Recent events surrounding Ethiopian Broadcasting Service (EBS) have raised questions about its motives and the role it may play in shaping narratives that align with the Ethiopian federal government’s agenda. Known for its entertainment focus and apolitical stance, EBS has been a staple of Ethiopian mainstream media, avoiding sensitive topics for years. Yet, in a surprising turn of events, it premiered a show that implies “Amhara persecution by Oromo armed forces.” This sudden shift has fueled suspicions and exposed what some are calling a calculated effort to justify aggression under the guise of journalistic storytelling.
A Break From Tradition: The Uncharacteristic Shift by EBS
For years, EBS has prided itself on being a platform that entertains rather than stirs political controversy. However, the airing of a show addressing the sensitive narrative of interethnic conflict—particularly suggesting persecution—marks a significant departure from its typical programming. This shift raises a critical question: why now?
The timing could not be more suspicious. This saga unfolded merely days after Eritrea issued calls to the international community, urging them to pressure Ethiopia to formally acknowledge Eritrea’s sovereignty. Concurrently, reports surfaced of Ethiopian federal troops moving north into the Afar region, further complicating the geopolitical landscape. Such proximity in timing suggests that EBS’s sudden shift might not be coincidental but rather a strategic maneuver in a larger political game.
Propaganda or Coincidence? A Possible Justification for Aggression
EBS’s involvement in the narrative has sparked theories that this could be part of a larger propaganda effort. One perspective posits that the Ethiopian government could be leveraging EBS’s credibility to paint a picture of domestic ethnic turmoil. By doing so, it may indirectly shift focus away from its actions in the north and justify potential aggression against Eritrea. This theory gains traction when considering EBS’s ownership, as the network is reportedly owned by Eritrean individuals.
Eritrean Ownership: A Double-Edged Sword?
The involvement of EBS’s Eritrean owners adds an extra layer of complexity to the situation. On one hand, this connection is being viewed as an opportunity for the Ethiopian federal government to frame Eritrean involvement in “domestic affairs.” Ethiopia has already accused Eritrea of interference, and this narrative could strengthen its claims.
On the other hand, some speculate that EBS’s Eritrean owners might not align with President Isaias Afwerki’s regime in Eritrea. Afwerki is well-known for his authoritarian control over media and dissent, making it highly unlikely that he would endorse or permit Eritrean-owned media to act against his interests. Could this suggest a rift between the owners and the Eritrean government? While intriguing, this remains a speculative angle, adding intrigue without hard evidence.
Convenient Timing or Calculated Narrative?
The coincidence of these events—the EBS saga, Eritrea’s sovereignty plea, and Ethiopian troop movements—suggests a deliberate effort to shape public perception. EBS’s sudden and uncharacteristic involvement in such a sensitive narrative raises suspicions that it may be a tool in a broader strategy to justify Ethiopian aggression. The fact that Eritrean ownership is being highlighted adds fuel to this theory, potentially framing Eritrea as a meddler in Ethiopia’s affairs.
A Pattern of Justifying Aggression
This is not the first time Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration has been accused of using strategic narratives to justify military actions. A notable example is the claim that the TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front) attacked the northern military base of the Ethiopian Defense Forces, which was used as a justification for the military campaign in Tigray. Critics argue that this narrative was carefully crafted to rally support for the government’s actions and frame the conflict as a necessary response to aggression. The parallels between that situation and the current EBS saga are striking, suggesting a pattern of narrative manipulation to achieve political and military objectives.
When Justification Starts to Wear Thin
However, as time went on, the justification for the Tigray campaign began to lose its grip on the international community. Reports of human rights violations and the humanitarian crisis in Tigray shifted global scrutiny onto the Ethiopian federal government. This led to mounting criticism and calls for accountability, forcing the government to pivot its narrative. At one point, the administration launched the “Hands Off Ethiopia” campaign, attempting to frame international criticism as unwarranted interference in Ethiopia’s sovereignty. This shift in strategy highlights the challenges of sustaining a justification narrative when faced with growing international pressure.
A Calculated, Controversial Strategy
From a strategic perspective, the use of narratives to justify aggression can be seen as a smart, albeit controversial, move. By controlling the narrative, the Ethiopian government has managed to rally domestic support and deflect attention from its own actions. However, the long-term effectiveness of such strategies is questionable, as international scrutiny and shifting public opinion can erode the credibility of these narratives over time.
Closing Thoughts: A Smokescreen for Geopolitical Ambitions?
While the full picture remains unclear, the saga surrounding EBS serves as a lens through which we can examine how media, politics, and power intersect. Whether this is a calculated propaganda effort or merely a series of coincidental events, the implications are significant. If EBS is indeed being used to justify aggression, it not only undermines its credibility as a media outlet but also highlights the dangerous ways media can be weaponized in geopolitical strategies.
