G7. In Tigray there is no need for NGOs but for military intervention.

Rich countries at the G7 Summit called for a ceasefire and free access for humanitarian workers to Tigray. These are important requests but risk being ineffective if not supported by concrete actions. Unfortunately, the only possible solution against a government that commits crimes against humanity and genocide is the use of force through military intervention to protect the population.

During the 2021 G7 Summit the seven largest advanced economies in the world called for an immediate ceasefire in Tigray, the withdrawal of Eritrean troops and a complete and credible political process. Particular emphasis was placed on unhindered access for humanitarian workers to save the population.

“We are deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict … and news of an ongoing serious humanitarian tragedy, including potentially hundreds of thousands of people in famine conditions,” said a statement released after the G7 summit.

The statement of concern from the richest and most powerful democracies in the world comes shortly after the United Nations senior humanitarian official: Mark Lowcock told Reuters that “food is definitely used as a weapon of war” in Tigray, where they are located Ethiopian army and its allies to fight the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

A report this month from the United Nations-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) warned that 5.5 million people in the region are “facing high acute food insecurity,” of which 353,000 are at the highest. “catastrophic” risk level. The UN Security Council will discuss the crisis on Tuesday.

Famine as a weapon of war is associated with ethnic cleansing, sexual violence, the destruction of economic, health, educational infrastructure and the blatant attempt to erase Tigray’s cultural identity by destroying monasteries, churches, monuments, historical archives and imposing Amharic culture and language. All components that determine the definition of genocide, as warned a month ago by the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Ethiopian and Eritrean forces have been accuse of deliberately blocking supplies of aid to Tigray. Aid workers report that various foodstuffs destined for the population are stolen or confiscated by Eritrean and Ethiopian soldiers. The Prosperity Government denies it, saying it is distributing assistance to restore order in the region. Just as he denies that there is a famine and continues to assert that Eritrean troops are starting to withdraw in their country when certain news shows an escalation of the Eritrean military presence that has expanded into Oromia (about 30,000 men) and on the borders with Sudan .

The mocking challenge of the central government in Addis Ababa (based on denial policy and the alleged defense of national sovereignty), was launched by the Ethiopian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister one day before the G7 leaders discussed the “Ethiopia dossier”. A clear pre-emptive diplomatic and media attack.

The minister, Demeke Mekonnen, accused the group of rich countries of “a condescending approach” in favor of the TPLF and asked them to “ desist from these useless activities”. In a video statement, Demeke accused unspecified members of the “international community” of waging “a campaign” against Ethiopia. According to him, the accusations leveled at the government of using hunger as a weapon of war are a huge falsehood.

The declared intention to collaborate positively and constructively with all partners to increase humanitarian assistance and restore basic services in Tigray, is also tied to the interests of the nationalist Amhara leadership, and dreams of power of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. A politician who it is losing its leadership, progressively transforming itself into a simple tool for imposing Afwerki’s ethnic domination policy and territorial and retaliatory demands against its cousins ​​in Tigray.

The demands made during the G7 summit apparently seem sensible and prompted by a firm will to stop this absurd civil war where most of the victims are civilians. Apparently.

In reality, these requests can become a simple act of washing the conscience like Pontius Pilate if they are not support by concrete actions to prevent the continuation of an organized and planned massacre of part of the Ethiopian population. A massacre that has as its focus the Tigray and branches in Oromia. Let us not forget the (almost ignored) reports of the atrocities committed by the federal army and Eritrean soldiers in this region. The same atrocities against civilians that are taking place in Tigray, applied in Oromia in the same way.

The message is clear. Anyone who opposes the plans of ethnic Amhara domination and the ambitions of the Eritrean dictator Isaias Afwerki is subject to total repression. The mentality that induces these actions is that of domination imposed by iron and fire: the policy of the Amhara Emperors of the Solomon dynasty: from Menelik I to Haille Selaisse.

It’s clear the will of the Ethiopian Premier and his allies / masters, to ignore international appeals and to continue to resolve a political problem (which goes well beyond the confrontation with the TPLF as a national and non-regional problem) with the use of blind force and the total repression of certain ethnic groups opposed to the centralization of State powers, that would favor Amhara domination.

The Western powers are facing an impasse. All their proposals to peacefully resolve the ongoing conflicts in Ethiopia are ignored. Insisting on emphasizing humanitarian assistance in a context of generalized war conflict could not only be misleading but deleterious.

The humanitarian assistance of UN agencies and NGOs, although necessary and humanly acceptable, risks becoming a tool for the aggressors who seek to “cure” the most violent aspects of a conflict on the population without resolving the causes and without stopping the criminals who have created aggression and are perpetuating crimes against humanity.

When all preventive actions to avoid a conflict fail and, in the face of a clear intention of genocide, the international community cannot limit itself to requests of principle or to promote humanitarian assistance. It must act, as it did in the 1940s against Nazism.

The moral obligation to intervene militarily against another State to stop a genocide arises precisely from the Nazi Holocaust, the genocide in Bosnia perpetuated by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević, and the African Holocaust in Rwanda, 1994.

This principle was defined at the world summit held in September 2005 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. For the occasion, a document was approved in which the idea emerged that, in the field of international relations, there must be a basic principle on which the conditions for a morally and juridical justified military intervention can be determined in the presence of specific , structured and widespread violations of human rights within a country or a specific geographical area.

This principle provides for the gradual use, by both individual States and the international community, of all the most appropriate actions to stop quickly the systematic implementation of crimes against humanity or, even worse, of a premeditated genocide. Initial actions may originally have a peaceful nature but, in the absence of obvious lack of cooperation from the government responsible for the crimes, it cannot exclude actions of a military nature.

In summary, the principle of justified military intervention consists of a rule that aims to protect the world population from events such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and, in general, crimes against humanity. Military intervention must be triggered when a State cannot or does not want to protect its citizens or is the one to harm them. In this situation, the international community is required to intervene and act accordingly to defend violated human rights.

This responsibility aims to prevent the repetition of humanitarian disasters occurring in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia, as international institutions bear the responsibility of preventing and preventing such crimes against humanity.

Even if the Abiy government granted free access to humanitarian action, it would become an instrument of the regime to alleviate the suffering inflicted by Abiy, and clean up his international image.

Simply invoking access to humanitarian workers, opens the door to the risk of exempting themself from responsibility for protecting the population, enshrined in the report of the UN Secretary General of 21 March 2005 which authorizes a military intervention in the pursuit of the goal of freedom to live in conditions of dignity following the more general principle of “freedom from fear and tyranny”.

Military intervention can take two forms. The first characterized by a force of opposition with full combat mandate, with the aim to separate the fighting forces involved in the conflict by imposing a real ceasefire and forcing the contenders to sit at the peace table monitored and chaired by the International Community as super partis referee.

The second is characterized by an offensive intervention against a belligerent faction or government that deliberately and unilaterally commits crimes against humanity or attempts to carry out a genocide in order to provide for the dismissal (and subsequent trial) of a leadership that has placed itself out of bounds of humanity, imposing a political domination with iron and fire. The second type of intervention was apply during the civil war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Libya in 2011.

Some might argue that a military intervention implemented in one form or another could create a situation of extensive conflict with the direct involvement of various regional and international powers, as in the case of Syria. Let us not forget that Ethiopia, in addition to its direct partners (Afwerki and the fascist Amhara leadership), enjoys the protection of Russia, China, Turkey and the medieval monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula: United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

The objection is relevant and cannot be underestimated but opens up a difficult dilemma to resolve. Is it better to intervene, aware of the risks of extending the conflict, or to witness the completion of a genocide?

Whatever the best solution to solve this dilemma is, it remains a fact. The humanitarian response by itself cannot stop genocide, just as calls for peace and economic sanctions cannot.

Only the use of force (progressive and controlled) can resolve the situation in face of a government that has deliberately placed itself outside international laws and morals. Once defeated, the leaders guilty of these crimes must undergo an exemplary trial and punishment as was the case for the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials or for the HutuPower racial supremacy forces in Rwanda.

Insisting only on requests and good will means giving reason to Minister Demeke Mekonnen who advised the international community to “desist from these useless activities”.