Cursed-Land-Ethiopia Owes My Eritrea Billions In Restitution.***I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS 4 YEARS***.!!! WEEY GUUD !!!
Posted: 04 Dec 2025, 20:07
Ghideon Musa Aron
1h
·
Ethiopia Owes Eritrea Billions in Restitution
by Yemane Abselom
Red Sea Beacon
When the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) liberated Eritrea in 1991 after thirty years of war, it made a conscious and historic choice: to prioritize peace over retribution. Eritreans chose to begin state-building without demanding payment for the immense destruction inflicted upon them by successive Ethiopian governments. It was an act of restraint rooted in Eritrean cultural wisdom—“መባእስተይ ለባም ግበረለይ”—“May God make my opponent wise for my sake.” In truth, the Ethiopian people are fortunate that the Eritrean government chose reconciliation over revenge, restraint over retaliation, and nation-building over punishment.
What is almost never acknowledged inside Ethiopia is that Eritrea’s choice to forgive did not mean it lacked a legitimate claim. On the contrary, over decades, Eritrea accumulated a reparations ledger worth billions. International law makes this clear: when a state commits internationally wrongful acts—unlawful annexation, violation of self-determination, destruction of civilian infrastructure, occupation of foreign territory—it is obliged to make full reparation for the damage it causes. This is not unusual. Germany paid restitution after both World Wars; Iraq was forced to compensate Kuwait after 1991; Japan has paid compensation in multiple post-war settlements. Restitution is not an Eritrean invention—it is the normal global practice for states that have committed serious violations.
Eritrea has simply never demanded what international norms already entitle it to.
Haile Selassie’s Regime: Illegal Annexation and Economic Sabotage
When the UN federated Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952, it gave Eritrea autonomous powers with the right to manage its own domestic affairs and retain revenues from its ports. Emperor Haile Selassie immediately violated the federal arrangement. He centralized port revenues in Addis Ababa, depriving Eritrea of its main source of income, and systematically relocated or shut down Eritrean industries to prevent economic development. When Eritreans protested these violations, the regime resorted to repression, including the early massacres that triggered the first waves of refugees.
The Emperor’s illegal dismantling of the federation and subsequent annexation of Eritrea in 1962 constituted a clear denial of the Eritrean people’s right to self-determination. Under international legal principles, Ethiopia owed Eritrea reparation for lost revenues, destroyed livelihoods, the shuttering of industries, and the violent suppression that followed. Eritrea claimed none of it. It bore the loss and continued fighting for its independence.
The Derg Regime: Scorched Earth and Systematic Destruction
If Haile Selassie undermined Eritrean autonomy, the Derg set out to destroy Eritrea’s existence as a functioning society. For seventeen years, Mengistu Hailemariam’s junta launched scorched-earth campaigns across Eritrea—burning villages, bombing markets, destroying roads and bridges, executing youth, and emptying entire regions. These were not battlefield clashes; they were deliberate attacks on Eritrean civilians, agriculture, and infrastructure.
International humanitarian law treats such acts as grave violations. Victims of these violations have the right to reparation. Ethiopia, as the state responsible, would in any normal post-conflict framework be required to compensate Eritrea for destroyed towns, ruined economies, mass displacement, and the enormous human losses that resulted from its campaigns. Yet again, Eritrea sought no reparations when independence was achieved. It focused on rebuilding from ruins rather than litigating the past.
The Weyane (TPLF/EPRDF) Regime: War, Occupation, and False Accusations
After independence, Eritrea tried to build a cooperative relationship with Ethiopia. It had even helped the TPLF/EPRDF overthrow the Derg. But in 1998, a local border incident was escalated by Ethiopia into a full-scale war, despite Eritrea’s repeated calls for arbitration. The war devastated both countries, but the legal record is clear: in 2002, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission ruled that Badme—the symbolic center of the conflict—belongs to Eritrea. Ethiopia had no legal reason to wage war to retain a territory that international law recognized as Eritrean. Under the Algiers Agreement, Ethiopia was responsible for the consequences of its decision to go to war.
Instead of complying, the Weyane regime refused to implement the ruling and held Eritrean land for years. Continued occupation of recognized foreign territory is, in itself, a wrongful act requiring compensation for lost agricultural production, displaced communities, and the denial of sovereign use of land. During the same period, the Weyane government spearheaded a global campaign accusing Eritrea of supporting Al-Shabaab—allegations that led to UN sanctions in 2009. For years, UN monitoring groups repeatedly reported they had found no conclusive evidence of Eritrean involvement. Yet the sanctions stayed in place until 2018, restricting foreign investment and slowing Eritrea’s economic development. In any normal international framework, Ethiopia’s role in promoting these false allegations would trigger responsibility for the economic damage caused. Eritrea asked for no compensation.
The Abiy Ahmed Regime: A Return to Reckless Rhetoric
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed entered office with the opportunity to close the book on decades of conflict. Ethiopia finally accepted the border ruling, and both countries briefly entered a period of peace. Yet within a few years, Abiy revived irredentist rhetoric about a supposed “existential need” for access to the Red Sea and implied that Eritrea’s sovereignty over its own coastline is negotiable—or forceable.
International law is categorical: the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. Threatening war to take another country’s land or coast is a peremptory violation. If Ethiopia were to act on such rhetoric, Eritrea would again be entitled to full reparation for any resulting loss or injury.
The deeper tragedy, however, is that Ethiopia’s political class behaves as though past wars carried no cost—because in practice, they haven’t. Eritrea never demanded restitution for decades of devastation. That absence of accountability has created a dangerous illusion inside Ethiopia: the illusion that war is cheap, that Eritrea has no leverage, and that threatening its sovereignty carries no lasting consequences. It is no accident that leaders who never paid for the last war are now toying with the next one.
Eritrea Deserves Restitution—And Ethiopia Needs Accountability
Across imperial, military, and minority led – governments, Ethiopia caused Eritrea immense material and human loss: stolen revenues, destroyed infrastructure, burned villages, displaced populations, and years of illegal occupation. Under international norms, Eritrea is entitled to restitution for these harms. The sums—if properly calculated—would run into the billions. Eritrea has simply never pursued them.
But this restraint has had a cost. Ethiopians are largely unaware of how much Eritrea has already let go. They do not feel the weight of the wars waged in their name, nor the material consequences their governments should have borne. This lack of historical accountability makes it easier for new leaders to revive old fantasies and propose new confrontations. Had Ethiopia, even once, been forced to pay for the devastation inflicted on Eritrea, today’s reckless rhetoric about “sea access” would find far fewer willing ears.
Eritrea’s patience has never been weakness. It has been a strategic choice for peace. But peace cannot survive indefinitely in an environment where one side believes its past aggressions have no price. For the sake of regional stability, for the sake of truth, and for the sake of future generations, Ethiopia must one day reckon with the enormous debt it owes the people of Eritrea.
https://redseabeacon.com/ethiopia-owes-eritrea-billions.../ See less
1h
·
Ethiopia Owes Eritrea Billions in Restitution
by Yemane Abselom
Red Sea Beacon
When the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) liberated Eritrea in 1991 after thirty years of war, it made a conscious and historic choice: to prioritize peace over retribution. Eritreans chose to begin state-building without demanding payment for the immense destruction inflicted upon them by successive Ethiopian governments. It was an act of restraint rooted in Eritrean cultural wisdom—“መባእስተይ ለባም ግበረለይ”—“May God make my opponent wise for my sake.” In truth, the Ethiopian people are fortunate that the Eritrean government chose reconciliation over revenge, restraint over retaliation, and nation-building over punishment.
What is almost never acknowledged inside Ethiopia is that Eritrea’s choice to forgive did not mean it lacked a legitimate claim. On the contrary, over decades, Eritrea accumulated a reparations ledger worth billions. International law makes this clear: when a state commits internationally wrongful acts—unlawful annexation, violation of self-determination, destruction of civilian infrastructure, occupation of foreign territory—it is obliged to make full reparation for the damage it causes. This is not unusual. Germany paid restitution after both World Wars; Iraq was forced to compensate Kuwait after 1991; Japan has paid compensation in multiple post-war settlements. Restitution is not an Eritrean invention—it is the normal global practice for states that have committed serious violations.
Eritrea has simply never demanded what international norms already entitle it to.
Haile Selassie’s Regime: Illegal Annexation and Economic Sabotage
When the UN federated Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952, it gave Eritrea autonomous powers with the right to manage its own domestic affairs and retain revenues from its ports. Emperor Haile Selassie immediately violated the federal arrangement. He centralized port revenues in Addis Ababa, depriving Eritrea of its main source of income, and systematically relocated or shut down Eritrean industries to prevent economic development. When Eritreans protested these violations, the regime resorted to repression, including the early massacres that triggered the first waves of refugees.
The Emperor’s illegal dismantling of the federation and subsequent annexation of Eritrea in 1962 constituted a clear denial of the Eritrean people’s right to self-determination. Under international legal principles, Ethiopia owed Eritrea reparation for lost revenues, destroyed livelihoods, the shuttering of industries, and the violent suppression that followed. Eritrea claimed none of it. It bore the loss and continued fighting for its independence.
The Derg Regime: Scorched Earth and Systematic Destruction
If Haile Selassie undermined Eritrean autonomy, the Derg set out to destroy Eritrea’s existence as a functioning society. For seventeen years, Mengistu Hailemariam’s junta launched scorched-earth campaigns across Eritrea—burning villages, bombing markets, destroying roads and bridges, executing youth, and emptying entire regions. These were not battlefield clashes; they were deliberate attacks on Eritrean civilians, agriculture, and infrastructure.
International humanitarian law treats such acts as grave violations. Victims of these violations have the right to reparation. Ethiopia, as the state responsible, would in any normal post-conflict framework be required to compensate Eritrea for destroyed towns, ruined economies, mass displacement, and the enormous human losses that resulted from its campaigns. Yet again, Eritrea sought no reparations when independence was achieved. It focused on rebuilding from ruins rather than litigating the past.
The Weyane (TPLF/EPRDF) Regime: War, Occupation, and False Accusations
After independence, Eritrea tried to build a cooperative relationship with Ethiopia. It had even helped the TPLF/EPRDF overthrow the Derg. But in 1998, a local border incident was escalated by Ethiopia into a full-scale war, despite Eritrea’s repeated calls for arbitration. The war devastated both countries, but the legal record is clear: in 2002, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission ruled that Badme—the symbolic center of the conflict—belongs to Eritrea. Ethiopia had no legal reason to wage war to retain a territory that international law recognized as Eritrean. Under the Algiers Agreement, Ethiopia was responsible for the consequences of its decision to go to war.
Instead of complying, the Weyane regime refused to implement the ruling and held Eritrean land for years. Continued occupation of recognized foreign territory is, in itself, a wrongful act requiring compensation for lost agricultural production, displaced communities, and the denial of sovereign use of land. During the same period, the Weyane government spearheaded a global campaign accusing Eritrea of supporting Al-Shabaab—allegations that led to UN sanctions in 2009. For years, UN monitoring groups repeatedly reported they had found no conclusive evidence of Eritrean involvement. Yet the sanctions stayed in place until 2018, restricting foreign investment and slowing Eritrea’s economic development. In any normal international framework, Ethiopia’s role in promoting these false allegations would trigger responsibility for the economic damage caused. Eritrea asked for no compensation.
The Abiy Ahmed Regime: A Return to Reckless Rhetoric
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed entered office with the opportunity to close the book on decades of conflict. Ethiopia finally accepted the border ruling, and both countries briefly entered a period of peace. Yet within a few years, Abiy revived irredentist rhetoric about a supposed “existential need” for access to the Red Sea and implied that Eritrea’s sovereignty over its own coastline is negotiable—or forceable.
International law is categorical: the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. Threatening war to take another country’s land or coast is a peremptory violation. If Ethiopia were to act on such rhetoric, Eritrea would again be entitled to full reparation for any resulting loss or injury.
The deeper tragedy, however, is that Ethiopia’s political class behaves as though past wars carried no cost—because in practice, they haven’t. Eritrea never demanded restitution for decades of devastation. That absence of accountability has created a dangerous illusion inside Ethiopia: the illusion that war is cheap, that Eritrea has no leverage, and that threatening its sovereignty carries no lasting consequences. It is no accident that leaders who never paid for the last war are now toying with the next one.
Eritrea Deserves Restitution—And Ethiopia Needs Accountability
Across imperial, military, and minority led – governments, Ethiopia caused Eritrea immense material and human loss: stolen revenues, destroyed infrastructure, burned villages, displaced populations, and years of illegal occupation. Under international norms, Eritrea is entitled to restitution for these harms. The sums—if properly calculated—would run into the billions. Eritrea has simply never pursued them.
But this restraint has had a cost. Ethiopians are largely unaware of how much Eritrea has already let go. They do not feel the weight of the wars waged in their name, nor the material consequences their governments should have borne. This lack of historical accountability makes it easier for new leaders to revive old fantasies and propose new confrontations. Had Ethiopia, even once, been forced to pay for the devastation inflicted on Eritrea, today’s reckless rhetoric about “sea access” would find far fewer willing ears.
Eritrea’s patience has never been weakness. It has been a strategic choice for peace. But peace cannot survive indefinitely in an environment where one side believes its past aggressions have no price. For the sake of regional stability, for the sake of truth, and for the sake of future generations, Ethiopia must one day reckon with the enormous debt it owes the people of Eritrea.
https://redseabeacon.com/ethiopia-owes-eritrea-billions.../ See less