዝምድና እንዳለኝ ሆኖ ነው ሁሌ የሚሰማኝ።

የሉሲፈራውያኑ ዋና ተልዕኮ ጥንታዊውን 'የአዳምን ዘር' ማጥፋት ነው። በዚህ ጉዳይ ላይ ብዙ ጥናት (መንፈሳዊ) ማካሄድ ይኖርብናል። ባንቱ አፍሪካውያንም በጥንታውያኑ ነባር አፍሪካውያን ብሎም በመካከለኛው፣ ደቡብ እና ሰሜን አሜሪካ ነባር ሕዝቦች ላይ ከአውሮፓውያኑ ጋር ሆነው ጀነሳይድ መፈጸማቸውን ሁሉም አፍሪካዊ ነኝ የሚል ልሂቅ ሊናገርበት ይገባል። አውሮፓውያኑ ባንቱዎችን እንደ ጥንታዊ-ሕዝቦችን የማጥፊያ መሳሪያ እንደሚጠቀሙባቸው ዛሬ በኢትዮጵያ እና በኮንጎ (በጥንታውያኑ ፒግሚዎች/ባካ ሕዝቦች) እያየነው ነው። 'ባርነቱ' እነዚህ ጀነሳይዶች ያስከተሉት ውጤት ነው። አውሮፓውያኑ፤ “ለሚቀርባችሁ ለገዛ ወገናችሁ የማታስቡና የማትቆሙ ከሆነማ በባርነት፣ አፓርታይድና በቅኝ ግዛት እነገዛችኋለን!” እንዲሉ ያደፋፈራቸው ይህ ነው። ልክ ዛሬ 'አማራ/ኦሮማራ ነን' የሚሉት በትክክለኛዎቹ ጥንታውያን ኢትዮጵያውያን ላይ እነደያዙት አቋም። በሌላ ጊዜ እመለስበታለሁ።

👏 ከአሜሪካ ዩኒቨርሲቲ፡ ጆርናል ኦፍ ኢንተርናሽናል ሰርቪስ፣ በዮሐና ሱህ-ሂ ሮቴ፣ ሜይ 20፣ 2025

⚠️የይዘት ማስጠንቀቂያ፡ ይህ ጽሑፍ የጅምላ ጥቃትን፣ ሞትን፣ ማሰቃየትን፣ ጾታዊ ጥቃትን እና ሌሎች ከፍተኛ የሰው ልጆች ስቃይ ማጣቀሻዎችን ጨምሮ የዘር ማጥፋት መግለጫዎችን እና ውይይቶችን ይዟል።

ከሁለተኛው የዓለም ጦርነት ጭካኔ በኋላ፣ የዓለም አቀፉ ማኅበረሰብ የጅምላ ጭፍጨፋን እና አስከፊውን የሰው ልጅ ጭካኔ ለመግለጽ እና ለፍርድ ለማቅረብ በቂ የሕግ ማዕቀፎች አለመኖራቸውን ተገንዝቧል። እ.ኤ.አ. በ1948 የፀደቀው እና በ153 ፓርቲዎች በ1951 የፀደቀው የዘር ማጥፋት ስምምነት ይህንን አለም አቀፍ ክፍተት ለመሙላት የተሰጠ ምላሽ ነው። ሆኖም፣ እነዚህ በህጋዊ መንገድ አስገዳጅነት ያላቸው ቃላቶች ቢኖሩም፣ አለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ እነዚህን መስፈርቶች በማክበር ረገድ ጉድለት እየታየበት ነው፣ እና በጣም ተጋላጭ የሆኑትን ለመጠበቅ የተቋቋሙት ዘዴዎች ብዙ ጊዜ ውጤታማ አይደሉም። በአለም ላይ ሊታሰብ የማይችለውን የሰው ልጅ ስቃይ ለመታዘብ ዜናውን በጨረፍታ ማየት ብቻ ነው የሚፈልገው፣ የፖለቲካ ጉዳዮች፣ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ጥምረት እና የዲፕሎማሲያዊ አሰራር ብዙ ጊዜ ወደ መራጭ ማስፈጸሚያ ያመራል። የኢትዮጵያ ጉዳይ ለዚህ ውድቀት ምሳሌ ይሆናል፡ የጅምላ ጭካኔዎች ተአማኒነት ያላቸው ማስረጃዎች ቢኖሩም፣ አለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ ከሰብአዊ ጣልቃገብነት ይልቅ ስልታዊ ጥቅሞችን በማስቀደም አሁንም እንቅስቃሴና ውጤት አልባ ነው።

ይህ ጽሁፍ የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን ለመከላከል እና ለመክሰስ የተቋቋመው አለም አቀፍ ስርዓት ውጤታማነቱ በየጊዜው በፖለቲካዊ ፍላጎቶች እና በምርጫ አስፈፃሚዎች የሚዳከም በመሆኑ መንግስታት እና ተዋናዮች ተጠያቂነትን ያለአንዳች ጥፋተኛነት እንዲያስወግዱ በማድረጉ መሰረታዊ ጉድለት አለበት ይላል። የመጀመሪያው ክፍል የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን በተመለከተ ሰፊውን ዓለም አቀፍ የሕግ ማዕቀፍ ይዘረዝራል፣ በመቀጠልም እነዚህ ሕጎች በኢትዮጵያ ጉዳይ ላይ እንዴት እንደተጣሱ ትንታኔ ይሰጣል። ወረቀቱ/ጽሑፉ የአለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ እንቅስቃሴ በመረጃ እጦት ወይም በግንዛቤ እጦት ሳይሆን ሆን ተብሎ በተደረገ የፖለቲካ ምርጫ፣ በተወዳዳሪ ፍላጎቶች እና በስርዓተ-ጥበባት ውስንነቶች እንዴት እንደነበር በማሳየት ይጠናቀቃል።

የዘር ማጥፋት ዓለም አቀፍ የሕግ ማዕቀፍ

የዘር ማጥፋት ኮንቬንሽኑ/ስምምነቱ /ስምምነቱ አንቀጽ II ፍቺን ያስቀመጠ ሲሆን ፈራሚዎቹ መንግስታት የዘር ማጥፋትን ምድብ የሚያሟሉ አንዳንድ ከባድ ጥሰቶችን እውቅና ይሰጣሉ. የዘር ማጥፋትን የሚገልጹት በኮንቬንሽኑ/ስምምነቱ ውስጥ የተዘረዘሩት አካላዊ ድርጊቶች የሚከተሉት ናቸው።

"(ሀ) የቡድን አባላትን መግደል፣ (ለ) በቡድኑ አባላት ላይ ከባድ የአካል ወይም የአዕምሮ ጉዳት ማድረስ፣ (ሐ) አካላዊ ውድመትን ሙሉ በሙሉ ወይም በከፊል ለማምጣት የተሰላ የቡድን የህይወት ሁኔታዎችን ሆን ብሎ ማድረስ፣ (መ) በቡድኑ ውስጥ መውለድን ለመከላከል የታቀዱ እርምጃዎችን መውሰድ፣ (ሠ) የቡድኑን ልጆች በግዳጅ ወደ ሌላ ቡድን ማዛወር።"[iii]

የዘር ማጥፋት ኮንቬንሽኑ/ስምምነቱ አንቀጽ ሶስት የሚከተሉትን ድርጊቶች የሚያስቀጣ መሆኑን ይገነዘባል፡- “(ሀ) የዘር ማጥፋት፣ (ለ) የዘር ማጥፋት ማሴር፣ (ሐ) የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን በቀጥታ እና በሕዝብ ማነሳሳት፣ (መ) የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀል ለመፈጸም መሞከር፣ (ሠ) የዘር ማጥፋት ተባባሪ መሆን፣ (ሠ) የዘር ማጥፋት ተባባሪ መሆን። አንድን ብሔር፣ ብሔረሰብ፣ ዘር፣ ወይም ሃይማኖታዊ ቡድንን በከፊልም ሆነ በሙሉ ለማጥፋት በማሰብ ነው።

በተጨማሪም፣ ዓለም አቀፉ የፍትህ ፍርድ ቤት (ICJ) በተደጋጋሚ ሲናገር “{…} እነዚህ የስምምነቱ መሰረታዊ መርሆች በሰለጠኑት መንግስታት ምንም አይነት መደበኛ ግዴታ ባይኖርባቸውም በስቴቶች ላይ አስገዳጅ እንደሆኑ የሚታወቁ መርሆዎች ናቸው፣ የዘር ማጥፋትን ክልከላ እንደ መሰረታዊ የአለም አቀፍ ህግ መርህ ያረጋግጣሉ። ሁሉም መንግስታት ለዓለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ በአጠቃላይ ሊገቡ የሚችሉትን የተፈጥሮ ግዴታ የሚገልጽ ነው። እነዚህ የህግ ማዕቀፎች በቲዎሪ ደረጃ ሁሉም ክልሎች የፖለቲካ ጥቅማቸዉ ምንም ይሁን ምን የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን የመከላከል እና የመክሰስ ግዴታ እንዳለባቸው ያረጋግጣሉ።

ዓይንን መሸፈን

ሁለቱም የምርመራ ሪፖርቶች በአለም አቀፍ የሰብአዊ መብት ኤክስፐርቶች በኢትዮጵያ እና በኒው ላይን ኢንስቲትዩት የተገኙ መረጃዎች እንደሚያሳዩት ባለው እና ሊረጋገጥ በሚችል መረጃ መሰረት በአለም አቀፍ ህግ ላይ የሚፈጸሙ ጥሰቶች መፈፀማቸውን "ለማመን የሚያስችል ምክንያታዊ"[lxxx] አለ። የመደምደሚያዎቹ ዋና ዋና ነገሮች፣ በአሁኑ ጊዜ በሚገኙ ማስረጃዎች ላይ በመመስረት፣ ሁኔታው የዘር ማጥፋት ደረጃ ሊደርስ እንደሚችል ነው። ይሁን እንጂ ሁሉም የተረጋገጡ መረጃዎች የዘር ማጥፋት ደረጃውን ባያሟሉም እንኳን ባለሙያዎች የግጭቱን ቀጣይነት እና እንዲያውም መባባስ ያስጠነቅቃሉ። የኢትዮጵያ ፌደራላዊ መንግስት ICHREE ('ይህ አለም አቀፍ የሰብአዊ መብት ኤክስፐርቶች ኮምሽን' ተብዬው)"ከአዲስ አበባ ውጭ ባሉ አካባቢዎች" እንዳይገኝ በመከልከሉ እና ተዛማጅነት ያላቸውን "ሰነዶች እና የፍላጎት ቁሳቁሶች" በመከልከሉ ያልተሸፈነ እና ያልተዘገበ ጉልህ ማስረጃ አለ። እዚህ ላይ ዋና ጥያቄዎች ይነሳሉ። በመጀመሪያ፣ በተባበሩት መንግስታት ድርጅት የተቋቋመው የእውነታ የማጣራት ተልእኮ፣ ለተፈጸመው አሰቃቂ ድርጊት በእውነት የሚረብሽ ማስረጃዎችን ቢያቀርብ፣ መንግስት ለመተባበር ፈቃደኛ ባይሆንም እና ጥያቄው “የበለጠ ምርመራ አስፈላጊነት” ላይ አፅንዖት የሚሰጥ ከሆነ፣ ለምን የዚህ ኮሚሽን ስልጣን እንደገና አይታደስም/አልታደሰም? ይህ እኮ የተባበሩት መንግስታት ዋና ፀሃፊ አንቶኒዮ ጉቴሬዝ እና በአለም አቀፍ የተረጋገጠው ሕግ የጋራ ግዴታ ነው ፥ አለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ ሁኔታውን ለማባባስ ወይም ለመፍታት ተጨባጭ እርምጃ ያልወሰደው ለምንድነው?

በሰው ሕይወት ላይ የፖለቲካ ስልታዊ ፍላጎቶች

ብዙዎቹ በትግራይ የተፈፀመውን ግፍ በሰፊው ቢዘግቡም፣ የአለም አቀፉ ማህበረሰብ ምላሽ በአብዛኛው ተምሳሌታዊ ነው። የተባበሩት መንግስታት 'ክትትል ለመቀጠል' የገባው ቃል እና ለአለም አቀፍ ምርመራ [lxxxv] የበለጠ እንደ ዲፕሎማሲያዊ ቦታ ያገለግላል ፣ ይህም ዓለም አቀፍ እንቅስቃሴን በፖለቲካዊ ታላላቅ ምልክቶች በመደበቅ ፣ የግማሽ ልብ ጣት መጨናነቅ ከሚያስከትለው መዘዝ ጋር ሊወዳደር ስለሚችል።

ለተጠያቂነት ትልቅ እንቅፋት የሚሆነው የተፈጸመውን ግፍ ‘ዘር ማጥፋት’ ተብሎ ለመፈረጅ ፈቃደኛ አለመሆኑ ነው። ይልቁንም ዓለም አቀፉ ማኅበረሰብና ሚዲያ ግጭቱን ‘የዘር ማፅዳት’ ብለው መጥራትን መርጠዋል፣ ይህ ደግሞ የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን ለመግለጽ የተለመደ የቃል ንግግር ሆኗል። ‘የጎሣ ማጽዳት’ የሚለው ቃል ስሜትን ቀስቃሽ ቢሆንም፣ በዓለም አቀፍ ሕግ መሠረት ምንም ዓይነት ሕጋዊ ግዴታ የሌለበት ሕጋዊ ያልሆነ ቃል ነው። ይህ የትርጓሜ መራቅ ክልሎች ከሥነ ምግባራዊ እና ከህጋዊ ተግባራቸው እንዲርቁ ያስችላቸዋል፣ ምክንያቱም የዘር ማጽዳት የዘር ማጥፋት እንደሚፈጽመው በህግ የተደነገገውን የመጠበቅ ሃላፊነት (R2P) ግዴታዎችን አያስነሳም። ‘ዘር ማጥፋት’ የሚለውን ቃል ማስወገድ “ከዘር ማጥፋት ክህደት ጋር አንድ አይነት ተግባራዊ ውጤት አለው።” [lxxxvi]

ጂኦፖለቲካዊ እና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ፍላጎቶች ምላሽ እጦትን የበለጠ ያብራራሉ። ለስደት ቁጥጥር፣ ለፀረ ሽብር ጥረቶች እና ለቀጣናዊ መረጋጋት ወሳኝ በሆነው በአፍሪካ ቀንድ ውስጥ ኢትዮጵያ ያላት ስልታዊ አቀማመጥ ለምዕራባውያን እና ለምእራብ ላልሆኑ ሀይሎች አስፈላጊ አጋር ያደርጋታል። የኢትዮጵያ መንግስት ግጭቱን የሀገር ውስጥ ጉዳይ አድርጎ የውጭ ጣልቃገብነትን አጥብቆ ተቃወመ። የቻይና የመሠረተ ልማት ኢንቨስትመንቶች እና የምዕራቡ ዓለም ዲፕሎማሲያዊ ግንኙነቶችን ለመጠበቅ ያላቸው ፍላጎት መንግስታት ግጭትን አደጋ ላይ እንዳይጥል አድርጓቸዋል። አለም አቀፍ እንቅስቃሴ አለማድረግ በመረጃ እጥረት ሳይሆን በተሰላ ፖለቲካዊ ውሳኔዎች ምክንያት ነው።

በተጨማሪም የኢትዮጵያ አገዛዝ የሽግግር ፍትሃዊ አሰራርን ለማስቀጠል የገቡት ቃል ተአማኒነታቸው አሳሳቢ ቢሆንም ተቀባይነት አግኝቷል። ይህ የ"ከንቱ ተገዥነት" ቅፅ ምርመራን ለማስወገድ ላይ ላዩን ቃል ኪዳን የሚገቡበት፣ የጅምላ ጭካኔን ያለመከሰስ ተደጋጋሚ ስልት ነው፣ ሆኖም ግን፣ አለም አቀፍ ተዋናዮች በበቂ ሁኔታ ማየታቸውን ቀጥለዋል።[lxxxvii]

ማጠቃለያ

የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀልን ለመከላከል እና ለማሳደድ የተነደፈው አለም አቀፍ ስርዓት ምን ያህል በምርጫ ማስፈጸሚያ እና በፖለቲካዊ የግል ጥቅም እንደተዳከመ በትግራይ ያለው ሁኔታ በግልጽ ያሳያል። የዘር ማጥፋት ኮንቬንሽኑን/ስምምነቱን መስፈርት የሚያሟሉ ግልጽ ማስረጃዎች ቢኖሩም፣ ትርጉም ያለው እርምጃ እንዲወሰድ የተደረገው እርግጠኛ ባለመሆኑ ሳይሆን ከፍትሕና ከሥነ ምግባር ይልቅ ኅብረትና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ትስስር ቅድሚያ በመስጠት ነው። ይህ ጉዳይ ትኩረትን የሚስብ እውነትን አጉልቶ ያሳያል፡ ትርጉም ያለው ተሃድሶ ከሌለ “ከአሁን በኋላ” የሚለው ዓለም አቀፋዊ ቃል ኪዳን ባዶ ተስፋ ሆኖ ይቀራል።

😢😢😢 ዋይ! ዋይ! ዋይ! 😠😠😠

በሌላው 'ወገን'ስ ተስፋ ቆርጫለሁ፣ ከትግራይ፣ ኤርትራ ፣ ቤተ አምሐራ (ላሊበላ)የሆኑት ትክክለኛዎቹ ጽዮናውያን የአክሱማዊቷ ኢትዮጵያ ልጆች ግን ይህን መረጃ አንብበው ለፍትሕ እና ተጠያቂነት ብሎም ለበቀል መነሳሳት አለባቸው፤ ለራሳቸው እና ለመጭው ትውልድ እንኳን ሲሉ!

አሁንም አልዘገየም፤ ያየነውን አይተናል፤ ማስጠንቀቁን እንቀጥላለን፤ ያን የሉሲፈር/ሕወሓት ባንዲራ ከእነ ፓርቲው ቶሎ አስወግዱ፤ ያ አስቀያሚ ቡቱቶ እና ጨርቅ ሕወሓት ጀነሳይዱን ወደ አክሱም ጽዮን ከመሳብ በቀር ለትግራይ ሕዝብ ምን ያመጡት በጎ ነገር አለ? ከመከራ፣ ዕልቂት፣ ረሃብ፣ መደፈርና ስደት በቀር ምንም! ሌላ ሁለተኛ ሦስተኛ ዕድል በጭራሽ ሊኖር አይችልም፤ ሁሉም መወገድ አለባቸው! ጤነኞች ቢሆኑ ልክ በሩሲያ ፕሬዝደንት የልሲን እራሳቸውን አስወግደው ፕሬዝደንት ፑቲንን እንዳመጧቸው እነዚህ ገና ዱሮ እራሳቸውን አስወግደውና የትግራይን ሕዝብ አጠናክረው ለክርስቲያን ጽዮናዊ ሥልጣኑን ማስረክበ ነበረባቸው። ከሃዲዎች! ውዳቂዎች!

'ለትግራይ ሕዝብ እንቆማለን' የሚሉ እና ብዙ ተሰሚነት ያላቸው እንደ 'ኢትዮ ፎረም፣ እና ርዕዮት' ያላችሁ ሜዲያዎች፤ “ለሰላም ሲባል የፍትሕ እና ተጠያቂነቱን ጉዳይ አናነሳም፣ ሁሉም ጀነሳይድ ፈጻሚ በስልጣኑን ወንበር ይዞ ይቀጥል” ስትሎ ሰምተናችኋልና ወዮላችሁ! ወዮላችሁ! ወዮላችሁ! ከቀጥተኛ ጠላቶቻችን ያልተናነሰ ስህተት እና ኢ-ፍትሐዊ ሥራ እየሠራችሁ መሆኑን እወቁት። ያለፍትሕ እና ተጠያቂነት በፍጹም ሰላም እና አብሮነት ሊኖር አይችልም። ፍትሕ እና ተጠያቂነት ባለመኖሩ እኮ ነው የዘር ማጥፋት ጂሃዶች ባለፉት አምስት መቶ ዓመታት ከአምስት ጊዜ በላይ በጥንታውያኑ ኢትዮጵያውያን ላይ የተፈጸመው፤ አሁን በቃ! በቃ! በቃ!

👏 From American University: Journal of International Service, By Johanna Suh-Hee Rothe, May 20, 2025

👏 THANK YOU, Dear Johanna! She is Korean-American – and I love Koreans! 💓

⚠️Content Warning: This piece contains descriptions and discussions of genocide, including references to mass violence, death, torture, sexual violence, and other forms of extreme human suffering.

After the atrocities of World War II, the international community recognized the absence of sufficient legal frameworks to define and prosecute the horrors of the Holocaust and the worst of human cruelty. The Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948 and ratified by 153 parties in 1951, was a response to fill this international vacuum.[ii] It established a legal framework aimed at preventing future atrocities and ensuring timely intervention. Yet, despite these legally binding commitments, the international community continues to fall short in upholding these standards, and the mechanisms established to protect the most vulnerable often prove ineffective. One only needs to glance at the news to witness unimaginable human suffering occurring around the world, while political considerations, economic alliances, and diplomatic maneuvering often lead to selective enforcement. The case of Ethiopia exemplifies this failure: despite credible evidence of mass atrocities, the international community remains largely inactive, prioritizing strategic interests over humanitarian intervention.

This paper argues that the international system established to prevent and prosecute genocide is fundamentally flawed, as its effectiveness is consistently undermined by political interests and selective enforcement, allowing states and actors to circumvent accountability with impunity. The first section will outline the broader international legal framework for genocide, followed by an analysis of how these laws have been violated in the case of Ethiopia. The paper will conclude by demonstrating how the international community’s inaction was not due to a lack of information or awareness, but rather a deliberate political choice, driven by competing interests and systemic limitations.

International legal framework for genocide

Article II of the Genocide Convention establishes a definition under which the signatory states acknowledge certain grave transgressions that meet the classification for genocide. The physical acts outlined in the convention that define genocide are as follows:

“(a) killing members of a group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[iii]

Article III of the Genocide Convention recognizes that the following acts are punishable: “(a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; (e) complicity in genocide.”[iv] These articles also specify the mental conditions under which the perpetrators must have committed these crimes: “{…} with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.”[v] This stipulates that the criminal act (actus reus) itself is insufficient to receive such classification, and it is necessary to prove the intent (dolus specialis) of the perpetrator(s) to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific group based on a certain intent.[vi]

Additionally, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that “{…} these principles underlying the Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation”, effectively enshrining the prohibition of genocide as a fundamental principle of international law.[vii] According to the ICJ, this peremptory norm (jus cogens) is an obligation erga omnes;[viii] terminology that describes an inherent obligation owed by all states to the international community as a whole.[ix] In short, a jus cogens norm is a fundamental and legally binding principle that applies to all states, regardless of their consent, overriding any conflicting laws, and cannot be ignored or suspended. These legal frameworks, in theory, ensure that all states have a mandatory duty to prevent and prosecute genocide, regardless of their political interests.

Political history of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is an economically prosperous nation, the oldest independent country in Africa, and its second-most populous country. It is ethnically diverse, being home to over 80 distinct ethnic groups, with Tigrayans making up about 7% of the population.[x]

Starting in the 1970s, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) became the main driver of the armed liberation movement that sought to oust the communist dictatorship. By 1991, the movement had overthrown the oppressive Derg regime and implemented their own coalition government, with the TPLF as the leading member.[xi] The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was established in 1995, granting different ethnic groups autonomy over their regions. However, the central TPLF leadership remained at the helm of the government and retained tight control over the country.[xii] Meles Zenawi, the Tigrayan autocratic leader, faced widespread criticism for his repression of political opponents, marginalization of ethnic minorities, and suppression of basic civil liberties.[xiii] Despite this, Ethiopia experienced a period of relative stability, rapid economic growth, development, and rising international esteem.[xiv] In 1998, a border dispute escalated into a full-scale war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which lasted until 2000. Although a peace agreement was signed in Algiers, Ethiopia refused to fully implement its terms, resulting in a prolonged and unresolved ‘frozen conflict’.[xv]

Major protests against the government broke out in 2018, resulting in the resignation of the Prime Minister (PM) and the appointment of Abiy Ahmed, an ethnic Oromo, in hopes of quelling societal and political tensions. Early promises made by PM Ahmed included mending ethnic divides and reversing many restrictions on civil freedoms.[xvi] The push for a pan-Ethiopian political identity led to the reorganization of the ruling coalition into a singular party, the Prosperity Party. The TPLF’s refusal to join this new coalition led to the political ostracization of Tigrayans at the national level.[xvii] This refusal stemmed from concerns that Abiy was attempting to centralize power, thereby endangering the semi-autonomous structure of the country’s ethnically divided federal system. In 2019, PM Ahmed received the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the two-decade-long ‘frozen conflict’ with neighboring Eritrea.[xviii]

The most recent conflict broke out in 2020, when federal government forces and the TPLF clashed following multiple delays of the national elections. Despite federal orders, the regional government in Tigray held elections and won, solidifying control in the region.[xix] In response, PM Ahmed ordered the suspension of federal funding for Tigray, further escalating tensions. The immediate catalyst of the conflict was an alleged TPLF attack on a federal military base in November 2020.[xx] Consequently, the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) launched what was described as a ‘targeted military offensive’ in Tigray.[xxi] Additionally, Eritrea joined the conflict in December of 2020, after being “invited into Ethiopia to fight” by the federal government. [xxii] In spring 2021, the United States characterized the ongoing situation in Tigray as ethnic cleansing, while multiple NGOs raised alarms about potential genocide.[xxiii]

Later that year, PM Ahmed encouraged citizens to join the war against Tigrayan forces.[xxiv] Blaming Tigrayans for the conflict was easy, as the group is “ethnically and politically isolated. {…} [making] the TPLF an ideal ’scapegoat’.”[xxv] A Cessation of Hostilities agreement was signed between the TPLF and the federal government of Ethiopia in November 2022; however, the agreement did not mention or involve Eritrea.[xxvi] Despite the signing, fighting has continued, with atrocities being committed by both sides.

Documentation of mass atrocities

In December 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) established the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE) “to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of violations and abuses of international human rights law.”[xxvii] The resulting reports of this investigation, alongside an independent report by the New Lines Institute, form the fundament for the majority of available evidence. The lack of other documented evidence is due to the fact that aid workers and international observers have been denied entry into the region and frequent communication blackouts impede crucial investigative processes.[xxviii] The shut-off of electricity started a week before the fighting, preventing phone charging and limiting the ability of individuals to record or communicate ensuing crimes.[xxix]

Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention: Direct and public incitement to commit genocide

Based on the limited information available due to internal circumstances, such as limited access (physical and virtual) to impacted areas, the following examination of evidence is not exhaustive and most likely represents only a partial picture of the situation. To present evidence that indicates direct and public incitement of genocide, a distinction must be made between hate speech and incitement. Generally, hate speech is a broader concept that advocates for “national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”[xxx] In contrast, incitement of genocide specifically encourages the physical destruction of a group by publicly and directly urging others to commit genocide.[xxxi] Public discourse, especially inflammatory and dehumanizing rhetoric, can create an environment and culture in which violence and destruction are normalized or even encouraged.[xxxii] This can be seen in the pejorative terminology used by the Ethiopian federal government to refer to the TPLF, including terms such as “junta, woyané, and agame.”[xxxiii] Ethnically charged rhetoric is dangerous as it fails to distinguish between the TPLF and the Tigrayan population as a whole. Such language has even been used by high-ranking government officials, such as PM Ahmed, who has repeatedly described the “junta as a ‘cancer’ and ‘weeds’ that needed to be removed” and claimed that TPLF terrorist “tentacles [are] embedded within the civilian populations.”[xxxiv] A former EU special envoy to Ethiopia has publicly stated that during a 2021 private meeting with Ahmed and his ministers, deeply concerning remarks were made, such as “they are going to destroy the Tigrayans, they are going to wipe out the Tigrayans for 100 years.”[xxxv] In December 2021, the Social Affairs Advisor to Ahmed openly discussed the “erasure of woyané” while another advisor stated “that all Tigrayans [have] been affected by the TPLF disease.”[xxxvi] Additionally, close advisors stated on national television that “Tigrayans are worse than the devil itself” [xxxvii] and that “they should be erased and disappeared from historical records. A person who wants to study them should find nothing about them. Maybe he can find out about them by digging in the ground.”[xxxviii] Although, when asked to clarify, the advisor claimed to be referring solely to the TPFL, such rhetoric sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent about the attitudes of a democratically elected government toward an ethnic minority within its borders. A spillover of such rhetoric has also been observed in religious spaces, where usages of words such as “sickness” and “cancer” are believed to be a major influence on a very devout population.[xxxix]

Media usage magnified preexisting agitation within the population, encouraging hatred and criminal acts by the general public. Following executions of prisoners of war, a number of detainees managed to escape to surrounding areas. Subsequently, local radio stations and loudspeakers broadcast messages claiming that the escapees were responsible for their children’s deaths and encouraged local residents to seek them out. As a result, “about 150-200 locals then hacked and bludgeoned the escaping prisoners to death, {…} taunting the soldiers about their Tigrayan ethnicity.”[xl] National television networks have also aired content and comments that directly encourage violence and could amount to public and direct incitement to commit genocide. ESAT, an Ethiopian Satellite Television broadcast, aired this statement: “Raise your machete, axe, or gun and ignite the campaign against renegade Tigrayans {…} Ignite the massacre to a point no Tigrayan survives.”[xli] Another broadcast stated: “There is only one choice…taking measures by force…one way of removing dead fish from the sea water is by drying the sea.”[xlii] This statement implies that extermination of ‘sub-humans’ should be done by depriving them of necessities of life.

Social media networks have also been instrumental in amplifying and spreading hatred and violent rhetoric across the country. Facebook posts by PM Ahmed have included statements such as “weeding is done with a hammer,” which is particularly concerning given his repeated references to Tigrayans as ‘weeds’. [xliii] Amnesty International has concluded that there is evidence that postings on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Telegram, have led to real-life violence.[xliv] Facebook’s parent company, Meta, has been involved in a lawsuit, filed by the son of murdered Professor Meareg Amare Abrha who alleges that Facebook did not act in a timely matter after private information about his father, such as his picture, home address, and Tigrayan ethnic identity was posted online.[xlv] Comments under the initial post included the following: “What are you waiting for? […] Why haven’t you sucked his blood?” and “If you are a true man, get organized and clean them.”[xlvi] Professor Abrha was shot and killed outside his residence on November 3, 2021. Comments under other social media posts included: “May your life be short {…} and [you] will vanish like a thin air soon”, “we will not rest until we bury woyané”, and “we need to cleanse the [Amhara] region of the junta lineage.”[xlvii] The ICHREE investigation concluded that the pervasiveness of hate speech in Ethiopia significantly fueled tensions within the community and contributed to an environment of normalized and encouraged violence.[xlviii]

The rhetoric outlined above goes beyond hate speech and clearly falls within the legal definition of direct and public incitement of genocide under Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention. The statements, many of which came from government officials and national broadcasters, were not made in secret but rather disseminated widely and repeatedly across traditional and digital media. The visibility and severity of this incitement, alongside its documented influence on real-world violence, raise serious questions about the international community’s failure to intervene or even formally acknowledge the gravity of the situation. The toleration of such inflammatory and genocidal rhetoric not only reflects political indifference but also underscores the systemic weaknesses of the international system that allows blatant and well-documented incitement to go unchallenged.

Article II (a) of the Genocide Convention: Killing members of a group

It is important to establish the genocidal intent of perpetrators that led to the deaths of victims. Although there is no “numerical threshold for the number of victims killed {…} the number of victims may be relevant to assessing whether the perpetrator had the requisite genocidal intent.”[xlix] While PM Ahmed publicly claimed that “not a single civilian had been killed” numerous names of victims have surfaced. However, the total number of civilian deaths caused by the conflict remains unknown.[l] Estimates as of December 2022 place the civilian death toll “between 311,000 at a minimum and 808,000 at most,”[li] with “the actual number of deaths [being] likely much higher.”[lii] To put this into perspective, at a minimum, 5 to 10 percent of the entire Tigrayan population may have perished.[liii]

Indirect victims of the conflict, those who died as a result of starvation caused by man-made famine or the collapse of the healthcare system, account for only a fraction of the reported death toll. The majority of the known victims are a result of direct killings, such as massacres in the towns of Axum and Debre Abbay, street executions, killings of detainees, or door-to-door executions.[liv] Survivor eyewitness accounts describe how “Eritrean soldiers killed six men {…} by lining them up and shooting at them from behind with a light-machine gun.”[lv] Other witnesses report the intentional targeting of civilians with soldiers having been overheard saying: “If you find somebody, just kill them. Knock on the door and if you find a man or a woman just kill them’ and ‘Kill them!” or civilians identifying themselves as non-combatants and ENDF soldiers affirmatively replying that they “are looking for the civilians!”[lvi]

The scale, systemic nature, and intentional targeting of civilians alongside blatant genocidal rhetoric prove that these killings were not merely collateral damage of conflict but rather a deliberate effort to destroy the Tigrayan population, in whole or in part. The fact that such compelling documentation exists, yet has failed to trigger any meaningful international response, reaffirms how political unwillingness and systemic dysfunction continue to undermine the Genocide Convention’s purpose, while allowing atrocities to persist without accountability.

Article II (b) of the Genocide Convention: Causing serious bodily or mental harm

The legal standards for what constitutes serious bodily or mental harm under genocide law are less clear and remain open for interpretation. While “the harm need not be permanent or irreversible, it must have an impact on the victim ‘beyond temporary unhappiness, embarrassment, or humiliation’”, and it must be of such serious nature that it is a threat to the group’s existence.[lvii] Although it can be debated which events or experiences warrant such a determination, there are some circumstances which arguably meet this ‘trauma’ threshold. Atrocities such as being forced to witness the violent sexual assault and murder of family members, immolation, torture, and genital mutilation, can be reasonably considered to have long-term psychological impacts. Videos have surfaced on social media sites “[showing] armed men burning a man to death. {…} where it appears that people had already been burned.”[lviii] Another witness account describes the trauma of a woman after her children were murdered during door-to-door raids: “They killed her children and locked the compound door {…} She was left alone with the bodies of her two dead children for a day and a half. She was numb, unresponsive by the time we saw her.”[lix] A physician’s note described a patient who was repeatably raped next to the body of her murdered four-year old child, while other incidents include “insertion of foreign objects (nails, shrapnel, rocks) into victims’ genital organs and other forms of sexual mutilation, including burning and searing of vaginas with hot metal rods.”[lx] It is undeniable that even if these victims survived unthinkable horror, the trauma is likely to last a lifetime and may impact their ability to participate in normal life. Inability to participate in the community and form relationships could be “of such serious nature as to threaten the destruction of the group in whole or in part.”[lxi]

The severity, scale, and personal nature of these atrocities go beyond conventional combat violence; they reflect a systematic campaign of terror aimed at the physical and psychological destruction of the Tigrayan population. That such well-documented atrocities, which clearly meet the criteria for serious bodily and mental harm under the Genocide Convention, have failed to prompt a meaningful international response further underscores the systemic shortcomings in the international community’s commitment to genocide prevention and persecution.

Article II (c) of the Genocide Convention: Inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

While deliberate infliction does not cause immediate deaths, it aims to result in ‘slow death’. It encompasses deliberate “methods of destruction by which the perpetrators {…} ultimately seek their physical destruction.”[lxii] The withholding of basic necessities, such as food and water or denial of healthcare, over a prolonged period of time constitutes genocidal intent. The “destruction of harvest, crop, and arable land” occurred while the Ethiopian Federal government blocked international food aid and humanitarian assistance to affected areas.[lxiii] These conditions led to the malnourishment of more than 500,000 children by the end of 2022, with the IPC famine death rate estimating that as many as 542,000 people are acutely dying due to famine.[lxiv] In June 2021, PM Ahmed claimed in an interview that “there is no hunger in Tigray,”[lxv] yet he is also on record to have said: “Let us see if the people of Tigray can save themselves.”[lxvi] The situation is exacerbated by the collapse of the health care system with doctors stating that all they could do is “watch them dying, nothing else.”[lxvii] Although the impairment of healthcare services is a typical consequence of violent conflict, the extent to which the Tigrayan system has been affected provides significant reason to believe that these conditions were intentionally imposed by the Ethiopian government. The government’s shutdown of electricity, as well as blockades of medical supplies and humanitarian aid, have already had devastating effects. Reports also indicate acts of looting and vandalism. Deliberately wrecked medical equipment and arson attacks on clinics have resulted in “three out of four hospitals, and four out of five medical centers {…} [to be] unusable.”[lxviii] The ramifications of the decimation of the healthcare system are vast, from basic healthcare being unavailable to emergency surgeries being performed without anesthesia.[lxix] Although it is difficult to estimate a death toll resulting from the lack of healthcare, it is believed to be between 30,000 to 100,000 victims.[lxx]

The intentional imposition of conditions to slowly destroy the Tigrayan population, though starvation, denial of health services, and destruction of essential infrastructures, demonstrate clear violations of Article II (c) of the Genocide Convention. The lack of international response to these systematic and deliberate acts emphasizes the paralysis and inability of the international community to act effectively.

Article II (d) of the Genocide Convention: Measures intended to prevent births

In order to assess if measures were imposed that intended to prevent births within the group, it is important to understand that Tigrayans are a patrilineal society, meaning that “membership of a group is determined by the identity of the father.”[lxxi] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established after the Rwandan Genocide, determined that any “measures which serve to deprive a child of its birth identity within the context of society” would constitute genocide.[lxxii]

In Ethiopia, evidence of such occurrences are widely documented with perpetrators stating: “We are raping you to cleanse your Tigrayan bloodline”[lxxiii], “if you were male we would kill you, but girls can make Amhara babies”[lxxiv] and “no Tigrayan woman will give birth from a Tigrayan man.” The last quote was found written on a piece of paper extracted from the genitals of a rape survivor.[lxxv] The intentional biological destruction through acts such as sexual violence and mutilation can amount to a genocide classification if the goal of these acts is to prevent the groups “perpetuation through successive generations.”[lxxvi] This is especially significant as there is a social stigma around rape, resulting in husbands rejecting their wives after the assault, as well as the intentional infection of sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, which may result in future sexual incapacity.[lxxvii]

There are numerous cases of targeting women of childbearing age, with reported victims being as young as six years old. Survivors recall messages from their perpetrators during the attacks, such as: “We want to destroy your womb so you can’t give birth to a Tigrayan fighter”, “You did nothing bad to us. {…} Our problem is with your womb. {…} A Tigrayan womb should never give birth”, and “[your] womb should be destroyed, and never give birth again.”[lxxviii] Other incidents involved internal and external genital mutilation and the forced removal of unborn children, who were subsequently “stomped to death.”[lxxix] Each violation, in and of itself, inhibits or even cripples the Tigrayan population’s ability to sustain their family lineage, providing clear evidence of genocidal intent.

These acts of targeted sexual violence and reproductive destruction are not incidental but reflect an intent to permanently prevent the continuity of the Tigrayan population. The explicit aim to eliminate future generations clearly fulfills the criteria of prevention of births under Article II (d) of the Genocide Convention. That such violations have failed to provoke international accountability once again highlights failures of international mechanisms.

Turning a blind eye

Both investigative reports by the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia and the New Lines Institute, conclude that based on the available and verifiable information, there is a “reasonable basis to believe”[lxxx] that violations against international law have been committed. The key elements of the concluding statements, based on currently available evidence, are that the situation could amount to a possible genocide classification. However, even if all the verified information does not meet the genocidal threshold, experts warn of a continuation and even escalation of the conflict. There is significant evidence that remains uncovered and unreported, due to the Ethiopian Federal Government denying access for ICHREE to “any areas outside of Addis Ababa” and withholding relevant “documents and materials of interests.”[lxxxi] If the United Nations’ mission is, as Secretary-General Guterres stated: “Preventing genocide and other monstrous crimes [as] a shared responsibility and a core duty of the United Nations,”[lxxxii] two main questions arise. Firstly, if a fact-finding mission, established by the UN, presents truly disturbing evidence of committed atrocities, despite continued governmental refusal to cooperate and the inquiry emphasizes “the need for further investigation,”[lxxxiii] why would the mandate of this commission not be renewed?[lxxxiv] Secondly, if the evidence strongly suggests that the conflict may escalate beyond the threshold of genocide – and prevention, as affirmed by Secretary-General Guterres and international law, is a collective duty – why has the international community taken no concrete action to deescalate or address the situation?

Political strategic interests over human lives

Despite extensive documentation of atrocities in Tigray, the international community’s response has largely been symbolic. The UN’s promise to ‘continue monitoring’ and its appeal for international scrutiny[lxxxv] serve more as diplomatic placeholders, concealing international inaction with seeming political grand gestures, as an appeal for scrutiny is comparable to the consequences of a halfhearted finger wag.

A major obstacle to accountability lies in the refusal to label the atrocities as ‘genocide’. Instead, the international community and media have opted to refer to the conflict as ‘ethnic cleansing’, which has become a common practice euphemism to describe genocidal crimes. While the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is emotionally evocative, it is a non-legal term that carries no legal obligations under international law. This semantic avoidance allows states to circumvent and avoid their moral and legal duties, as ethnic cleansing does not trigger the same legally binding Responsibility to Protect (R2P) obligations as genocide would. Avoidance of the term ‘genocide’ has the “same practical outcomes as genocide denial.”[lxxxvi]

Geopolitical and economic interests further explain the lack of response. Ethiopia’s strategic location in the Horn of Africa, which is crucial for migration control, counterterrorism efforts, and regional stability, makes it an indispensable partner for Western and non-Western powers. Ethiopia’s government has also strongly opposed external interference, framing the conflict as a domestic matter. China’s infrastructure investments and the West’s desire to preserve diplomatic relations have made states reluctant to risk confrontation. International inaction is not due to a lack of evidence but rather calculated political decisions.

Additionally, pledges by the Ethiopian government to pursue transitional justice mechanisms have been accepted at face value, despite serious concerns about their credibility. This form of “quasi compliance” in which superficial commitments are made to avoid scrutiny, is a recurring tactic for mass atrocity impunity, and yet, international actors continue to treat it as sufficient.[lxxxvii]

Conclusion

The situation in Tigray reveals the extent to which the international system designed to prevent and persecute genocide is crippled by selective enforcement and political self-interest. Despite clear evidence meeting the criteria of the Genocide Convention, meaningful action has been withheld not because of uncertainty but due to a prioritization of alliances and economic ties over justice and morality. This case highlights a sobering truth: without meaningful reform, the global pledge of “never again” will remain an empty promise.