Reparation for historical injustices committed during the Italian occupation of Ethiopia from 1935 to 1941: analysis of the prospect for success

1 INTRODUCTION

This article seeks to analyse the prospect of a reparation claim of Ethiopia for the atrocities committed during the Italian occupation from 1935 to 1941. The key research questions the article addresses are the following: What factors determine the success of reparation claim for historical injustices? What was the nature of the atrocities committed in Ethiopia under Italian occupation? How do these atrocities meet the requirements for a successful reparation claim? What challenges and internal problems may Ethiopia face in pursuing a reparation claim and what are the opportunities? The author used a doctrinal research method to answer the research questions. The main finding of the article is that Ethiopia’s claim for reparations regarding atrocities committed during Italian rule has a strong chance of success, as it fulfils most criteria for a successful claim. Yet, it is not easy to implement it in practice as it faces challenges and internal problems that work against it.

The article is organised in five parts. The first part discusses factors that determine the success or failure of reparation claims. The second part mainly focuses on highlighting the grave atrocities committed during the Italian occupation, including war crimes. The third part assesses Ethiopia’s reparation claim in light of factors identified by researchers that contribute to the success of such demands. The fourth part addresses the challenges, internal problems and opportunities for instituting the Ethiopian reparation claim. The final part concludes and recommends the way forward.

2 REPARATION CLAIMS FOR HISTORICAL INJUSTICE: SUCCESS FACTORS

The term ‘reparation’ is a broad concept that embraces elements such as truth seeking, acknowledgment of harm, apology, restitution, and payment of monetary compensation.1 It is often invoked in discussions about gross human rights violations and historical injustices such as the slave trade and colonialism. The beneficiaries of reparation could be individual victims as well as groups.2 Yet, there seems to be a debate among scholars about why some reparation claims for historical injustices succeeded and why other reparation claims failed. To illustrate this debate, we focus on reparation claims that are often raised in connection with Africa, specifically the slave trade, colonialism and post-colonial relations with the West. Historical records reveal that more than 10 million Africans were taken out of the continent during the slave trade.3 A considerable number of these also died on their way to Europe, the United States (US) and other places.4 The slave trade deprived Africans of dignity as well as identity. The economic development of the continent was also severely affected by it.5 Similarly, colonialism also exposed Africa to a great deal of oppression and exploitation of resources. The situation did not change much even after African states gained their independence.

Since 1991, there have been several attempts by Africans to seek reparation for injustices suffered because of slavery, colonialism and post-colonial exploitation in different forms.6 However, these claims were not successful. In contrast, some historical injustices, such as the Holocaust against the Jewish people by the Nazi regime, were properly addressed. Reports indicate that by 2022, Germany had paid a compensation of nearly €80 billion to survivors and their descendants.7 Some scholars argue that the suffering Africans endure due to the slave trade and colonialism is comparable to the injustice done against Jews, if not more severe.8 However, the Western states seem to have a double standard of not treating white and black victims of injustice similarly.9 The resistance towards Africa’s reparation claims of Africans also shows a lack of concern and respect for the dignity of Africans by the West. Further, since many African states are economically poor and have limited influence, this may be an additional factor why their claims are often easily ignored.

On the contrary, other scholars argue that the main reason why African reparation claims so far have not been successful is mainly related to its problematic framing and lack of specificity.10 To illustrate this point, they mention the issue of slave trade as an example. Here, Africans are demanding reparation for more than 600 years of suffering and injustice. Because of the longer duration of the period, they argue that it would be difficult to reasonably assess the harm in monetary terms or that it would be too exaggerated to be taken seriously.11 Further, the immediate victims as well as their close descendants may have died a long time ago, and it would be difficult to see who will present their claims as victims. Similarly, it may be cumbersome to pinpoint the specific state or group of states that are responsible for the slave trade. Moreover, it is also important to note that colonialism became a crime under international law only after World War II.12 As such, it will be difficult to hold Western states accountable for an act that was not a crime at the time of its commission as it violates the principle against retroactive application of the law.13

Noting these challenges, scholars propose several criteria for a successful reparation claim.14 One of these requirements is specifying/shortening the period covered and making the reparation focus on specific issues or violations. Second, it would also help focus on aspects of the violations that were illegal at the time of their commission as well as the claim. This helps to address the issue of retroactivity. Third, wherever possible, the particular victims harmed by the injustice, as well as the responsible perpetrators, should be clearly identified. Fourth, effective communication and social mobilisation is important. One reason for the success of the Jewish movement for reparations was the significant media coverage and attention it received.15 One could mention here the many influential books that were published about the Holocaust and the suffering of the victims.16 Movies also did the same. In addition, Jewish groups seeking reparation were well organised and supported by experts. The same cannot be said when it comes to the reparation claim of Africans for colonialism, slave trade and post-colonial exploitation.

In the view of the author, some of the historical injustices that Africans suffered, such as the slave trade, are so unique in nature and cover hundreds of years. The impact of this injustice is also continuing. Considering this, it will be unfair to expect all African reparation claims to have well defined periods and identifiable victims such as the Holocaust against the Jewish people. Rather, it would be good to explore innovative strategies that could address the gross injustice committed against Africans through slave trade and colonialism. Further, one could also adopt an incremental approach that starts from specific violations in specific periods and proceeds towards a more generic claim that could address the historical injustices Africans suffered collectively in a sustainable manner. In addition, it would also be important to see whether African reparation claims for specific violations have succeeded or not in comparison to other injustices committed in other parts of the world.

3 ITALIAN OCCUPATION OF ETHIOPIA FROM 1935 TO 1941 AND THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED

The Italian presence in East Africa began in 1869 when an Italian company bought port Assab which is currently part of Eritrea.17 The plan of the Italian government at the time was to expand further and control new territories. According to historians, the major reason behind this plan and the subsequent invasion of Ethiopia was an ‘inferiority complex’.18 Compared to European powers in that period, Italy was economically poor.19 Further, it was also not an active participant in the scramble for Africa and did not have colonies like other European states.20 Accordingly, it decided to invade Ethiopia.21 Yet, the big Italian army was defeated in a humiliating manner by Ethiopian patriots led by Emperor Menelik II in the Battle of Adwa on 2 February 1896.22 The Italian colonial ambition was halted, which led to further humiliation. Ethiopia was also able to maintain independence until the second Italian invasion in 1935.

Similar to the attack in the 1890s, Italy’s second invasion of Ethiopia was carried out without provocation. There were many justifications provided by Mussolini for invading Ethiopia.23 One of them was the desire to restore the greatness of the ancient Roman empire by conquering and occupying other states. This narrative particularly became popular after the establishment of the Fascist Party in 1922. Further, Mussolini had the objective of avenging the defeat of Italy in the Battle of Adwa and consolidating his domestic support. In addition, Italy was on a mission to civilise what they considered the ’barbaric’ Abyssinians. Finding living space for Italians, spreading Catholicism, and utilising Ethiopian natural resources for the development of Italy were also mentioned as justification for the brutal attack on the sovereign nation of Ethiopia.

The major reason for selecting Ethiopia for the attack was its past engagement with Italy and its low level of technological advancement at the time.24 During the second invasion, Italy used chemical weapons, deployed a massive air force, tanks and machine guns, among others.25 Ethiopian fighters possessed a few old rifles, and for most of them, it was their first encounter with the airplanes that dropped explosives and sprayed gas. Further, the embargo on the importation of arms that the League of Nations imposed on both countries significantly affected Ethiopia as it lacked the industry and technology to produce arms domestically.26 This ultimately led to the Italian victory despite fierce resistance from Ethiopian patriots. In 1936, Italy controlled Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa and started to consolidate its rule.

As many historians agree, one of the things that makes the Italian rule in Libya and Ethiopia unique is the extent of its brutality against civilians. The viceroy of Italy in Ethiopia, Rodolfo Graziani, in particular, is reputed for his cruelty and he was nicknamed as the ‘butcher of Tripoli’.27 Before his appointment to Ethiopia, he was leading Italian forces in Libya. He applied similar brutal tactics to quash any resistance to Italian rule in Ethiopia. To illustrate this, one could mention the Yekatit/February 1937 massacre that took place in the capital Addis Ababa.28 On 19 February 1937, Graziani and his officials organised an alms-giving ceremony in the former place of emperor Haile Selassie. More than 3 000 Ethiopians were inside the compound to attend the event.29 Eyewitnesses also mentioned the heavy security presence in the palace and the placement of Italian machine guns in different corners.

Yet, a few minutes after Graziani finished his speech, hand grenades were thrown at him by two young men of Eritrean origin, Moges Asgedom and Abraha Deboch.30 The move was intended to kill Graziani and ignite an uprising against Italian rule. However, Graziani survived the attack with minor injuries. No Italians were killed as a result of the attack. The intended uprising also did not materialise. Regardless of that, Italian soldiers immediately started a retaliatory attack by shooting civilians present without showing any mercy to women as well as children. All those that were present in the place were killed with a machine gun. In just a few hours the place was filled with dead bodies .

Subsequently, the Italian officials placed the city under curfew and the massacre continued for three successive days. Further, the soldiers were given a licence to kill any civilian. One of the commanders said, ‘for three days I will give you carta bianca’, which literally means ‘do as you please’ or ‘do whatever you want’ to Ethiopians.31 Following this order, Italian soldiers started to go door to door to hunt down Ethiopians. Those who were found on the street were taken to concentration camps and executed. They also burnt down houses with their inhabitants. When crawling children tried to escape, the soldiers threw them back into the fire.32 Italian soldiers used benzene, kerosene and fire throwers to burn as many houses as possible.

Heavy trucks were also used to run over and kill Ethiopian prisoners as well as to demolish their homes.33 Hundreds of Ethiopians were also tied to heavy trucks and dragged to death. Other means of killing the Italian soldiers used included beheading, live skinning, hanging, throwing people from airplanes, throwing people into rivers and water wells while their hands were tied behind their backs. One could see shocking brutality of Italian troops in the photos included in Ian Campbell’s book The Addis Ababa massacre: Italian shame. Among the pictures, one depicts Italian soldiers displaying the severed head of an Ethiopian man on a stick as though it were a trophy.34 Campbell also mentions the shocking story of wives of Italian officials in Addis Ababa watching the progress of the massacre as a tourist by moving around the different parts of the city. Within three days, from 19 to 21 February 1937, nearly 20 000 to 30 000 Ethiopians were killed.35 In total during the Italian occupation, an estimated 250 000 people are believed to have lost their lives.36 Other sources even mention a number larger than this figure.37

4 REPARATION CLAIMS OF ETHIOPIA FOR ATROCITIES: THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS

Ethiopia became a member of the League of Nations in 1923. When Italy was preparing to invade Ethiopia, Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie submitted his concern to the organisation and sought protection.38 However, Ethiopia was alone at that time, and no one took its plea seriously. Following the end of the Italian occupation, Ethiopia utilised various avenues to seek accountability for war crimes. One of these mechanisms was the United Nations (UN) War Crime Commission established to investigate war crimes committed in relation to World War II. When Ethiopia attempted to submit a case before the Commission, it was rejected on the ground that the Italian occupation of Ethiopia did not have a direct connection with World War II.39 Ethiopia then established the Ethiopian War Crime Commission to investigate and try Italian war criminals domestically.40 This move was unsuccessful because the great powers of Europe at the time, including Britain, were not willing to extradite Italian officials for trial because of their political interest.41

The only success that could be mentioned in relation to reparation is the agreement of the Italian government to pay US $25 million as compensation to Ethiopia in the Ethio-Italian peace treaty for war-related damages.42 Even this amount was not fully paid, and the fund was mainly used for building a hydroelectric dam. Even if Italy agreed to pay $25 million, it did not openly acknowledge the war crimes and massacres it committed during the occupation.43 It also did not seek an apology. The amount of reparation that it agreed to pay also is not commensurate with the immense suffering it caused to hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians. With this background in mind, let us try to assess the likelihood of success for the reparation claim of Ethiopia for atrocities committed by Italy during the occupation.

As mentioned previously, for reparation claims to stand a greater chance of succeeding, it is preferable to confine the claims to a clearly defined period, with specified victims, perpetrators, and violations that, as far as possible, were unlawful both at the time they were committed and at the time of the claim.44 When one assesses the Ethiopian reparation claim for atrocities committed during the Italian occupation, it seems to meet most of the requirements. To begin with a defined period, the violations took place from 1935 to 1941. This makes it easy for the purpose of proof in comparison to injustices committed over hundreds of years. In addition, even if the violation happened 85 to 90 years ago, the immediate descendants of the victims are alive. As such, they could claim reparation on behalf of their parents. In other words, the causal chain between the atrocities and the victims is not remote.

In relation to the perpetrators, the Italian government at the time was responsible for these atrocities. In its claim before the UN War Crime Commission, Ethiopia even identified around ten individuals or Italian military officers who were mostly responsible for the war crimes committed.45 As successor of the then Italian government, reparation claims could be submitted against the current government of Italy. Most importantly, the atrocities for which Ethiopia could claim reparation were violations of international law at the time of their commission.46 To illustrate this point, one could mention the use of mustard gas and the bombardment of Red Cross hospitals by Italy during the war.47

Even if both Italy and Ethiopia at the time were members of the international protocol that prohibits the usage of such weapons,48 Italy blatantly disregarded this. The response of the Italian government to calls to respect international laws at that time was that these conventions only govern the conduct of weak states, not Italy. Further, the extra-judicial killing of civilians, the execution of prisoners of war, indiscriminate attacks on women and children, the burning of houses, the destruction of property, and torture were internationally recognised crimes at the time of their commission as well as currently. As such, the Italian government cannot raise the issue of retroactive application of the law as defence to the reparation claim of Ethiopia for the atrocities. Thus, one can safely argue that the Ethiopian reparation demand for the atrocities committed during the occupation meets the requirements for a successful claim and has a prospect of success.

5 REPARATION CLAIMS OF ETHIOPIA FOR ATROCITIES: THE CHALLENGES, INTERNAL PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Ethiopia’s claim for reparations regarding atrocities committed during Italian rule has a strong chance of success, as it fulfils most criteria for a successful claim. Yet, it is not easy to implement it in practice as it faces challenges and internal problems that work against it.

The following needs to be done on the way forward regarding the challenges and internal problems:

Regarding the challenges: as highlighted in the article, the first key challenge is the difficulty of collecting primary evidence that establishes the nature as well as extent of harm suffered by individual victims 85 to 90 years ago. In order to overcome this challenge, Ethiopia could draw useful lessons from other successful reparation claims.76 One of these strategies is filing group-based claims instead of individual cases.77 This will help to fill evidentiary gaps and ease management as the number of individuals affected by the atrocities committed by Italy are numerous. In addition, Ethiopia should not be discouraged by the absence of primary evidence such as testimony of victims. In jurisdictions such as Germany, reparation programmes used relaxed evidentiary standards to process reparation claims.78 These include distributing the burden of proof, standard of plausibility, fact finding, presumptions and standard valuation.

In relation to burden of proof, reparation commissions established in countries such as Germany distributed the responsibility of proving violations between the victim and actors responsible for violations.79 This implies that victims are not expected to prove everything on their own. Rather, perpetrators who committed the violations also assume the duty to cooperate in providing the necessary evidence. This is critical because a considerable amount of documentary evidence is found in the archives of Italy. Further, the experience of reparation claims in Germany shows that victims are only required to produce evidence that shows reasonable plausibility of their claims.80 In situations where evidentiary gaps exist, the commission responsible for processing reparation claims also facilitates fact-finding and evidence collection. Further, where the victims are unable to prove a specific incident, the commission takes the presumption that if a certain incident happened within a certain period controlled by a certain actor, the violations will be attributed to the entity with effective control.81

Accordingly, Ethiopia could rely on the available documentary evidence to demonstrate the plausibility of the atrocities committed by Italy during the occupation. In addition, the reparation commission that could be established by Italy may also support the collection of evidence or engage in fact-finding activity on its own to verify submitted claims. It may also corroborate reparation claims by making the necessary inferences and presumptions where necessary. Moreover, instead of attempting to seek individual compensation for individual victims, Ethiopia could demand lump sum compensation for victims or apply standard evaluation techniques to calculate reparation claims. This would help to overcome evidentiary gaps Ethiopia may encounter in the course of demanding reparation for the atrocities committed by Italy.

Concerning the second challenge, that is, the payment of US $25 million by Italy as war reparation and the provision of development, it would be preferable for Ethiopia not to consider this reparation for atrocities committed by Italy during the occupation. This is because Italy neither acknowledged the commission of these crimes nor apologised for them. In addition, the $25 million Italy paid is too insignificant compared to the gravity and extent of atrocities committed during occupation. One could also compare what Italy paid to Libya, US $5 billion, to that of $25 million given to Ethiopia to build a hydroelectric dam.82 In addition, the exact amount of development assistance given to Ethiopia by Italy is not known. This was also done partly to further the strategic interests of Italy, such as investment, energy security and the prevention of migration. As such, it would be inappropriate to consider them reparations paid to compensate the victims of atrocities committed by Italy.

Regarding the internal problems: it would be advisable for the Ethiopian government to reconsider its relationship with Italy and bring the issue of reparation to the forefront. As highlighted in this article, the current position of the Ethiopian government seems to leave behind past injustices committed by Italy on Ethiopia and strengthen the bilateral cooperation between the two countries in the area of investment and development. This would amount to betraying hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians that were victims of grave crimes committed by Italy during the occupation and their call for justice. Instead, the government of Ethiopia should openly demand from Italy to acknowledge the crimes committed during the occupation, apologise and pay appropriate compensation for victims. This should be the foundation for a sustainable relationship between Ethiopia and Italy.

The government of Ethiopia should also take adequate measures to tackle corruption and ongoing conflicts. This is crucial because without government accountability and public trust in the process, achieving the underlying goal of the reparation claim, namely, justice for victims, will be a pipe dream. As such, devising strategies to fight corruption and ensuring the utilisation of the reparation for the intended purpose is expected on the part of the government. Further, to effectively mobilise the public towards the cause of reparation, the Ethiopian government is expected to end ongoing conflict-related grave violations of human rights committed by different actors. For this to happen, the government should genuinely implement the national dialogue and transitional justice processes initiated in 2022 and ensure accountability by involving all stakeholders.