Theodore
M. Vestal, Ph.D.
Professor
of Political Science
Oklahoma
State University
In 1896, Italy, a late-comer to the family of nations and a
slow-footed scrambler for colonial spoils in Africa, made her move to conquer
Ethiopia, the only remaining prize on the continent unclaimed by Europeans.
Expansionist leaders of the recently unified Kingdom of Italy dreamed of a
second Roman Empire, stretching from the Alps to the Equator, and it was
assumed that a show of military would quickly bring “barbarian” lands and
riches into an Africa Orientale Italiana. The Italian dream was turned into a
nightmare, however, in the mountain passes and valleys near the northern
Ethiopian city of Adwa by the knockout punch by the mailed fist of a unified
Greater Ethiopia. The Italians retreated, humiliated. On the other hand, the
battle put Ethiopia on the map of the modern world and had ramifications that
are still being felt today by her own populace and by other African people everywhere.
The preparation of a book to
commemorate the Battle of Adwa provides an appropriate time
to reflect upon the significance of the victory and to attempt to discern any
lessons from that auspicious event that might be of value to present day
Ethiopia and by extension, to Africa and the entire Third World.
A detailed analysis and interpretation of the 1896 episode
and its aftermath would require many books. This section is only a “thumbnail”
picture of Adwa, past and present. The details of the political machinations in
Ethiopia and in Europe and the description of the war itself will be covered in
the next two chapters.
PRELUDE TO THE BATTLE
Italy
entered the Horn of Africa through a window of commercial opportunity. Following
the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, an Italian steamship company, Rubattino,
leased the Port of Assab on the Red Sea from the Sultan of Raheita as a
refueling station. During the next year, Rubattino purchased the port for
$9,440 (a bargain for such a hot property). Rubattino hoped to make money by
controlling the traffic in slavery and arms smuggling.
Meanwhile,
in Europe, the parliament of the newly united Kingdom of Italy met in Rome for
the first time in November 1871. The new government was ambitious and sought
ways to prove its bona fides in the eyes of the world. Colonization of lands
unclaimed by other European powers was viewed as one path to national prestige.
Although Italy coveted African lands across the Mediterranean, it failed in
attempts to occupy Tunisia and Egypt in 1881–1882. Considerations of prestige
were thought to demand expansion somewhere, and imperialists of the time
proclaimed that the “key to the Mediterranean was in the Red Sea” (where
incidentally, there would be less chance of Italy’s clashing with other
European interests).1 Thus, in 1882, the Italian government bought Assab from
Rubattino for $43,200, thereby providing the steamship company a handsome
profit on its investment and unofficially establishing the first Italian colony
in Africa since the days of the Caesars.
Emboldened
by its real estate acquisition on the Red Sea, Italy participated in the
Conference of Berlin in 1884-1885 that “divided up” what was left of Africa
after the initial wave of European colonialism. At the conference, Italy was “awarded”
Ethiopia, and all that remained was for her troops to occupy the prize. This
would take time and cautious expansion from Assab.
To
ensure the safety of its new port, Italy moved to the surrounding interior.
From its Assab base the Italians, through the good office of Britain, occupied
the nearby Red Sea port of Massawa (replacing the Khedive of Egypt, who had
decided he could no longer keep a garrison there) and adjoining lands in 1885.
At that time, the Ethiopian emperor, Yohannes, was distracted by wars in the
highlands and against Sudanese Mahdists who were also battling the British in
the Sudan. After the Mahdi defeated General Charles “Chinese” Gordon at
Khartoum in 1885, the Italians were left as the only Europeans in what they
perceived as a hostile land. The Italian government felt compelled to increase
the military support of its commercial stations.
Emboldened
by their easy occupation of the coastal areas, the Italian army and local
conscripts invaded the highlands in the late 1880s. Italian government leaders
probably overestimated the possible gains in commerce and prestige from this
move. The reputation of Ethiopians as spirited fighters, evidenced in battle
against the Egyptians in the 1870s and against the Mahdists in the 1880s, apparently
was not taken seriously by the Italians. That attitude soon changed when
Ethiopian mettle was tested in the rough terrain of Tigray. After the Italians
provoked some “incidents” on the frontier, their soldiers encountered an Ethiopian
force of 10,000 led by Ras Alula Engeda, Emperor Yohannes’s governor of the
Mereb-Melash, the territory north of the Mereb River and stretching to the Red
Sea — in other words, the land the Italians were occupying. At Dogali, some 500
Italians were trapped and massacred in battle by Alula’s men.
Their
pride wounded, the Italian government moved aggressively in retaliation. Parliament
voted 332 to 40 to increase military appropriations, raised a force of 5,000
men to reinforce existing troops, and attempted to blockade Ethiopia.
To
ease his “Italian problem,” Emperor Yohannes sought the diplomatic help of
Great Britain. As part of the peace diplomacy, Yohannes agreed to give compensation
to the Italians for Dogali and to use Massawa as a trading post. By this time the
French had started building a railroad from Addis Ababa to Djibouti. This would
give Ethiopia a trading outlet on the Red Sea outside Italian influence.
Italian leaders, nursing a sense of shame and a thirst for revenge, decided
something had to be done.
The
man to do it was Francesco Crispi, the prominent leader of the democratic or
radical left wing of the Italian government and the most striking political
personality produced by the new Italy. Eloquent, forcible, and dominating in
Parliament, the Sicilian Crispi served as Prime Minister from 1887-1891 and
again from 1893–1896. A super-patriot, Crispi longed to see his country, that he
always called “my Italy,” strong and flourishing.8 He envisioned Italy as a great
colonial empire, and Crispi’s impulsive hubris would play a vital role in shaping
the events that would unfold in the region. Following the debacle at Dogali,
Crispi told German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck that “duty” would compel him to
revenge. “We cannot stay inactive when the name of Italy is besmirched,” Crispi
asserted. Bismarck is purported to have replied that Italy had a large appetite
but poor teeth. With their military momentum stalled and the bluster of their
milites gloriosi punctured, the Italians, led by Crispi, resorted to guile and
diplomacy to promote their expansionist aims. Taking a page from the British
book of colonial domination, the Italians pursued a policy of divide and
conquer. They provided arms to Ras Mengesha of Tigray and all other chiefs who
were hostile to the Emperor. During his internecine rivalry with Yohannes, even
the Negus of Showa, Menelik, sought closer collaboration with the Italians.
Menelik allegedly welcomed the Italians as allies in a common Christian front
against the Mahdists.
When
the Emperor Yohannes was killed in battle against the Madhists at Metemma in
March 1889, the Italians sensed an opportune moment to solidify their foothold
in the country through negotiation. Count Pietro Antonelli headed a mission to
pay homage to the new Emperor, Menelik II, and to negotiate a treaty with him.
The Treaty of Wuchalé (Uccialli, in Italian), signed in Italian and Amharic
versions in May 1889, ultimately was to provide the raison d’être for the
Battle of Adwa. Under the treaty, the Italians were given title to considerable
real estate in the north in exchange for a loan to Ethiopia of $800,000, half
of which was to be in arms and ammunition. The pièce de resistance for the
Italians, however, was Article XVII, which according to the Italian version
bound Menelik to make all foreign contacts through the agency of Italy. The
Amharic version made such service by the Italians optional. Proudly displaying
the Roman rendition of the treaty in Europe, the Italians proclaimed Ethiopia
to be her protectorate. Crispi ordered the occupation of Asmara, and in January
1890 he announced the existence of Italy’s first official colony, “Eritrea.” To
bolster Italy’s colonial policy, on April 15, 1892, Great Britain recognized
the whole of Ethiopia as a sphere of Italian interest. Italian Prime Minister
Giovanni Giolitti (whose eighteen-month premiership interrupted Crispi’s tenure
in the office) affirmed that “Ethiopia would remain within the orbit of Italian
influence and that an external protectorate would be maintained over
Menelik.”11 The Ethiopians were not too concerned with such Italian braggadocio
until 1893, when Menelik denounced the Wuchalé treaty and all foreign claims to
his dominions and attempted to make treaties with Russia, Germany, and Turkey.
In a display of integrity rare among belligerent nations, Menelik paid back the
loan incurred under the treaty with three times the stipulated interest. He
kept the military equipment, however, and sought to rally the nation against a
foreign invader.12 The Italians railed at this insubordination by a “Black
African barbarian chieftain,” and prepared to go to war to teach the Ethiopians
a lesson in obedience.
Having
claimed a protectorate, Italy could not back down without losing face.13
Crispi, under fire at home from both conservatives and the extreme left bloc of
Parliament for his “megalomania,” may have seen victory in Africa as his last
chance for political success. From his perspective, a colonial war would be good
for Italy’s (and his) prestige and Crispi envisioned a protectorate over all of
Ethiopia. General Antonio Baldissera, the military commander at Massawa, had a
more modest goal — the permanent occupation of Tigray. The Italian Deputies would
have been content with a peaceful commercial colony. With such occluded aims,
the African campaign suffered generally from a lack of will among Italians in
the homeland.
While
the Italians massed arms and men in their Colonia Eritrea, their agents sought
to subvert Ethiopian Rases and other regional leaders against the Emperor. What
the Italians did not realize was that they were entering into the Ethiopian
national pastime: the tradition of personal advancement through intrigue.16
Menelik, master of the sport, trumped the Italians’ efforts by persuading the
provincial rulers that the outsiders’ threat was of such serious nature that
they had to combine against it and not seek to exploit it to their own ends.
The Emperor called his countrymen’s attention to the fate of other African nations
that had fallen under the yoke of colonialism. The magic of Menelik worked.
Whatever seeds of discord the Italians had planted sprouted as shoots of accord
on the other side. Meanwhile, Italy carried out further intrusions into
Ethiopia. On December 20, 1893, Italian forces drove 10,000 Mahdists from
Agordat in the first decisive victory ever won by Europeans over the Sudanese
revolutionaries and “the first victory of any kind yet won by an army of the
Kingdom of Italy against anybody.”17 Flushed with success on the battlefield,
the Italian populace embraced new national heroes, the Bersagliere, soldiers of
the crack corps of the Italian
army. The Bersagliere, depicted in the press wearing “a pith helmet adorned
with black plumes, facing a savage enemy on an exotic terrain,” appealed
to the passionate patriotism of the masses and to the romantic adventurism of
young men. Enthusiastic conscripts responded to the call to the colors. The
belligerent Italians soon mounted the strongest colonial expeditionary force
that Africa had known up to that time. The Governor of Eritrea, General Oreste
Baratieri, had about 30,000 Italian troops and 15,000 native Askaris under his
command (Great Britain would surpass that number a few years later when 250,000
troops would be sent to South Africa during the Boer War). Secure in his
new military strength, Baratieri again went after the Mahdists. On July 12, 1894,
his forces drove the Dervishes from Kassala, killing 2,600 while losing only 28
Italian dead — the most one-sided victory won by Europeans over the Mahdists. The
Italians were not doing so well on the diplomatic front, however. In July
1894, Russia had denounced the Treaty of Wuchalé. An Ethiopian mission was
received in St. Petersburg “with honors more lavish than those accorded any previous
foreign visitors in Russian history.” To add injury to diplomatic insult, Tsar
Nicholas sent Ethiopia more rifles and ammunition.
In 1895, Baratieri followed up his
victory over the Dervishes with another successful offence at Debre Aila
against an Ethiopian force larger than his own, under the command of Ras
Mengesha. The Italians drove out the ruler of Tigray and prepared for a
permanent occupation of his land. Other minor military actions of the Italians
in 1895 fuelled the anger of the Ethiopian masses and leaders alike, who viewed
the invasion as a threat to their nation’s sovereignty.
Emperor
Menelik’s reforms had transformed the economy and improved the tax base of the
country enabling him, as never before, to raise and equip armies.20 In the
highlands, Menelik massed his troops and marched north to meet the Italian aggressors.
In December, an Ethiopian army of 30,000 trapped 2,450 Italian troops at Amba
Alaghe, the southernmost point of Italian penetration. In the ensuing battle,
1,320 Italians were killed or taken prisoner. At the same time,
Ethiopians
laid seize to a formidable Italian fort at Mekele. Menelik, perhaps still
hoping to settle his conflict with the Italians peacefully, negotiated a
settlement whereby the besieged were evacuated and allowed to join their
compatriots. These events infuriated Crispi, who taunted his commanders for
their incapacity and cowardice. He called the Ethiopians “rebels” who somehow
owed allegiance to Italy. Although the opposition in parliament led by Giolitti
criticized the government for providing inadequate food, clothing, medical
supplies, and arms to the troops, Crispi was able to garner additional military
appropriations by claiming that the troop movements were purely defensive. He
assured parliament that the war in Ethiopia would be a profitable investment.
THE
BATTLE OF ADWA
By
late February 1896, the Italian army was entrenched around Mount Enticho in
Tigray. Led by General Baratieri, who was just back from Rome (where he had
been awarded the “Order of the Red Eagle”),23 the 20,000 Italians and
Italian-officered native auxiliaries had waited for the Ethiopians to attack their
fortified positions as they had done in previous battles. When such an attack
did not occur, Baratieri ordered what he hoped would be a surprise attack on
the Ethiopians assembled near Adwa. Defeat was unthinkable for a modern European
army of such size with its disciplined and well-equipped formations. A decisive
victory over the upstart natives would win a vast new empire for Italy.24
Unfortunately for Baratieri, he was maneuvering over unfamiliar terrain without
accurate maps, relying upon ineffective intelligence, and leading troops garbed
in uniforms designed for European winters a disastrous combination of
ingredients.
Awaiting
the Italians was a massive Ethiopian army, 100,000 men strong, with contingents
from almost every region and ethnic group of the country. They were commanded
by an all-star team of warriors amassed by Menelik in “an eloquent demonstration
of national unity.” About two-thirds of
the troops raised as part of national mobilization were recruited under the
Gibir-Maderia system, a non-monetarized form of payment of land grants and food
and drink to the soldiers from tenants working the land. The Emperor and
Empress mobilized about 41,000 troops while the governors-general and regional
princes raised most of the others. When the Italian troops made a three-column
advance against Ethiopian positions on March 1, St. George’s Day, the combined
forces of Greater Ethiopia were primed for a fight. The Ethiopians surrounded
the Italian units and in fierce combat, closed with and destroyed many of the
enemy in the bloodiest of all colonial battles. Peasant troops fought
ruthlessly and a large number of Ethiopian women, following the example of the
“Warrior Queen,” Empress Taytu, were on the battlefield. They served as a water
brigade for the fighting men, paramedics, and guards of prisoners. The Italians
inflicted heavy casualties upon their attackers. The artillery crews were especially
noteworthy in firing their cannons as long as they could and defending their
positions until they were all killed. But the main Italian force and its
supplies were caught in Menelik’s strategic trap and were hammered by Ethiopian
infantry and artillery in a place of their choosing. At the end of the day, the
Italians had suffered one of the greatest single disasters in European colonial
history (the British lost more men in Afghanistan; the Spanish were to leave
12,000 dead on the field in Morocco in 1921). There were 11,000 dead from both
sides, including 4,000 Italian soldiers. In one day nearly as many Italians
lost their lives as in all wars of Risorgimento put together. Remnants of the
Italian army retreated northward, leaving behind 1,900 Italian and 1,000
Eritrean askari prisoners of war. In addition, the Ethiopians captured four
million cartridges and fifty-six cannon. Menelik chose not to pursue the routed
army. With the battle over, he held a religious service of thanksgiving and
proclaimed a three-day period of national mourning. The victory celebration of
the jubilant Ethiopians was muted because the Emperor saw no cause to rejoice
over the death of so many Christian men.
The
military advantage won by Menelik was not followed up politically. Why he did
not press his advantage and drive the foreigners from his country remains a
puzzle. The Emperor may have been concerned about consolidating his territorial
interests in the south and may have been afraid of over-extending his
resources. At the time, the kingdom was beset with famine and internecine quarrels.
Whatever his reasons, Menelik allowed the Italians to remain in their colonial
foothold in Eritrea, creating what was to be a continuous source of problems
for Ethiopia ever since. He also missed a golden opportunity to guarantee Ethiopia
an outlet to the sea. What Menelik had demonstrated, however, was that he had
the power to defy any European imperialists. The defeat at Adwa brought Italy
its greatest humiliation since unification and genuinely demoralized the
Italian public. Their string of relatively easy colonial victories, the first
their army had attained, came to an abrupt and shocking end. Political leaders
had not prepared the populace for defeat in Africa, let alone a total disaster.34
“All is saved except honor” proclaimed the Tribuna. Stunned crowds outside of
Parliament shouted, cheered, cursed, hissed, howled, and groaned.36 Some were
heard to cry, “Long live Menelik!” All available Italian transport steamers
were ordered to assemble at Naples “to take troops to Massawa.” It was rumored
that Baratieri planned a military coup to rehabilitate his reputation, before
Baldissera superseded him. Church fathers were described as being delighted at
the failure of the “Satanic” Italian armies that had paid the wages of a divine
vendetta at Adwa.39 The Pope was so disturbed by the news that he cancelled a
Te Deum and a diplomatic banquet in celebration of the anniversary of his
coronation. A shameful scar had been inflicted on the nation one that would
fester for forty years41 until Mussolini would pour his snake oil over it. Crispi’s
political career was shattered as was the nation’s colonial ambition that he had
come to personify.42 Hailed as the greatest parliamentary statesman of Italy,
the seventy-seven year old Prime Minister was recognized as one of the chief
political figures of Europe.43 Crispi was acclaimed as the most important
Italian and was the only Premier who really captured the nation’s imagination.
His impulsiveness marred his career, and his actions all too often were “neither
informed by knowledge nor controlled by sound judgment.” His ideas were
grandiose beyond the resources of the country.44 As the New York Times
editorialized, “his greatest mistake [was] in supposing the attention of the Italian
people could be successfully diverted from domestic scandals by foreign embroilments.
In
June, General Baratieri was brought to trial and, although he was acquitted, it
was “in terms that branded him with incapacity.”46 With all Italian troops
withdrawn from Tigray and reassembled in Eritrea, General Baldissera defended
the colony and drove the Dervishes away from Mount Mocram a month after Adwa.
The Italians killed 800 of the invading force of 5,000 and in short order won a
brisk series of skirmishes with the Mahdists.47 In 1897, Kassala was ceded to
Great Britain, and during the following year, forces under the British general
Horatio Kitchener defeated the Mahdists in a decisive battle at Omdurman. In
the United States, newspaper reporting generally was not sympathetic to the
Italian cause. The New York Times ran front-page stories with consecutive day
headlines heralding “Italy’s Terrible Defeat,” “Italy is Awe-Struck,” “Italy
Like Pandemonium,” and “Italy’s Wrathful Mobs.”48 An editorial on
March
5, 1896, opined, “The Italian invasion of Abyssinia…was a mere piece of piracy…an
enterprise unrighteous. In truth, the Italian ‘colonial expansion’…is not
founded on fact or reason, and has nothing to say for itself in the form of morals
and of civilization. It is no more businesslike than it is moral…It is not on business
but for glory that they go to war.”49
THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE
For
the victor, the rewards were immediate and long lasting. In the negotiated peace
following the battle, the Treaty of Wuchalé was annulled, ending Italy’s
self-proclaimed “protectorate” over Ethiopia. The settlement acknowledged the
full sovereignty and independence of Ethiopia. The Italians paid an indemnity
of $5 million in gold; but they were allowed to remain in Eritrea. The price
paid by Italy for its belated quest for empire was extravagant in terms of money,
lives, arms, and prestige at home and abroad. Eritrea, instead of paying for
itself, devoured money. The Red Sea evidently was not a key to the
Mediterranean, 50 and the Italians’ zest for empire had disappeared for the
moment. It would not be until 1911-1912 that Italian agents of imperialism
would again venture into Africa in the Libyan War and begin the colonial
activity described
as
“the collecting of deserts.”
By
winning the battle, Menelik had preserved and extended the territories of
ancient Ethiopia — with the important exception of Eritrea. By uniting most of
the leaders from almost all parts of the country against a common foe, the Emperor
began to implement the idea of a central government that might supplant the
Ethiopian Orthodox Church as the symbol of national unity. Thus, the battle
gave momentum to the creation of the modern Ethiopian empire-state, and the
future of Ethiopia diverged from that of the rest of Africa.
Internationally,
Ethiopia supplied the most meaningful negation to the sweeping tide of colonial
domination of Africa. Egged on by Italy’s defeat, European nations rushed to
conclude treaties with Menelik’s government. Indeed, 1896 became the “year of
the ferenj” in Ethiopia. Expatriate traders flocked in and spearheaded the acceleration
of economic activities. In record numbers, European governments set up
consulates throughout the country and aided foreign merchants and investors in
seeking concessions and royalties. Menelik’s retaining the defeated Italians as
good neighbors had positive results: “aspirations of the peaceful penetration
school of imperialism and of the more narrowly based small traders on the Red
Sea were a major factor in influencing the nature and direction of Italian
imperialism that served both as a counterweight and an alternative to the
designs of more militant expansionists.” major benefit also accruing to
Ethiopia at that time was the introduction of European medical practices.56 Shortly
after the battle, Menelik applied for Ethiopia’s admission into the Red Cross
Society, another sign of acceptance into the family of nations. In addition to
material changes, the Battle of Adwa produced psychic rewards. Ethiopians
basked in national pride and a sense of independence, some say even superiority,
that was lost to other Africans mired in the abasement of colonialism.58 This
post-Adwa spirit of Ethiopia, instilled in successive generations, gave
Ethiopians a confidence and a unique Weltanschauung. The image of independent
Ethiopia, the nation that successfully stood up against the Europeans, gave
inspiration and hope to Africans and African-Americans fettered by racial
discrimination and apartheid in whatever guise. Ethiopia provided a model of independence
and dignity for people everywhere seeking independence from colonial servitude.
LESSONS
FROM THE BATTLE
One
hundred plus years after the Battle of Adwa, Ethiopia faces an internal threat
to its people’s dignity from a government dominated by Marxist-Leninist ideology
intent on dividing the nation along ethnic lines. There is little danger from
external sources, although it can be argued cogently that the EPRDF-led government
remains in power only by being propped up by developmental financial assistance
from donor nations. As in 1896, the danger to Ethiopia originates in the
mountain passes and valleys of Tigray and Eritrea. Although the artificial
administrative border drawn between Eritrea and Tigray by the Italians is now
proclaimed to be the boundary of sovereign nations, it remains an artificial
creation, for the people on both sides of the frontier are one in race and
civilization.60 Both are indeed part of Greater Ethiopia. In a similar fashion,
the boundaries of the EPRDF administrative region drawn along ethnic lines
ignore historic ties between areas that transcend linguistics and lineage. Both
the EPRDF and the EPLF (now PFDJ)61 should ponder an episode of the battle of
Adwa: as a result of faulty map reading (or a faulty map), an Italian brigade
found itself isolated and the target of the combined fury of the Ethiopian
troops.62 Cartographic misjudgments may haunt their makers.
That
is exactly what happened in May 1998, when Eritreans, using faulty maps, threw
down the gauntlet before Ethiopia in the Badme triangle. The ensuing slaughter
and human suffering in the two-year war that followed was a curse upon both
nations.63 The ruling Ethiopian party, whose leaders had denigrated the history
of the Battle of Adwa and its uniting of the people of Greater Ethiopia,
suddenly recovered its memory and sent young volunteers off to fight the
invading Eritreans with songs and dances recalling that defining moment in the
nation’s past. By June 2000, the Ethiopians had won the war, and the two
nations signed a ceasefire agreement which provided for a UN observer force to
monitor the truce. This was followed in December by Ethiopia and Eritrea
signing the Algeria Peace Agreement, formally ending the conflict. The
agreement established the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) to
delineate the disputed border. The boundary commission’s decisions were
supposed to be binding on both sides. In April 2002, however, the EEBC ruled
that the disputed town of Badme was in Eritrea, and Ethiopia found the ruling
unacceptable. Once again, cartography ignited hostilities in the Horn, and the
armies of the two neighbors glared menacingly at each other across a
twenty-five kilometer-wide UN-monitored buffer zone.
The
right of “nationalities” to secede from Ethiopia (proclaimed in Article 39 of
the Constitution of the FDRE) may be a paraphrase of European rhetoric, but the
roots of the problem of secession have their origins in the creation of the Italian
colony in the late nineteenth century. One can only speculate about the different
course Ethiopian history might have taken had Emperor Menelik dispelled the
Italians from the land of the Habesha. Like the Italians under Baratieri, the
present government seeks to divide and conquer its opposition. Some leaders of
the political opposition have taken the bait and succumbed to the old national
pastime of seeking personal advancement through intrigue. Although the TPLF and
EPRDF applaud their efforts, most Ethiopians who want real democracy in their
country have grown tired of demagogues’ games. In the May 2005 elections,
opposition leaders agreed to combine forces to oppose the divisive ethnic
politics and the deficits of democracy of the EPRDF regime. This was a
significant event, but missing from the election fray was a Menelik of today to
ignite a national flame uniting peasants and metropolitans from every
background and from every part of the country against a common foe and for the
good of Ethiopia. Present in 2005, however, were today’s Taytus, “warrior
queens,” exhorting the opposition to strive for victory. The legacy of the
Battle of Adwa is a powerful beacon for the inheritors of an independent and
proud Ethiopia. Can its light lead all Ethiopians to come together to bring the
blessings of democracy to their homeland? In 1896, increased Italian military
action steadily aroused the nationalism of Ethiopia and the chances of
exploiting her feudalism and dividing her nobles was correspondingly
diminished.64 Today, one sees signs that heavy-handed government repressions
have steadily aroused Ethiopians’ spirit of nationalism and the chances of
exploiting ethnicity and dividing the country will correspondingly be
diminished.
Perhaps
Emperor Menelik captured best the spirit that might motivate all freedom loving
Ethiopians to get involved in efforts to bring democracy to their homeland by
peaceful means. In a wax- and gold-laden statement, just as pertinent now as it
was over a century ago, said Menelik: “If powers at a distance come forward to
partition Ethiopia between them, I do not intend to be an indifferent spectator.” Ethiopians are no longer limited to their highland fortress on the Horn of
Africa; they are part and parcel of a globalized world that recognizes sovereignty
a value for which the heroes of Adwa sacrificed their lives.
AMHARIC VERSION OF THE WUCHALÉ TREATY
0 Comments