No More Leopold II, No More Menelik II
The war against Tigray resurrected Ethiopia’s anti-imperialist discourse, to shame international organizations that criticized atrocities committed by the government of Ethiopia and its allies. Last year the Ethiopian government carried out a successful social media campaign that speciously equated compassion for the Tigrayan people with twentieth century European colonialism. Old photographs of Congolese brutalized and mutilated by Leopold II’s colonial army were posted to falsely convey the idea that external criticism of Ethiopia’s actions abrogated its sovereignty. The campaign was picked up by Twitter activists across Africa.
Belgian’s King Leopold II was the archetype of African colonial exploitation. His vast rubber empire financed the ornate buildings and colonial monuments that line the streets of Brussels. It is estimated that between 1885 and 1905, the Belgian emperor caused an estimated ten million deaths, through murder, starvation and disease, to fill his bank account
This was the epoch of the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century. However, King Leopold II and his European cohorts were not alone in their ruthless scramble for Africa. The Abyssinian Emperor Menelik II successfully established his own empire in Africa, after securing the support of the colonial powers in his conquest across what is now western, southern and eastern Ethiopia.
In the north, Menelik cut Tigray into two, with half ceded to Italy. The Afar were dispersed across two countries, and the Somalis across four countries.In the south, Menelik II brutally subjugated the people living there. The Aanolee memorial in Arsi serves as a reminder of the 11,000 Oromo who were killed by Menelik's troops in 1886. Adding to mass murder, Menelik had his soldiers savagely cut off men’s hands and women’s breasts, much like his Belgian contemporary.
Menelik's army committed crimes against the people it conquered that included widespread enslavement. The remnants of slave camps that held captives from the south are scattered throughout the Amhara region. A.K. Bulatovitch, Menelik's Russian advisor, was horrified by the barbarism of Menelik’s troops. But to date, Ethiopian universities seem uninterested in exposing this sad chapter of Ethiopian history.
Collaboration between Menelik and his Belgian counterpart took place based on the strategic interests of their two expansionist empires. Fifty years later, Czeslaw Jesman described how Leopold came up with the idea of forging an alliance with Menelik to establish twin empires that would rule over all of Africa. Adventurer Ruppert Recking wrote that he had commanded an expedition for Leopold from the then Belgian Congo to Kaffa in Ethiopia. The plan was for Menelik and Leopold to establish ownership of Kaffa and its resources through a holding company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with the two monarchs as majority shareholders. The strategy failed, but the collaboration lay bare the true nature of Menelik’s southern conquest.
While Belgium is tentatively coming to terms with its brutal colonial past, Amhara nationalists unapologetically celebrate Menelik II, despite his ruthless subjugation of nations, nationalities, and peoples beyond Ethiopia’s highlands. Amhara nationalism is deeply rooted in the expansionist campaign of Emperor Menelik, which created an empire dominated by the Amhara. Today Menelik II serves as a symbol of this empire at the height of its glory days. Amhara nationalists have erased the dark history of brutal conquest and replaced it with “Ethiopiawinet”— equating the Ethiopian identity with the Amhara identity.
This kind of Amhara nationalism has had disastrous consequences on Ethiopia’s recent descent into protracted and widespread violence. Fano and Amhara militia committed atrocities in Tigray and Oromia in the name of Menelik II. In 2021, ‘Menelik’s campaign’ was organised in Addis Ababa, from which Amhara travelled to Wollo to carry out a mass murder of Oromos at Kamisee.
Belgians have said "no more" to Leopold II. It is time for Ethiopians to say "no more" to Menelik II.
Gain unlimited access to all our Editorials. Unlock Full Access to Our Expert Editorials — Trusted Insights, Unlimited Reading.
Create your Sahan account LoginUnlock lifetime access to all our Premium editorial content
Today marks exactly two months since Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) unveiled his unilateral one-year term extension. While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, HSM has evidently survived, rebounded, and consolidated power in ways that defy earlier predictions. A leader whom many had been wont to dismiss as too tarnished to retain executive power beyond May 2026 remains firmly in the saddle, holding the political initiative and dictating terms. His opponents, meanwhile, are in deep disarray. Their cohesion is fracturing, they lack a coherent, unified strategy, and they are locked in a dialogue of attrition designed to wear down their will and force their capitulation.
The Somaliland–Ethiopia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was hailed as a historic breakthrough. In reality, it was a strategic gamble built on contradictions—and its apparent failure may prove to be a blessing in disguise for Somaliland and Ethiopia.
For the first time in over six decades, Somalia has overhauled its foundational criminal law - the 1962 Law No. 5. Now awaiting parliamentary and presidential approval, the Draft Somali Penal Code (SPC) nonetheless struggles with multiple hurdles and will likely face significant objection, not least, from Somalia’s Western partners and liberal-minded younger generation of Somalis disappointed with the new text’s failure to break away from its historical illiberal roots.
The Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) has published a new Draft Somalia Penal Code (SPC) - marking its first comprehensive legal overhaul in 64 years. The 136-page draft was first submitted to Parliament in January 2026 and underwent its first reading but the process of endorsing it became entangled with the escalating electoral and constitutional dispute, forcing the government to shelve it. The changes aim to update the 1962 Law No. 5 Penal Code and codify Islamic criminal law (uqubat). If endorsed by parliament and approved by the President, they will formally embed the three pillars of the Sharia punitive framework into the statute - fixed punishments (hudud), retributive justice (qisas), and statutory judicial discretion (ta'zir).
A president does not pay a visit to Wajir by accident. When William Samoei Ruto chose Wajir as the centre stage for Kenya’s Madaraka Day celebrations on 1 June — the first sitting president to do so — he was not merely varying the ceremonial calendar. He was making a premeditated statement about who belongs at the centre of Kenya’s state and who no longer belongs at its margins. The message was not merely ‘taking Nairobi to NorthEastern.’ It was the centring and mainstreaming of an ethnic Somali-dominated region that, for much of Kenya’s post-colonial history, has been treated as a security issue rather than a political constituency.
Somaliland President Abdirahman Irro’s trip to Israel in June (from 14-17) was far more than symbolism. Not only was it a calculated strategic diplomatic play, and a chance for Somaliland to appear on the world stage, but also an opportunity for Somaliland to present itself as a fully-functional state, able to conduct foreign relations and cut bilateral deals. Irro, a seasoned former diplomat, navigated the intricate demands of state protocol with remarkable ease - cutting an immaculate, regal figure in his navy-blue suit. Accorded full head-of-state honours, he laid a wreath at the Theodore Herzl mausoleum, engaged in high-level talks with President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, opened the new Somaliland embassy in Jerusalem and convened meetings with Knesset members, senior officials, and business leaders. For Israel, hosting President Abdirahman Irro in Jerusalem functioned to signal its strong commitment to deepening strategic ties while also countering perceptions of waning diplomatic momentum.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. Napoleon Bonaparte’s classic rule of combat seems to be the guiding doctrine behind Al-Shabaab’s sudden, uncharacteristic radio silence as Mogadishu’s political elite tear themselves apart. As the ‘government-in-waiting’, one would have assumed the militants would take full advantage of its adversaries’ internal divisions, maximising the propaganda opportunities this offers, and campaign for their own cause. Typically quick to weaponise any intra-Somali division, the militant group's decision to sit out the latest intra-Somali fracturing is intriguing. By withholding its usual blitz of propaganda, the group is playing a longer, quieter game - waiting for the federal house to implode further before stepping in.
While much international attention is on Mogadishu – understandably so - another electoral crisis is brewing in the regional state of Galmudug. Historically unstable, prone to Al-Shabaab violence and destabilisation and wracked by chronic inter-clan frictions and periodic armed hostilities, the looming vote appears likely to aggravate the situation and foment more divisions.
Two days of heavy clashes (3–4 June) in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, between federal troops and opposition-aligned forces have underscored both the fragility of the city’s security environment and the volatility of electoral politics. Although relative calm has since returned to the two hardest-hit districts - Hawl Wadaag and Abdiaziz - and mediation efforts have intensified, tensions remain high, fuelling fears of renewed armed skirmishes. Credible reports of mass clan militia mobilisation on the edges of Mogadishu speak to a conflict that is widening. The militarisation of politics and elite fragmentation over the electoral process have shattered a core assumption: that Somali leaders will ultimately step back from the brink to negotiate a way forward. Consequently, the country is entering a perilous phase in which domestic factions alone cannot resolve the impasse, making neutral, external mediation a necessity.