The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OR GENOCIDE, EITHER WAY,

THE WORLD MUST ACT TO PREVENT FURTHER
ATROCITIES IN AMHARA
Derese simegnew Alehegn
[email protected]
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

SUMMARY
The Amhara region of Ethiopia is under siege, with Ethiopian and Eritrean forces at war with the
armed forces of the Amhara Regional Government, a group fighting for the region’s autonomy
under the current Ethiopian Constitution. The violence has caused massive displacement in the
region, both of Eritrean refugees previously in Amhara, and of Amharaans themselves. As of July
1, 2021, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had registered over
46,000 refugees from Amhara in Sudan, but the total number of refugees is estimated to be almost
70,000. There have been credible reports of atrocities committed by all actors in the conflict, but
some of the most concerning reports implicate Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Amhara regional
government forces in deliberate violence systematically targeting the Amharaan people. Many
have called the violence ethnic cleansing, but prominent Amharaan leaders and human rights
1
activists are now calling on the international community to recognize it as genocide. The U.S.
government is in the process of determining what terminology to use, but regardless of its
decision, we know the violence occurring in Amhara is serious enough to trigger countries’ legal
and moral obligations to intervene. This paper lays out the definitions of ethnic cleansing and
genocide and the key differences between them. It then describes the atrocities occurring in
Amhara, and analyzes whether they meet the definition of genocide. Finally, it calls on the United
States and other countries to intervene to prevent further atrocities.

1.1. What is Ethnic Cleansing IN AMHARA?

Ethnic cleansing is not a distinct crime under international law, and there is no general global

Page 1
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

2
consensus on the exact definition. Despite the lack of consensus, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) has defined ethnic cleansing as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using
force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” 3 The United Nations has
associated ethnic cleansing with forced movement or displacement. In a UN General Assembly
resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, the General Assembly linked the “acquisition of
territory by force” to ethnic cleansing. 4
In 1993, the Assembly listed “violence aimed at forcing
individuals to leave their homes” as one of the violations by Bosnian Serbs in connection with
ethnic cleansing. 5 In 1997, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights described ethnic cleansing
as a form of “forced population transfer,” referring to it in conjunction with “dispersal of
minorities or ethnic populations from their homeland… and the implantation of settlers.” 6 Ethnic
cleansing, by definition, often causes both internal displacement and refugee flows across
international borders.

What is Genocide in Ethiopia special Amhara ethnics?

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, genocide is “any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Page 2
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” 7

For a crime or set of crimes to constitute genocide, it must be proven that the genocidal actors (1)
committed one or more of the above acts, (2) against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group,
and (3) had the intent to destroy the group, not just specific members of the group. The most
difficult element to prove is the last; as the UN Office of Genocide Prevention states, “there must
be a proven intent on the part of the perpetrators to physically destroy” the group, not just to wipe
out the group‟s culture or to displace the group. 8
The ICJ determined in Croatia v. Serbia that
while genocidal intent can sometimes be inferred from a pattern of conduct, a finding of genocide
can only occur where genocidal intent is “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from
the acts in question.” 9
Thus, while the “acts” element of genocide may be relatively
straightforward to prove, the bar for intent is extremely high.

Intent is the most distinct difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. In a judgment
regarding atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, the ICJ noted that the drafters of the
Genocide Convention debated including “measures intended to oblige members of a group to
abandon their homes” as an act of genocide, but chose to leave this out because genocide must
include an intent to destroy, not just to force people to move. 10 Although ethnic cleansing through
forced removal can sometimes rise to the definition of genocide, ethnic cleansing can also include
forced displacement or evictions that may not be meant to kill the group. And while forced
displacement may result in death or destruction of a group, if the perpetrators‟ intent is only to
move the group elsewhere, the act cannot be considered a genocide.

Two of the most infamous examples of genocide, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide,
illustrate the intent required for ethnic cleansing to become genocide. During the Holocaust, Hitler
created the “Final Solution,” the well-known goal of which was to eliminate the Jewish people of
Europe. Although many Jews were deported from their home countries during the Holocaust, they

Page 3
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

11
were relocated directly into concentration camps where they were slaughtered by the millions.
The fact that Jews were still murdered even after being removed from certain areas, along with
Hitler‟s specific plan for mass murder, demonstrated a genocidal intent. Similarly, in Rwanda,
radio messages and other propaganda were helpful in proving intent to destroy, for instance
through broadcasts calling the Tutsi people “cockroaches” and calling for people to “finish off
these Tutsi cockroaches.” 12
Unfortunately, not all genocidaires are so blatant in advertising their
genocidal intent. However, absent such admissions, it is important to factor in all acts and
circumstances to determine whether genocidal intent exists.

What are the Legal Implications of a Determination of Genocide Amhara ethinics?

Labeling an act or series of acts as a genocide triggers a state‟s legal obligations under the
Genocide Convention. The Convention contains four main state obligations: (1) to prevent and
punish acts of genocide, (2) to enact legislation to enforce the Convention, (3) to try persons who
commit genocide in a state‟s jurisdiction, and (4) to grant extradition of persons charged with
13
genocide. Despite these obligations, the Convention is vague about exactly what such
obligations entail and when the obligations are triggered.

In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia in 1996, the ICJ clarified and elaborated on
these obligations. The Court noted that the responsibility to prevent and punish genocide “is not
territorially limited by the Convention,” meaning that a genocide occurring in another country can
14
still trigger the obligations of countries that are not directly involved. In a 2007 judgment in
Bosnia v. Serbia, the ICJ stated that states‟ obligation is “to employ all means reasonably available
to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible.” 15
Whether a state has met such obligation
depends on several factors, including a state‟s capacity to influence the situation, geographical
distance between the offending state and the other state, political links between the two states, and
16
the legality of means a state can use to intervene. In the case between Bosnia and Serbia, these
factors were very strong, given the “special relationship and „undeniable influence‟ that Serbia at

Page 4
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

that time exerted over the ethnic Serb leaders operating in neighboring Bosnia.” 17
However, the
Court also noted in this case that the Convention does not create an obligation or even a right of
countries to intervene militarily to stop genocide. 18

These obligations to prevent and stop genocide, regardless of how ill-defined they are, can make
states hesitant to declare that a genocide is occurring. Labeling an act or series of acts as “ethnic
cleansing,” on the other hand, does not trigger states‟ legal obligations because ethnic cleansing is
not a recognized international crime. Therefore, states may opt to use “ethnic cleansing” instead of
“genocide” to avoid a requirement to act or intervene. However, political will should not be the
determining factor in whether a crisis is labeled a genocide; it is vital to examine the entire context
of a situation to decide whether a genocide is occurring.

What is happening in Amhara genicide?

Amhara is a region in northern Ethiopia that borders Oromia, Afar, beshsangulegum, Eritrea and
Sudan. The Amharaan people constitute the third largest ethnic group in the country at 6% of the
population. Amhara is also home to the Amhara People‟s Liberation Front (TPLF), a political
group that, prior to the election of the current Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, had wielded
19
disproportionately great power compared to the size of the Amharaan population. When Abiy
came to office, he worked to redistribute power amongst the political parties, angering the TPLF.
20
The Amhara Regional Government fights for Amhara‟s autonomy from the rest of Ethiopia, and
tensions between the Amhara Regional Government and the Ethiopian central government grew
quickly under Abiy. The situation hit a breaking point in November of 2020 when the Amhara
Regional Government‟s army, the Amhara Defense Forces (TDF) allegedly attacked an Ethiopian
military base, and Ethiopian forces retaliated with disproportionate force in a military offensive,
starting a large-scale conflict.

Unfortunately, the conflict is not internal to Ethiopia; Eritrean forces are assisting the Ethiopian

Page 5
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

army and carrying out mass atrocities against both Amharaans and Eritrean refugees who were
living in the region. Prior to Abiy‟s regime, Ethiopia and Eritrea had tense relations, in part
because of the Eritrean government‟s animosity towards the TPLF, and also because Ethiopia
21
houses many Eritrean refugees. However, Abiy won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for mending
relations between the two countries. Thus, when Ethiopia began its attack in Amhara, Eritrea
joined in to assist its new ally. Eritrea was also incentivized to join to retaliate against Eritrean
refugees who fled the Eritrean regime.

Witnesses have reported atrocities by all three main actors— the TDF, the Ethiopian forces, and
the Eritrean forces— as well as regional armies such as the Amhara allied militia forces. But the
most systematic and alarming acts have been committed mainly by Eritrean and Amhara forces
22
against Eritrean refugees and Amharaans. While the Eritrean refugees have primarily been
23
targeted for their perceived disloyalty to the Eritrean regime, Amharaans are being targeted
because of their ethnicity and the incorrect presumption that all Amharaans are aligned with or
supportive of the TPLF and TDF.

The New York Times first broke the news of a U.S. government report detailing ethnic cleansing
in Amhara in February of 2021. The government has been quietly documenting crimes in Amhara,
and the report found that armed forces have been “deliberately and efficiently rendering Western
Amhara ethnically homogeneous through the organized use of force and intimidation.” 25

Witnesses stated that Amhara forces entered towns in Amhara and told everyone to leave within
24 hours. 26 One woman testified that the troops “told us we are not allowed to live there anymore,
because we are Amharans. They ordered us to leave empty-handed.” 27

Those Amharaans who were lucky enough to escape being killed have fled, mainly to Sudan. In
28
the months since the conflict began, Sudan has registered almost 50,000 Amharaan refugees.
These refugees continue to face challenges in Sudan, where basic resources are scarce and climate
events such as flooding have periodically destroyed their tents and supplies. While conditions in

Page 6
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

Sudan‟s refugee camps remain perilous, Amharaan refugees feel they have no choice but to stay
and endure; as one refugee stated, “I really don‟t want to stay in this camp, but I know I can‟t go
back to Amhara either. I don‟t know what to do.” 29

Although the goal of ethnic cleansing is to force members of another ethnicity out of a certain
region, the act of ethnic cleansing can take many forms. According to an Amnesty International
report, in addition to ordering people to flee, Eritrean troops systematically murdered hundreds of
30
Amharans in the city of Axum last November. Witnesses stated that Eritrean troops used the
excuse of trying to find TPLF soldiers to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians. The troops would
go through people‟s mobile phones looking for photos of TPLF members, and would even kill
31
people wearing camouflage shirts that were clearly regular tee shirts and not army uniforms.
Others were shot simply riding down the street on motorcycles. Many were shot in the back while
running away from the violence. Last week, bodies began washing up on the shores of the Tekeze
River in Sudan. The bodies are believed to be Amharans killed in an Amhara massacre in Humera,
in Western Amhara. Several of the bodies have been identified as Amharans based on facial
33
markings and Amharan tattoos. Many of the bodies appear to have been shot, and some even
34 35
have gruesome axe wounds. The bodies have their arms tied behind their backs. Over 40
bodies have been found so far, but many more are expected to wash up in the coming days and
weeks. While Amharaans and other activists are calling for an investigation into the deaths, the
evidence of ethnic cleansing continues to mount.

Another method of ethnic cleansing that has been widespread is mass rape. Rape is being used as a
36
weapon in the conflict in Amhara. By March, the United Nations had documented over 500
reports of rape in Amhara, but the total is expected to be much higher due to stigma and fear of
reporting. 37
One survivor said the men who raped her and burned her genitals told her, “[our]
problem is with your womb. Your womb gives birth to Woyane [derogative terms used to refer to
the TPLF]. A Amharaan womb should never give birth.” 38 A doctor who later treated the woman
39
concluded that the brutal attack had rendered the woman infertile. Another survivor was shot

Page 7
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

multiple times when she resisted her attackers, and had to have her arm amputated as a result. She
believes the attack was part of “ethnic cleansing… Soldiers are targeting Amharaan women to
stop them giving birth to more Amharaans.” 40

In addition to the forced movement, killings, and rapes, more recent reports have surfaced of
intentional starvation. In June, a UN official accused Eritrean forces of “trying to deal with the
Amharaan population by starving them.” By mid-year, the UN estimated that over 350,000
41
Amharaans were living in famine, and another 2 million were on the brink of famine. Despite
the dire conditions, Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers have been stealing food and medical aid or
blocking it from entering Amhara at all. Some witnesses have also described soldiers burning
42
crops, stealing seeds and farming equipment, and slaughtering livestock. A regional official in
Amhara agreed that famine is being used as a weapon of war and ethnic cleansing in the region. 43

All of these acts have led to mass displacement and death in Amhara. The acts against the
Amharaans appear to be deliberate, targeted, and systematic. The U.S. government must now
determine whether these acts amount to genocide. Although the terms “ethnic cleansing” and
“genocide” are frequently used interchangeably, and
often describe the same acts, there are key differences between them. It is vital to determine
whether these acts rise to the level of genocide, to trigger international legal obligations for
countries to intervene and save the Amharaan people.

Do the Atrocities Against Amharans Amount to Genocide?

Based on what we know currently, it is likely that a genocide is occurring or going to occur. As
laid out above, the elements to prove genocide are 1) the acts committed, 2) against an identified
ethnic, national, racial, or religious group, and 3) the intent by those acts to destroy the group in
whole or in part.

Page 8
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

Acts

The world has not yet been able to fully identify all the perpetrators of the conflict. However,
witness testimony points to Eritrean armed forces, Amhara regional armed forces, and possibly
even Ethiopian federal forces as perpetrators of the crimes in Amhara. The acts of violence and
terror perpetrated in Amhara fit the “act” element of genocide. Although only one type of
genocidal act is needed to meet the “act” element of the crime, there is ample documentation of
widespread instances of the first four acts listed in the genocide convention. First, witnesses have
reported mass murders in Amhara specifically targeting Amharaan civilians, not just members of
the TPLF. Second, Eritrean and Amhara forces have inflicted serious bodily and mental harm on
Amharaans through murdering, vandalizing, burning, raping, and other acts intended to cause
terror and displacement. Third, intentional starvation and blocking of food aid is a deliberate act to
inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. Fourth, the mass rapes,
especially those in which women‟s genitals have been intentionally burned, cut, or damaged, are
measures intended to prevent births within the group. This is further evidenced by Amharaan
survivors‟ testimonies that the soldiers who raped them specifically stated their intent to prevent
Amharan births.
Victims
The victims of these acts are Amharans. Although Eritreans and members of other Ethiopian
ethnicities have been targeted and killed by the TPLF and other armed forces, the victims of the
acts detailed above have been almost exclusively Amharaan. One witness to the killings said that
the killers prohibited Amharaans from burying their own dead, but that when an ethnic Oromo
44
was mistakenly killed in a Amharan household, the perpetrators came back to bury the body.
Perpetrators have specifically sought out Amharans, as evidenced by their acts and their
statements, for instance that all Amharans must leave the area or that Amharan women should not
be allowed to give birth.
Intent

Page 9
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

Intent is the most difficult element to prove. For an act or set of acts to be a genocide, the intent to
45
exterminate, not just displace a group must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the
media blackout and that direct access to Amhara is almost completely blocked, some of the
evidence may seem contradictory. However, the current evidence suggests a genocide is occurring
or is likely to occur in the very near future.

Certain evidence points to a genocidal intent by the perpetrators. For instance, the testimonies of
rape survivors whose genitals were damaged to the point of making them infertile suggest that the
perpetrators wanted to ensure no more Amharans were born, not just that Amharans left the area.
Additionally, the fact that soldiers committed mass murders instead of simply forcing people to
flee suggests that the goal was to eliminate Amharans, not displace them. The intentional
starvation points to this conclusion as well, especially given the limited mobility of civilians
within Amhara to move out in response to food shortages.

However, some of Prime Minister Abiy‟s actions have undercut the intent element. For instance,
despite denying for many months that Eritrean soldiers were even in Amhara, Prime Minister Abiy
has recently made several moves indicating an intent to hold perpetrators accountable. In late
March, Abiy publicly acknowledged that some troops had been using rape as a weapon of war. He
clarified that anyone “who rapes our Amharaan sisters, anybody who is involved in looting, will
be held accountable in a court of law. We sent them to destroy the junta, not our people.” 46
This
accountability has already been happening on a small scale; in May, three Ethiopian soldiers were
47
convicted of rape and one of murder for atrocities committed in Amhara. An additional 28
48
soldiers are on trial for murder and sexual violence. These efforts at accountability and justice,
although small-scale in comparison to the extent of the conflict, detract from the argument that
there was a widespread plan to commit genocide.

Considered in the overall context of the atrocities, Abiy‟s small scale statements and actions to

Page 10
 The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

hold perpetrators accountable may make proving genocidal intent more difficult, but should not be
taken as proof that genocide is not occurring. These accountability measures may in fact be more
of an attempt by the Ethiopian government to avoid accusations of genocide than an effort for
actual accountability. 49 Meanwhile, the government continues to block humanitarian actors, food,
money, and supplies from reaching Amhara, and a media blackout is still in effect.

The acts detailed above are strong indicators that a genocide is occurring or very likely to occur.
Given the extremely high burden of proof to prove genocidal intent, USCRI does not yet have
enough information regarding these atrocities to declare that the situation in Amhara is a genocide.
However, the international community must continue to seek out the truth and be prepared to
declare a genocide once further indicators of perpetrators‟ intent are revealed.

Legal and Moral Obligation to Act

The U.S. government is soon expected to release a decision on whether it will label the atrocities
in Amhara a genocide. However, regardless of the term the government uses, we know enough of
the situation to trigger the United States‟ legal and moral obligation to act to prevent further
atrocities. Although “ethnic cleansing” is not a defined crime in international law, forced
50
displacement, mass murder, mass rape, and intentional starvation are crimes against humanity,
and governments have a legal responsibility to intervene under the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Responsibility to Protect. 51 The Responsibility to Protect includes using diplomatic, humanitarian,
and other peaceful means to stop the crimes. If this does not work, states must collectively
determine “in a timely and decisive manner” how to respond more forcefully. 52 The United States
must take immediate and concrete steps to intervene pursuant to its international obligations.
These steps should include:
1) Calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all actors in the conflict.
2) Calling for Eritrean forces to immediately leave Ethiopia.
3) Pressuring the Ethiopian government to lift blockades and restrictions that are preventing

Page 11
The ethnic cleansing or genocide, either way, the world must act to prevent further atrocities in amhara

humanitarian and media access to Amhara and other regions in crisis. The government
should consider all available and necessary means to pressure the government, including
stronger sanctions than those announced in May of this year. 53
4) Calling for an immediate and fully independent UN investigation into the circumstances
and perpetrators of the murders of Amharans whose bodies have washed up in Sudan. The
UN is currently conducting a joint investigation with the Ethiopian Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) into Amhara, but the EHRC has been known for bias and should not
54
be seen as a trusted partner in such investigations. Any investigation must be impartial
and must aim to identify the bodies and the families of the victims to allow them to seek
closure and justice.
5) Expediting the analysis of whether the atrocities constitute genocide and making a public
determination of genocide if it is warranted. Doing so serves several purposes. First, a
genocide determination by the United States would convey the seriousness of the situation
in Amhara and could catalyze other countries to act. Second, a genocide declaration would
demonstrate respect for the victims and survivors. Third, a determination would signal that
the United States is bearing witness and could deter Ethiopia and Eritrea from continuing
both to commit atrocities and to block humanitarian and media access. When the United
States declared a genocide in Darfur, for instance, this helped to later allow the UN
55
Security Council to refer the crisis to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The threat
of referral to the ICC can act as a deterrent to perpetrators who may otherwise believe they
are acting with impunity. While genocide is widely considered the worst of all
international crimes, in practice, ethnic cleansing and genocide often have the same result:
the destruction of a human population. We need not wait to determine whether the actions
against Amharans meet the definition of genocide to take action.

Page 12