14/10/2025
# General Tsadkan’s Contradictory Narrative on Accountability in the Tigray War
In a recent interview, General Tsadkan Gebretensae made statements that reveal a striking contradiction in his assessment of responsibility for the atrocities committed during the Tigray war. On one hand, he asserted that “who has done what will only be clarified when proper investigation takes place,” suggesting a cautious, evidence-based approach to accountability. Yet, in the same interview, he claimed that “75% of the crimes committed were by Eritrean forces,” effectively pre-empting the outcome of any impartial investigation. This inconsistency exposes a deeper political motive — an attempt to shift the moral and legal weight of the Tigray conflict away from the Ethiopian government and towards Eritrea, thereby reframing the narrative of culpability.
General Tsadkan’s position appears to serve a dual purpose. By attributing the majority of atrocities to Eritrean forces, he implicitly absolves the Ethiopian government of its central role in orchestrating and enabling the war. However, as numerous scholars and reports have documented, the Ethiopian state bears the principal responsibility for initiating the conflict, inviting Eritrean troops into Tigray, and creating the conditions under which mass atrocities occurred. The United Nations Human Rights Council (2022) and Amnesty International (2021) both concluded that the Ethiopian government’s actions including the blockade of humanitarian aid, systematic targeting of civilians, and use of starvation as a weapon constitute grave violations of international law.
As historian Alex de Waal argues in *Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine* (2018), state-led wars in the Horn of Africa often involve deliberate strategies of collective punishment and resource deprivation. In this context, the Ethiopian government’s decision to ally with Eritrea was not a mere tactical choice but a calculated act of aggression that magnified the scale of human suffering in Tigray. To suggest, as General Tsadkan does, that Eritrea bears the majority of responsibility is to overlook the structural and political agency of the Ethiopian state in orchestrating the war itself.
Moreover, General Tsadkan’s framing reflects a broader pattern of selective accountability that has long plagued Ethiopian political discourse. As Christopher Clapham notes in *The Horn of Africa: State Formation and Decay* (2017), regional elites often manipulate narratives of blame to preserve their legitimacy and deflect scrutiny. By portraying Eritrea as the primary perpetrator, Tsadkan positions himself and by extension, elements of the Tigrayan leadership as victims of external aggression rather than as participants in a complex web of political miscalculations and internal divisions.
This rhetorical manoeuvre also undermines the principle of impartial justice. Genuine accountability requires acknowledging the shared and layered nature of responsibility. While Eritrean forces undoubtedly committed widespread atrocities including extrajudicial killings, s*xual violence, and looting, as documented by Human Rights Watch (2022) these crimes occurred within a framework established by the Ethiopian government’s invitation and coordination. As legal scholar Mark Drumbl explains in *Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law* (2007), the hierarchy of responsibility in international crimes extends beyond direct perpetrators to include those who plan, facilitate, or enable such acts. By this measure, the Ethiopian government remains the primary architect of the Tigray war and thus bears the lion’s share of accountability.
General Tsadkan’s attempt to externalise blame onto Eritrea risks distorting the historical record and impeding the process of truth and reconciliation. A credible investigation must therefore examine the full chain of command from the political leadership in Addis Ababa to the allied Eritrean forces and regional actors. Only through such comprehensive scrutiny can justice be served and the moral integrity of Tigray’s struggle for survival be preserved.
In conclusion, while Eritrean forces are indeed culpable for heinous crimes committed in Tigray, the Ethiopian government cannot escape ultimate responsibility for initiating and sustaining the conflict. General Tsadkan’s contradictory statements reveal an effort to reshape accountability for political convenience, yet history and international law are clear: the orchestrator of war bears the greatest burden of guilt.
Addis-Alem Belay (PhD)
