[By Tekie Hagos]
As Tigray continues to navigate the fragile post-war landscape, its political future hangs in the balance. The Pretoria Agreement remains largely unfulfilled. Western and Southern Tigray are still under occupation. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) await justice. And Tigray’s internal political arena is divided and increasingly vulnerable to manipulation by external actors.
In this volatile moment, there is growing debate over whether Tigray should forge tactical or strategic alliances with one or more of its historical adversaries—the Federal Government of Ethiopia, Eritrea, or even Amhara extremist forces, particularly the Fano militia. These discussions, unfolding in both elite political circles and grassroots communities, raise serious concerns about the future direction of Tigray’s leadership.
A Fractured Political Landscape
Tigray’s internal leadership structure has changed significantly in recent months. General Tadesse Werede currently leads the Interim Regional Administration of Tigray, having assumed command during one of the most challenging chapters in Tigray’s modern history.
Meanwhile, Getachew Reda, former interim president, has been appointed Horn of Africa Affairs Advisor to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. He is also in the process of forming a new political party—SIMRET—seen by many as a breakaway from the dominant TPLF political culture. SIMRET and other opposition parties are increasingly inclined toward forging renewed ties with Ethiopia, arguing that this may be the only viable path to implementing the Pretoria Agreement and resolving the IDP crisis.
On the other side, reports suggest that the TPLF, along with certain TDF generals, is seeking to forge a backdoor alliance with Eritrea, a regime widely condemned for its role in the genocidal war against Tigray.
Amid these internal shifts, the question looms: Should Tigray engage in tactical or strategic alliances with its former enemies? If so, under what terms—and at what cost?
Alliance with Ethiopia: Opportunity or Trap
Aligning with the Federal Government of Ethiopia offers some practical advantages. Ethiopia controls the national budget, legal mechanisms, diplomatic channels, and implementation of the Pretoria Agreement. In theory, engagement with the federal center could unlock humanitarian access, facilitate the return of IDPs, and provide a political platform for Tigray’s leaders to negotiate from within.
However, this approach is fraught with danger. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration remains unrepentant about its role in the war. Without guarantees of accountability, justice for victims, and restoration of occupied lands, any alliance risks legitimizing impunity.
A tactical, issue-based engagement with the federal government might be considered—but only if tied to concrete, time-bound commitments on:
- Full and safe return of IDPs.
- Withdrawal of Amhara and Eritrean forces.
- Restoration of Tigray’s pre-war borders.
- Recognition of Tigray’s self-governing rights.
Alliance with Eritrea: A Moral and Strategic Red Line
The most alarming development is the reported attempt by the TPLF and allied generals to seek a strategic alliance with Eritrea—the very regime that waged a brutal war against Tigray, massacred civilians, raped women, looted property, and razed towns and villages.
Any form of partnership with the Eritrean regime of Isaias Afewerki would be a betrayal of Tigray’s dead, wounded, and displaced. It would also undermine Tigray’s moral authority in the eyes of the world. No political survival tactic can justify an alliance with a regime that sought to erase Tigray from the map.
This is not strategy—it is desperation masquerading as diplomacy.
Alliance with Amhara Fano: An Existential Contradiction
The idea of aligning with Amhara extremist groups, particularly Fano, is equally unacceptable. These groups continue to occupy large swaths of Tigrayan land and are responsible for ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and continued violence.
There is no shared vision, no mutual respect, and no legal or moral foundation on which to build such an alliance. To even entertain such a possibility is to abandon the principles of territorial integrity and justice that Tigray’s struggle is built upon.
The Path Forward: Unity, Justice, and Conditional Diplomacy
Tigray must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Strategic alliances are not inherently bad, but they must serve the interests of the people, not the survival of discredited political elites. The key lies in internal cohesion, principled negotiation, and moral clarity.
Tigray’s leadership, under General Tadesse Werede, must remain firmly committed to justice, sovereignty, and unity.
Opposition parties, including SIMRET, must push for meaningful engagement with Ethiopia—but only on Tigrayan terms, not federal appeasement.
The memory of genocide, the dignity of displaced people, and the long-term future of Tigray must never be bartered for short-term alliances.
Let us be clear: Not all alliances are strategic. Some are suicidal.
Tigray must not confuse movement with progress, or compromise with surrender. The region’s future depends not on who it aligns with, but why, how, and for whom.
Because of the serious threat to Tigray’s national integrity and sovereignty, exceptional measures are needed. The author of Tigray’s Alliance Dilemma: Balancing Strategic Goals and Political Urgency offers a timely and provocative scenario. My main recommendation is to invite readers to share their opinions on this provocative article.
The primary goal should be to prevent politicians from holding any military command, even temporarily. The military must operate its command structure independently and focus solely on defense, free from interference, manipulation, or influence by political groups. This ensures that our armed forces remain dedicated to protecting the unity and integrity of Tigray. Additionally, the Tigray Army should be banned from engaging in any political activities that support or oppose any political party.
Tigrai forces must form an alliance or build close relationships within the military, develop a contingency plan to prevent civil disorder or war caused by the destructive leadership of General Worede, and ensure that opposition groups’ efforts aim to remove Debretsion and his circle from power.
1. Defend and preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Tigray.
2. Restore unity and harmony to all of Tegrawot.
3. Prepare the groundwork for the establishment of a fair and unencumbered election for a democratic government by supporting the establishment of a transition government of limited duration.
4. Empower the people of Tigray with full political power and ensure and safeguard democratic and human rights for all Tegrawot.
5. Remove all divisive schemes seeded by TPLF.
6. Free all political prisoners, owners of newspapers, and journalists.
Millions of Tegrawot have endured great suffering at the hands of leaders. Many more, who did not survive, are lost on battlefields, murdered, tortured to death, or starving. I feel a deep sense of empathy and kinship with the Tegrawot sisters and brothers. Our people face daily hardships with broken bodies, yet their spirits remain strong, and they hold tightly to our Tigray with all their might.
We talked about unity and common destiny for all Tegrawot. It was both a humbling and inspiring experience for me. With that in mind, let me say that it is always premature to conclude an essay of this sort with any last thoughts. I would rather keep this dialogue open-ended. I do not mind recapping some of the essential points in this essay, which I tried to share with my readers.
1) There can be no political or economic urgency that we Tegrawot would compromise our Sovereignty for.
2) Our best political solution to the transfer of power from TPLF leaders to a more capable leader ought to be worked in two stages: first, from inside the TPLF itself and supported by forces outside of that organization right in Ethiopia, and in the second stage through the establishment of a transition period administration.
3) Support the political parties and forces within Tigray as our main opposition. All Diaspora politicians should set aside their ambitions and assist those in Tigray fighting for democracy and economic growth.
4) Every Tegrawot must stand against TPLF, for that exposes the leadership disguised agent of the Eritrean Government.
5) Every Tegrawot must oppose the efforts of General Werede because General Werede is misinformed, gullible, and makes poor judgments on international relations between states.
This is a time of great anxiety for all Tegrawot. Hostile governments surround us. Yet, we are constantly fighting among ourselves. There is much to be done; as the saying goes, Time and tide wait for no man.
Bereket Kiros
Fascinating options. I appreciated the analysis. Tegaru, particularly those who must make existential decisions, should be provided with as many options like this as possible. I have a slightly different perspective on what Ayte Tekie has proposed.
I agree that “not all alliances are strategic.” Transparency is the foundation of effective alliances. Thus, Tegaru in Tigrai must urgently resolve the issue of nation and nationality. We, in the Diaspora, can only advise. Ayte Tekie’s analysis is based on the premise that Tigrai will continue as a federated state.
I also accept the assumption that it would be challenging, if not impossible, for Tigrai to survive as a nation surrounded by hostile neighbors who wish its demise. The moral dilemma Tigrai faces in seeking alliances with any of its genociders to move forward is understandable.
Therefore, to end the disintegration of Ethiopia, a win-win proposal for all, the current regime must be replaced. And that can only happen expeditiously if the insurgencies were to unite for a common purpose of installing a democratic peoples’ federal government. Then, the alliance that Tigrai seeks changes drastically.
In this scenario, the best ally would be Fano. This difficult choice does not absolve Tigrai of the attendant shame but is the most endurable option to advance its autonomy and focus on recovery and integrated development.
Thank you for bringing to our attention an article by Mr. Tekie, your thoughtful strategic choice. I didn’t delay before reading the article, as you challenged me and provoked me to explore a counterargument. I might try to show why your arguments are incorrect. It would also be very foolish on my part if I attempted to vainly demolish your arguments, whose only goal is to defend the interests of the current and future generations of Tegrawot.
I believe the writer’s motive was solely for the best interests of the people of Tigray. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of ignoring legal, ethical, and moral standards in its dealings with Fano as a strategic alliance. It indicates a lack of moral virtues and promotes criminals who should be condemned. Among all criminals, a criminal group like Fano is the most egregious; as such, this group commits multiple crimes and destroys and stole holy scriptures.
Fano is not primarily made up of progressive elements that were not intentionally fought for in the name of democracy and human rights. On the contrary, despite relying on Abiy PP support, Fano might not have opposed the TPLF’s formidable force. Therefore, with their anti-Tigrayan views, actions, repeated mass murders, lies, deception, ethnic cleansing, corruption, expansion policies, and so on, Fano acts as if it were created to serve Abiy’s goal of dismantling Tigray.
The Front has so far lacked any freedom, tolerance, or diverse ideas, except for hostility, as if all members of the organization were programmed to act like a private army. Abiy has fostered such undemocratic, unpatriotic, servile, and irresponsible behavior in the Fano that it has also spread to other members and their supporters.
There are compelling reasons to remove Abiy Ahmed from office to prevent Ethiopia from disintegrating and the formation of mini-states such as Oromia, Ogaden-Somali, Tigray, Gondar, Sidama, Benishangul, and others. None of these states would be sustainable for decades, and in the meantime, the Horn of Africa will be pulled into the bloodshed caused by ethnic cleansing within the new ministates of a fractured Ethiopia.
It would be soaked with the blood of minorities within each mini-state and also with the counterattacks by neighboring mini-states, and the resulting bloodshed is equally horrific. Now, we must accept the fact that TPLF and their supporters have harmed Tygrei more than even Mengistu Hailemariam did during his seventeen years of rule. Meles and his supporters eliminated nearly all members of the TPLF with learning and leadership potential, leaving the TPLF without talent.
We now have concrete proof that such a powerful organization collapsed due to its incompetence, allowing inexperienced Oromos from OPDO to take its place. If you complain all day, you won’t be able to attract a single well-educated and experienced leader from the current TPLF Tigray leadership to think of a wise strategic alliance. In contrast, the Oromos can summon thousands of highly qualified individuals for leadership roles.
The first order of business is removing terrorist groups like Fano and Shabia, along with their leaders, whom the TPLF brought into our Tigray. A fresh start for forming political organizations must consist of indigenous Tegrawot nationalists, not surrogate figures for aging scholars and ambitious octogenarian Tegrawot in exile.
Now, the Progressive Concerned must call an emergency meeting of a special conference to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the strategic alliance in the short and long term. Let us start working on those concrete suggestions. But not Fano, who has brought so much genocide, rape, dehumanization, and hate campaigns. I prefer working with the Federal government to implement the Pretoria Agreement and eliminate those evil forces, if my choice is accepted. Something wonderful will come our way.
The preceding comment makes a case for allying with Abiy Ahmed, who is the current PM of the federal government. Contradictions aside, let us think beyond ourselves for the survival and better future of Tegaru in Tigrai.
I am an octogenarian professional writing from Seattle to promote diverse discussions. The decision-makers facing existential choices would then have options when selecting a course for the collective survival of Ethiopians in the Horn of Africa.
We are all inherently biased and see the Tigrai politics through our prism; the light at the end of that prism is scattered, but we do not realize it. We need a unifying perspective at the end of our individual reflections to refocus the scattered light.
We have all sinned, some more than others. All the freedom-fighting factions have killed and committed atrocity crimes; some more than others; there are no angels to ally with. Additionally, the one seeking an alliance bears a heavy burden of self-serving, calculated, and egregious errors that have led to the current situation in Ethiopia.
Ayte Tekie’s article is well thought out and prompted me to share my two cents. Despite holier than thou opinions, my focus is on:
1. Tegaru within and abroad must resolve whether the struggle is for an independent Tigrai or part of the federation.
2. In its current state, Tigrai can neither liberate nor sustain itself economically and politically.
3. It must, therefore, ally with the existing factions fighting for liberation from the brutal rule of Abiy Ahmed.
4. Tegaru must transcend the shame and loss of dignity attendant to this alliance; we were shamed when we retreated from victory anyway. We must develop thick skin to survive.
5. The alliance can be strategic, but not deceitful.
Ethiopia’s continued existence as a nation depends on the three factions, OLA, TSF, and Fano, united under a common cause and purpose to replace the current federal regime. Logistically, OLA is too far to partner with for military missions, hence Fano is the better ally.
The alliance of these three factions will also motivate the Fano factions to unite under one command; otherwise, the unaligned risk exclusion during the formation of the transitional federal government of Ethiopia. We did it before, we can do it again, this time for a legitimate democratic government, by the people, for the people.
Although I appreciate your honest opinion, I want to assure you that Achilles’ heel is our reputation for being trustworthy, respecting freedom of the press and speech, and being honest and transparent with the public. That goodwill and commitment are social capital that can drive political action.
What does it look like when a different approach to achieving strategic choice not only guides by our perceptions but is also strategically used to help politicians learn how to make wise decisions? Most importantly, people need to be heard; their needs are urgent, and divisions within TPLF are concerning.
The Democratic Alliance of Tegrawot should ensure its identity is evident in this strategy, given its inclusive approach that embraces people of all ages, genders, the marginalized, the disabled, the underrepresented, and everyone living in the community.
First, let’s assess which processes are most effective in advancing our strategic initiative that addresses both socio-economic and political needs. From this perspective, we can see how such political discourse leads to widespread political efforts to escape this crossroads dilemma. I appreciate that, despite my reservations, the comment by Dr. Tesfai attempts to persuade his readers to focus on five key points.
1. On the first point, it raises a fundamental question: what is the purpose of our political discourse? Different opinions are held regarding whether to proceed independently or follow the Federal agreement championed by the EPRDF. In recent years, the issue of self-determination leading to secession has generated significant controversy. Different explanations for these differences depend on the analyst’s perspective, leading to various interpretations. The debate has broadened to include voices claiming that self-determination is no longer practical for Ethiopia. Many proposals have emerged, reflecting the complexities of Ethiopian society and suggesting ways for the Ethiopian State to survive without addressing the discriminatory practices affecting the governed population.
The concept of self-determination seems to express the idea of democracy, which holds that the people are the most qualified to govern themselves. It is this idea of democracy that allows nationalities or tribes to govern and decide their futures. Such analyses were more static than dynamic, focused on structure rather than process. The self-determination principle is a known remedy and political motivation to give the threatened nationalities a new self-confidence. Article 39.1 states, “Every nation, nationality, and people in Ethiopia have an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession. This will be realized only if Tigray continues to choose the strategic alliance with the current regime, “whether the struggle is for an independent Tigrai or part of the federation”.
I agree with the second point made by the author. Currently, Tigrai cannot free itself or maintain stability economically and politically. The hoarding of wealth by the dark heart of TPLF generals and their allies manipulates the situation to fill their pockets as displaced and hungry citizens are starved. Tigray has valuable minerals, and gold plays a crucial role in the current social, political, and economic crises caused by the TPLF leadership. The TPLF continues to physically and ideologically prevent Tigray from utilizing its resources freely, just as it did before the war. Now, Tigray is recognized as the world’s gold exporter, even though it struggles to feed its people and relies on handouts from the federal government. Over many years, the TPLF had a complicated relationship with Shabia. The idea of allying with existing factions, particularly Fano, is dangerous and could provoke a backlash that would ignite the conscience of the genocide war by those savage beasts. The idea of having an ally was not merely a theoretical goal but also embodied the proper moral conviction.
2. The third point is my disagreement with the choice of ally “Fano” or others who are opposing the PP. This group lacks cohesive leadership, unity, and coordination, which raises questions about their support among the Amhara people. Their expansionist policy represents a racist diaspora faction that spreads hate and misinformation, fueling resentment among the Tigray population.
What is a strategic ally that triggered such a regional crisis? The answer is not hard to find. Fano was allied to eliminate TPLF and the Tigray population; there is no trust from such narcissistic groups. For Fano, it is a time to settle scores for the marginalization of Tigray that PP failed with the Amhara expansion policy. For Abiy, it is the perfect opportunity to dismantle the leadership of TPLF and dissolve the organization, thus removing a real obstacle to his ambition for absolute power.
The dismantling of the TPLF has begun with the Fano and some Amhara military commanders. Eritrean operatives were also involved in the purging. By carrying out such atrocities, both the Amhara and Oromo Kilil Leaders would achieve the condition to redraw the territorial map of the Federation and reduce Tigray’s territorial integrity.
How is it possible that the TPLF is an “ally” with a front as brutal as Shabia that refuses to stop spreading its hateful, misogynistic, anti-Tegrawot all over the world? How is it that we Tegrawot are tolerating a front who have been shamefully terrorist enablers can suggest an ally?
In all this turmoil, no one is considering Tigray’s interests or the future of the people of Tigrai. What we see are leaders who, in almost every case, have shockingly limited abilities to meet the basic needs of their societies.
The article by Tekie encapsulates a good analysis of the way forward for Tigray. I completely agree with Tekie that the TPLF alliance with either Shaebia or Fano is dangerous for Tigray.
Let’s have a look at the TPLF alliance with Shaebia:
1. Shaebia committed atrocity crimes in 1984/85, 1987, 1998-2000, and 2020 up to the present day.
2. Shaebia still has a policy to erase Tigray from the map.
3. Shaebia hasn’t even shown its remorse for the genocide it committed and is still committing atrocity crimes in the parts of Tigray it is occupying (i.e., Isaias said ኣየጣዕሰናን). The Eritrean government has no intention to withdraw from the occupied Tigray territories.
4. Recently, Shaebia cadres made it clear their alliance (ፅምዶ) with TPLF was purely to protect their national interest and prevent a war from happening on Eritrean soil.
With all these repeated genocidal acts in mind, Shaebia is historically enemy number one that does not show remorse and does not regret or acknowledge its past and present genocidal actions. The TPLF alliance with Shaebia is the most dangerous ally and can’t possibly be trusted by any measure, knowing that Shaebia will turn its gun against Tigray to fulfil its policy of erasing Tigray from the map when the Abiy government is toppled.
On the other hand, let’s see the TPLF alliance with Fano:
1. Fano committed indisputable genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing in Western and Southern Tigray.
2. Fano is still claiming Western Tigray and Raya as its historical lands.
3. Fano does not acknowledge that Raya and Welkaite were incorporated in 1948/49 by Emperor Haile Selassie. This historical denial makes Fano the most dangerous for Tigray.
4. Fano released a statement stating that Raya and Western Tigray are Amhara territories.
With all 4 points listed above, Fano will be turned against Tigray as Shaebia. How can the TPLF ally with Fano? As far as I can see, the TPLF alliance with both or either Shaibia or Fano is not good, either tactically or strategically. It is a suicide alliance for the TPLF to go ahead with, which can put the survival of Tigray in danger.
Whereas, with the federal government, Tigray has the Pretoria peace agreement to hold on to that is internationally supported and signed in the presence of the US and AU observers.
Let’s not forget that the Eritrean government (Shaebia), Fano and the federal government of Ethiopia are all genocidaires and committed #TigrayGenocide. An alliance with neither of them should be contemplated. The TPLF will not lead Tigray out of the genocidal war, nor will it establish an independent Tigray.
The TPLF’s political influence is waning (diminishing), and the people of Tigray have lost confidence in it as the TPLF is crushing their rights and freedom using force to continue its authoritarian rule. The TPLF is preaching the alliance as a way out for its survival only, and it is not struggling for the people of Tigray’s interests, democracy, freedom, or liberty. The TPLF will not lead Tigray out of the genocidal war nor it will not establish an independent Tigray.
What Tigray needs is a visionary and nationalist leader to negotiate for full implementation of the Pretoria peace agreement without bloodshed. Tearing up a peace agreement and choosing war is a historical mistake. Tigray should remain neutral and focus on its unity and defence if a war has to break out between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
Tigray’s primary choice should be peace with the Federal government. The TPLF alliance with both or either Fano or Shaebia will not bring lasting peace for Tigray but the worst conflict. The TPLF is trying to use the long conflict to rebuild its authoritarian regime over the people of Tigray.
The TPLF’s strategic or tactical alliance with the Eritrean government (Shaebia) or Fano is a short-term phenomenon that can put Tigray’s survival in jeopardy. The Eritrean government and Fano will turn against Tigray after the Abiy government collapses. We must not also forget that the Eritrean government fully supports Fano. Hence, both Eritrean government and Fano are major threats to Tigray, more so than the federal government. Tigray should only stand ready to defend its territorial integrity and identify if it is forced into war.
Afera Gebru’s opinion captures the urgency and complexity of Tigray’s current crossroads, and the most striking element is Afera’s insistence that all Tigrayans be meaningfully involved in shaping any tactical or strategic alliance. Afera rightly warns against expedient partnerships with historically hostile actors like Fano or Shabia, whose track records are riddled with violence, expansionism, and deep-seated animosity toward Tigray.
Afera’s call for broad-based inclusion, embracing the diverse voices of Tigrayans at home and in the diaspora points toward the only sustainable path forward: an actionable consensus forged through transparency, trust, and clear-eyed realism about allies and adversaries. Afera also highlights that time is not a luxury; delayed unity will only deepen divisions and make Tigray more vulnerable to external manipulation.
The essence of Afera’s argument is that any alliance must serve Tigray’s long-term survival and dignity, not just the short-term political advantage of a few leaders. In that sense, Afera reframes the discussion from “who should we ally with” to “how do we align ourselves internally first” so that any alliance reflects the will of a united people rather than the ambitions of fragmented factions.