Mekelle፡Telaviv, Nairobi, Pretoria, London, (Tigray Herald)
UN faces criticism for normalizing military occupation and sanitizing gross human right violations
The @OCHA_Ethiopia, has come under criticism from Tigrayans after it referred to constitutionally recognized Tigrayan territories as “contested” in a recent annual report.
The map which is part of OCHA’s latest humanitarian report labeled Western, Northwestern, and Southern Tigray as “contested areas,” a description that many say is both factually incorrect and politically dangerous.
Critics are accusing the UN agency of whitewashing war crimes, sanitizing forced occupation, and undermining Ethiopia’s constitutional order.
Many argue that these territories are not contested rather are part of Tigray by law of, by federal delineation and by historical record.
What the Constitution Says And What the War Changed
The Ethiopian federal constitution, still in force today, recognizes Tigray as one of the country’s regional states with clearly demarcated boundaries, which include the Western, Northwestern, and Southern zones.
These territories were administered by the Tigray regional government until they were forcibly seized in late 2020 following the outbreak of war between the federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.
Since then, Amhara regional forces, with the backing of the federal military and later Eritrean troops, have taken control of these areas, committing what multiple international human rights organizations have described as crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Ethnic Tigrayans were driven out en masse, villages were razed, and civilians were executed or detained in what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and U.S State Department called a “campaign of ethnic cleansing.”
Over two million Tigrayans were displaced during the war, with many of those from Western Tigray still barred from returning to their homes due to the continued occupation of their lands, a direct violation of their constitutional rights and of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed in November 2022.
To now refer to these areas as “contested,” critics argue, is to legitimize the results of gross human rights abuses, violence, massive eviction and military occupation.
OCHA’s “Contested” classification: A dangerous precedent
By labeling these territories as “contested,” OCHA appears to adopt the language of occupation. One that aligns, intentionally or not, with those who benefited from the wartime redrawing of borders through force.
For many survivors of the ethnic cleansing campaign, the designation of their homeland as “contested” feels like a second dispossession. one not carried out with guns, but with maps, jargon, and diplomatic double-speak.
For them this map is not just a map. It is a political statement and ignoring the suffering of Tigrayans in the name of humanitarian pragmatism.
“These are not contested lands. These are the homes we were driven out of, the lands where our parents were buried, the towns where we were born,” said Gidey, a displaced resident of Humera now living in 70 Kare IDP camp in Mekelle. “The UN should be helping us go home, not rewriting the story.”
Pretoria Agreement: A Promise Still Unkept
The Pretoria agreement, signed in November 2022 between the Ethiopian federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, promised to address underlying issues including the withdrawal of non-ENDF forces from Tigray, the return of displaced persons and the reestablishment of constitutional order.
But more than two years after the agreement was signed, non-ENDF forces remain in control of areas like Western Tigray where millions of Tigrayans were expelled or fled in fear and the millions of displaced Tigrayans remain in camps or host communities, unable to return.
Analysts warn that such framing could further embolden actors seeking to redraw Ethiopia’s internal boundaries through conflict, and risk undermining the fragile Pretoria peace agreement.
The United Nations humanitarian coordination agency has not issued a formal response to the growing criticism.
Conclusion
Humanitarian organizations must carefully craft their language and actions to uphold neutrality in terms of access and safety, while actively advocating for the rights and dignity of affected populations. This balance requires transparency, evidence-based reporting, principled engagement, and prioritizing the voices of victims. Neutrality does not mean silence—humanitarian actors can and should call out abuses without taking political sides, always grounded in law and ethics.
