Western Tigray: Not “Complex” – A Refutation of Diplomatic Ambiguity

When U.S. Ambassador Ervin Massinga described the crisis in Western Tigray as “complex,” he may have intended diplomatic neutrality but the result is anything but neutral. The term blurs a reality that is not complex at all, but rather a clear and traceable case of unlawful occupation, forced displacement, and constitutional breach.

1. The Constitution Offers No Ambiguity

The 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, hailed globally for recognizing the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples, defines regional boundaries based on:

• Population distribution,
• Linguistic identity,
• Historical settlement patterns,
• Self-governance.

Western Tigray, including Wolkait, Tsegede, and Humera was incorporated into Tigray not through military force or elite fiat, but as part of a broader, systematic, nationwide restructuring process conducted after 1991. This process used census data and was uniformly applied across the country, including in the formation of Oromia, Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, and the new Amhara region itself.

Tigray’s boundaries, like those of all other regions formed after 1991, were drawn on the basis of the constitutional principle of self-rule, not imperial nostalgia. To question this specific case while accepting the rest is not a legal position; it is a politically motivated exception to a universally applied right.

2. Historical Narratives Were Already Rejected in 1991

Amhara elite claims rely heavily on imperial-era administrative arrangements, asserting that Wolkait and Raya were once under Begemder and Wollo. But this logic collapses under its own weight. The 1991 political transition explicitly rejected the imperial and Derg systems of forced assimilation, centralization, and top-down ethnic domination.

The Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), led by TPLF, fought and restructured the Ethiopian state precisely to liberate marginalized nations and redraw borders through the lens of self-determination. This is what gives Ethiopia’s multinational federalism both its moral and legal legitimacy.

To re-assert imperial boundaries through military occupation as the Amhara region has done since November 2020 is to reverse the entire constitutional project. It is not justice. It is conquest.

3. Occupation Is Not Complexity — It Is a Crime

The displacement of over a million Tigrayans from Western Tigray is a well-documented campaign of ethnic cleansing. Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia have all confirmed:

• Mass killings of civilians
• Property confiscation
• Mass expulsions and sexual violence
• Deliberate demographic change

To call this “complex” is to sanitize atrocities. There is no complexity when civilians are killed, homes are taken, and survivors are prevented from returning. What’s happening is not a puzzle to be solved, it is a crime that demands legal redress.

4. The Pretoria Agreement Is a Clear Roadmap

The U.S. government, alongside the African Union, helped broker the Pretoria Agreement, which calls for:

• Restoration of constitutional order,
• Protection of civilians,
• Return of displaced people,
• Accountability for crimes committed.

There is no clause in the agreement that allows selective interpretation of these points. The people of Western Tigray are not returning because the area remains under the same armed forces responsible for their displacement. To say they are “welcome to return” without guarantees, restitution, or justice is not repatriation. It is recycling injustice.

5. The Moral Responsibility to Name the Truth

Western Tigray is not complex. It is constitutionally defined, historically situated, and morally clear. What makes it appear complex is the deliberate political effort to avoid naming the perpetrators, to speak with “both sides” while silencing the victims, and to negotiate with occupiers while ignoring the displaced.

Ambassador Massinga’s statement is not just disappointing, it undermines the very legal and moral framework that the U.S. helped build. If the U.S. values constitutionalism, justice, and peace in Ethiopia, it must say so without euphemism.