Ethiopia’s Tigray crisis proves the Nobel Prize isn’t really about peace

When Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019, he was widely applauded for normalizing relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which had long been at war. Abiy’s first year in office was marked by widespread public support, and he was the figurehead of a movement referred to as “Abiymania.” 

Just over a year later, Ethiopia is once again embroiled in war, this time with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). The TPLF is active in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia, and represents a small part of Ethiopia’s ethnic population. The TPLF is a former party within the governing coalition of Ethiopia, and the conflict started after Prime Minister Abiy moved to merge ethnic and regional-based parties into a new governing coalition. 

The TPLF refused to join, and when Abiy delayed scheduled elections in August due to COVID-19, the TPLF declared him an illegitimate ruler. Following elections held by the TPLF in Tigray, the Abiy administration has accused the TPLF of attacking a military base and retaliated with a war that has resulted in civilian massacres. The federal government has claimed control of the Tigray region, though due to the destruction of communication infrastructure, external actors have not been able to verify this. 

Abiy has not been receptive to peace talks in the Tigray region despite pressure from several former African presidents, including fellow Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. As the hype around Aiby fades and the situation in Northern Ethiopia continues to deteriorate, the hypocrisy of a man who once called war, “the epitome of hell,” has been brought to the forefront of national conversation. 

Abiy is not the first Nobel Peace Prize Laureate to undertake actions that contrast the goals of the Peace Prize. Aung San Suu Kyi, the state counsellor of Myanmar, won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy for democracy and human rights. Yet since ascending to power, she has presided over the genocide of the Rohingya people and overseen a crackdown on the very rights she once defended. 

With two recent winners facing calls to have their prizes revoked, debate about the validity of the prize has been fierce, as many say the prize should be paused and its validity reconsidered. An alternative to an outright suspension could be to present it in a new light. Winning the Peace Prize should not be seen as an explicit endorsement of a leader as an inherent peace-seeking individual. The Nobel Peace Prize should be viewed as it really is: a problematic award that risks providing leaders with international legitimacy for all future actions. 

The importance of legitimacy on the international stage cannot be understated. Both Abiy and Aung San Suu Kyi were seen as darlings of the international community and praised for their work towards peace and equality. For them, the Nobel Peace Prize was the crowning achievement in an already impressive list of accolades and commendations. The prize served as encouragement for the international community to embrace both leaders and provided an implicit endorsement of their future actions. Despite Abiy’s actions that are taking Ethiopia back into war, commentary on the conflict has been muted, and there has been little effort to denounce the prime minister. 

This weak international criticism, despite Abiy’s ongoing military successes in the Tigray region, speaks to his popularity on the world stage. In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi’s excessive prosecution of journalists and ardent defence of the Burmese military in its conduct of genocide against the Rohingya has left her legacy tarnished.

The situation in Ethiopia should be named for what it is—an unjust war that could have been avoided. Abiy’s actions are not peaceful and their gravity cannot be understated. Yet, through the legitimacy provided by the Nobel Prize, these actions are not seen for what they are. Recognizing that not all Peace Prize laureates are peaceful should lead to a serious reassessment of the way in which the international community approaches former laureates of this not-so peaceful prize.