Rethinking Tigray’s Premature Overtures to Eritrea
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— George Santayana.
In the aftermath of collective trauma and political devastation, the desire to return to normalcy can be politically intoxicating. In Tigray, this desire is manifesting in the form of premature overtures toward Eritrea—initiatives driven by factions of the regional leadership that bypass public mandate, institutional process, and strategic coherence. These gestures are not arising from structured diplomacy or reciprocal peace processes; they emerge instead from a fragmented political landscape shaped more by elite competition than by collective strategy.
What is being framed as visionary engagement is, in reality, an act of strategic confusion. If left unchecked, these overtures risk eroding Tigray’s moral authority, undermining its demands for justice, and destabilizing its already fragile path toward recovery.
Diplomatic Illusions and Asymmetric Posture
Eritrea’s regime has made no gestures of reconciliation. There have been no statements of acknowledgment, no steps toward accountability, and no guarantees of non-aggression. Yet, within Tigray’s political elite, there is increasing eagerness to normalize relations—often framed in nostalgic terms rooted in shared language, kinship, and geographic proximity.
But engagement without reciprocity or preconditions is not diplomacy—it is surrender. As political scientist Robert Jervis argues, misperceptions in foreign policy often stem not from ignorance, but from motivated reasoning—a cognitive bias wherein threats are interpreted through hope rather than reality. Post-conflict societies are especially vulnerable to such reasoning, favoring symbolic gestures over strategic foresight.
In Tigray’s case, this psychological tendency risks producing decisions grounded in political optics and elite performance, rather than in structural analysis or justice-centered negotiation.
Legal and Political Constraints: Who Speaks for Tigray?
Tigray remains a regional state within the Ethiopian federal system. Under Article 51 of the federal constitution, foreign relations fall under federal jurisdiction. While Article 39 grants regions the right to secede, that right must be formally exercised, institutionally declared, and internationally recognized.
Any diplomatic overture to a sovereign state like Eritrea, undertaken without constitutional clarity or internal mandate, reflects what political theorist Stephen Krasner terms “organized hypocrisy”—a situation in which subnational actors adopt the language of sovereignty without possessing the political or institutional capacity to practice it.
Such moves not only invite legal confusion but also weaken Tigray’s external legitimacy. Engaging a foreign power while bypassing the federal structure—especially in the absence of formal separation—sends conflicting messages to international actors who might otherwise support Tigray’s postwar stabilization or justice claims.
People-to-People Contact ≠ Political Legitimacy
A common argument among proponents of engagement is that shared identity—language, culture, and kinship—between Tigrayans and Eritreans naturally supports political rapprochement. But this conflation is historically inaccurate and analytically flawed.
As Mahmood Mamdani reminds us, violence is often enacted not despite shared identity, but because of it. The atrocities committed by Eritrean forces in Tigray—massacres in Axum, rape campaigns, looting, and cultural destruction—were not prevented by linguistic or familial ties. On the contrary, they were intensified by a history of competitive proximity.
While informal, grassroots relationships should be preserved and respected, they must not be used to justify formal political engagement with a regime that remains unrepentant. To conflate social resilience with political trust is to misread the nature of power and to mistake familiarity for safety.
Engagement Must Follow Defined Interests
Drawing from Thomas Schelling’s game theory, strategic negotiations require credible commitments and clearly articulated red lines. Tigray, as a political entity, has yet to publicly define its fundamental interests in relation to external actors—Eritrea included.
Any political engagement must be preceded by a clear articulation of key priorities. Foremost among these is civilian security and non-aggression, ensuring protection from proxy attacks or the threat of reinvasion. Equally critical is the affirmation of territorial integrity, with borders that are not only clearly demarcated but actively defended. Justice and accountability must be pursued through independent investigations and credible mechanisms for reparation. Furthermore, institutional legitimacy must be anchored in elected and accountable governance structures capable of speaking on behalf of the region. Finally, economic resilience should be cultivated by leveraging diplomacy as a means to enable—not substitute—internal development.
Absent these anchors, engagement devolves into improvisation. Worse still, it becomes a vehicle for factional posturing rather than strategic transformation.
The Crab Mentality in Tigrayan Politics
Perhaps the most urgent threat to Tigray’s strategic coherence is not external but internal. The region’s political landscape is fractured—defined by intra-elite rivalry, narrative warfare, and a collapse of collective leadership.
This condition is aptly captured by the crab mentality metaphor: when members of a group sabotage each other’s progress out of envy, mistrust, or fear of losing control. Instead of rising together, they ensure mutual stagnation.
Psychologist Jerry M. Burger describes this dynamic as defensive positionality—a behavioral response in which insecure actors compensate by attacking those perceived as threats to their status. In Tigray’s political culture, this often manifests in the systematic undermining of civic and intellectual leaders, the prioritization of visibility over substance, and the tendency to equate disagreement with betrayal. Engagement itself is frequently weaponized, used less as a platform for dialogue and more as a tool of political one-upmanship.
As a result, the very concept of peace becomes distorted—less a process of reconciliation than a theater for factional validation. Eritrea, in this context, becomes less a foreign policy issue than a stage for internal political maneuvering.
Strategic Amnesia and Reputational Laundering
The TPLF’s rush to re-engage with Eritrea is particularly alarming given the documented history of betrayal. The 1984 famine-era border closure, the 1998–2000 war, and Eritrea’s central role in the 2020–2022 genocidal campaign form a pattern not of miscommunication but of deliberate strategic aggression.
Political scientist Valerie Hudson refers to this phenomenon as “strategic amnesia”—the willful erasure of past harms in order to pursue short-term alignments or rehabilitate failed political agendas. When political elites practice strategic amnesia, they are not reconciling with the past. They are laundering reputations—both their own and that of the regimes they once opposed.
By proposing diplomatic overtures without institutional mandates, accountability mechanisms, or public consultation, Tigray’s leaders are offering Eritrea moral legitimacy without cost, while diluting their own demands for justice on the global stage.
Escaping the Crab Bucket: A Strategic Path Forward
Tigray’s future depends not on performative diplomacy but on structural political reorganization grounded in systems thinking and democratic legitimacy.
Central to this transformation is the establishment of a Strategic Policy Council—an autonomous, multi-stakeholder body with the mandate to coordinate transitional justice, foreign policy, and governance reform. Rooted in systems theory, this council must represent more than party elites; it should include civic leaders, legal scholars, women’s associations, and war-affected communities to ensure broad-based legitimacy and accountability.
Equally important is the institutionalization of leadership standards. Drawing from transformational leadership frameworks, Tigrayan political actors must shift from reactive to proactive, generative vision. Leadership should be assessed not by charisma or media dominance, but by the ability to build inclusive coalitions, translate policy into practice, and rebuild public trust.
Legal oversight and public mandate must also be enforced. Diplomatic engagement should not be the domain of individuals or parties acting unilaterally. Instead, it must undergo institutional scrutiny—requiring constitutional authority, legislative review, and mechanisms for public consultation.
Tigray must also reconstruct its strategic narrative. Its public discourse should move beyond trauma-driven reaction to a justice-oriented strategy. This means refusing euphemisms, naming betrayal when it occurs, and restoring a civic language rooted in rights, dignity, and responsibility.
Preconditions for Eritrean Engagement
If Eritrea is to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic interlocutor rather than a predatory actor, it must meet a set of minimum preconditions. These include public recognition of Tigray as a legitimate political entity, a formal disavowal of wartime atrocities, and a commitment to non-aggression coupled with verifiable demilitarization.
Diplomatic engagement must occur through third-party mediation, anchored in enforceable benchmarks. Moreover, Eritrea must take concrete reparative actions, including the return of displaced persons and meaningful contributions to reconstruction efforts.
Short of these, diplomatic outreach is not peacebuilding—it is appeasement. It offers symbolic victories for elites while exposing civilians to renewed vulnerability.
Contributed by Getachew Temare
