According to many political analysts, former diplomats, and regional observers, TPLF’s political behavior for more than five decades has followed a pattern that has consistently aligned with, supported, or enabled the interests of EPLF/Sheabia, Egypt and others , often at the expense of Ethiopia’s national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and long-term security.
This view is not new—it has been echoed by critics across regions and generations. Below is the strongest political argument of Agaezi National Union-ANU outlining this perspective.
- TPLF Was Born as an Offshoot and Ally of EPLF — A Political Lineage, Not Just an Alliance
Critics argue that:
- TPLF was fundamentally shaped by EPLF from its earliest years.
- EPLF trained TPLF fighters, armed them, sheltered them, and influenced their ideology.
- TPLF leaders themselves have admitted relying on EPLF guidance for political, military, and organizational development.
Thus, for many Ethiopians, TPLF’s rise is not seen as independent—but as an EPLF-sponsored project inside Ethiopia.
- The 1991 Transition Was Engineered to Deliver Ethiopia’s Strategic Assets to EPLF
This is the core of the strongest political accusation that TPLF must be accountable for compromising, violating and disintegrating Ethiopian Sovereignity, which is a non-derogable in international law and norms:
- TPLF did nothing to negotiate Ethiopia’s access to the Red Sea.
- TPLF handed Eritrea its referendum without demanding:
- maritime rights
- military guarantees
- border agreements
- joint port administration
- Ethiopian legitimacy
- Legal and historical bases.
For critics, this was not a mistake—it was a deliberate political reward to EPLF, carried out by a leadership beholden to Sheabia.
The result:
1. Ethiopia became landlocked.
- Eritrea gained permanent geopolitical leverage.
- Ethiopia lost direct access to global trade routes.
- Ethiopia become economically and geopolitically subjugated.
- Ethiopia’s unity endangered by installing tribalist and scessionist constitution.
Many describe this decision as one of the most damaging actions against Ethiopia in modern history.
- TPLF Strengthened EPLF Economically During Its Most Vulnerable Years
Between 1991 and 1997:
- Ethiopia’s economy, under TPLF-led governance, kept Eritrea afloat.
- EPLF benefited from Ethiopia’s banking, currency, and trade systems.
- Eritrea accessed Ethiopian markets without restrictions.
Critics argue that TPLF turned Ethiopia into the economic engine of Eritrean survival, at a time when Eritrea’s new state was struggling to stand on its own.
This is viewed as a strategic gift to EPLF.
- TPLF Implemented a State Structure That Weakened Ethiopia More Than Any External Enemy Ever Could
Another major political argument:
- TPLF introduced a pseudo-federal structure (neither coming together nor holding together) deliberately engineered to divide Ethiopia along ethnic lines.
- This approach closely mirrored EPLF’s long-term vision of a fragmented, weakened Ethiopia that poses no regional challenge.
- Critics say this system was designed not to empower citizens, but to dismantle Ethiopian national unity, ensuring that Eritrea remained secure from a strong, cohesive Ethiopia.
Thus, TPLF is portrayed as implementing EPLF’s strategic blueprint inside Ethiopia.
- TPLF Distanced Ethiopia From Its Neighbors While Maintaining Factional Links With EPLF
During periods of conflict and geopolitical tension:
- TPLF alienated Sudan, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia, and Egypt at various times.
- Meanwhile, factions within TPLF maintained discreet channels with EPLF, even during the Ethio-Eritrea war.
Critics argue that this behavior strengthened Eritrea’s regional advantage and weakened Ethiopia’s diplomatic position.
- TPLF’s Decisions in the 1998–2000 War Were Marked by Confusion and Internal Division
Critics point to several instances where:
- TPLF’s leadership hesitated or made contradictory decisions.
- Ethiopia’s battlefield advantages were not fully used.
- Internal power struggles compromised military effectiveness.
Many interpret this not as incompetence but as evidence of TPLF’s inability to fully break away from its EPLF roots, even in wartime.
- TPLF’s Internal Ideology Prioritized Its Relationship With EPLF Over Ethiopian Sovereignty
According to opponents:
- TPLF never viewed Ethiopia as its primary identity or strategic priority.
- It viewed itself first as a revolutionary movement with ideological ties to EPLF.
- Ethiopia’s sovereignty, unity, and security were negotiable—EPLF relations were not.
This is why critics often say: “TPLF was never a truly Ethiopian project. It was a Sheabia-influenced front operating inside Ethiopia.”
- The Legacy: A Weakened Ethiopia, A Strengthened EPLF
Summarizing the strongest political case:
- Ethiopia lost sea access.
- Ethiopia became ethnically fragmented.
- Regional diplomacy weakened.
- EPLF gained independence, economic breathing room, and strategic security.
- Ethiopia’s national interests were consistently undermined.
For many Ethiopians, this pattern is not coincidence—it is the result of TPLF’s long-standing connection to EPLF
Conclusion — The Political Verdict of Critics
In the strongest political interpretation:
- TPLF is viewed not merely as a former ally of EPLF, but as a political body whose strategic decisions repeatedly advantaged Sheabia over Ethiopia.
- TPLF’s actions are interpreted as having compromised Ethiopian national interests for decades.
- This is why many believe Tigray deserves a new political path—
neither PP nor Sheabia nor TPLF. - This is where ANU positions itself as the clean, independent alternative.
👉 JOIN ANU TODAY
BE A VOICE. BE A DEFENDER. BE AGAEZI!!
UNITY • DIGNITY • SOVEREIGNTY
Ancient Heritage, Unbreakable Future!!
From Aksum to Tomorrow — We Rise!!
ANU: Your Voice. Your Power. Your Home!!
By Gederat II, ANU Global Diplomatic Leader
One Geez People, One Geez Civilization, One Geez Land, One Geez Red Sea – ANU
Geneva, ANU HeadQuarter Office