Western Tigray Explained: Why Is the Territory Disputed, Who Claims It and What Happened During the War?

Western Tigray is one of the most contested territories in Ethiopia because its status sits at the intersection of historical provincial boundaries, ethnic identity, administrative federalism, political power and the violence of the 2020–2022 Tigray War. The area commonly called Western Tigray by Tigrayan authorities and often called Welkait-Tegede or Welkait-Tsegede by Amhara actors includes the districts of Welkait, Tsegede and Kafta Humera, a strategically important and agriculturally productive corridor bordering Sudan and lying near Eritrea. Its modern administrative status became particularly contentious after the TPLF-led government placed the territory within the Tigray regional state in the early 1990s, while many Amhara politicians and residents argued that it historically belonged to Amhara-administered provinces and should be returned to Amhara.

The dispute became dramatically more consequential when war broke out in November 2020. Amhara forces and allied militias, fighting alongside Ethiopian federal forces, took control of Western Tigray, while large numbers of Tigrayan civilians were expelled or fled. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented killings, torture, sexual violence, arbitrary detention and the forcible displacement of hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans, describing the campaign as ethnic cleansing and finding conduct amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the same time, investigators documented serious abuses against Amhara civilians in the wider conflict, including the massacre of Amhara residents and migrant laborers in Mai Kadra by Tigrayan forces in November 2020.

Where Is Western Tigray?

Western Tigray occupies the western part of Ethiopia’s Tigray region.

The territory stretches toward the Sudanese border and includes the important town of Humera. The Tekeze River is particularly significant because it forms a natural geographic boundary in parts of the area and became deeply embedded in competing territorial narratives.

The region is also economically important.

Kafta Humera and surrounding areas have historically supported agriculture, including sesame production, while the western corridor connects Ethiopia toward Sudan.

That combination of fertile land, trade routes and strategic borders helps explain why the dispute has never been merely symbolic.

Which Areas Are Actually Disputed?

The phrase “Western Tigray” can obscure the fact that several localities and administrative districts are involved in overlapping territorial claims.

The terminology itself is politically sensitive.

Using “Western Tigray” reflects the current Tigray regional framework.

Using “Welkait-Tegede” emphasizes a different historical and political interpretation.

Neither label by itself resolves the underlying question of sovereignty or administration.

Why Did Western Tigray Become Part of Tigray?

The modern dispute is closely connected to the political restructuring of Ethiopia in the early 1990s.

After the overthrow of the Derg regime in 1991, Ethiopia was reorganized around an ethnic federal system.

The new federal arrangement created regional states whose boundaries were substantially influenced by ethnic and linguistic identities.

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front, or TPLF, became the dominant political force within Tigray and the most powerful component of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front coalition that governed the country.

During this restructuring, Western Tigray was incorporated into the Tigray regional state.

That decision became the foundation for the modern dispute.

Amhara critics argued that the TPLF had effectively taken territory historically administered from Amhara areas.

Tigrayan advocates argued that the population and historical identity of the territory justified its inclusion within Tigray.

The disagreement therefore involves competing interpretations of both history and federal law.

What Do Amhara Claimants Say About Western Tigray?

Amhara territorial claims generally emphasize the area’s historical relationship with provinces that preceded Ethiopia’s modern ethnic federal regions.

Before the 1990s, Ethiopia was primarily organized through provinces rather than today’s ethnically defined regional states.

International Crisis Group reported that Amhara claimants pointed to historical administration by areas such as Gondar and argued that the Tekeze River represented an older western boundary of Tigray.

The argument is not simply that Amhara people live there today.

It is that the territory was historically administered as part of Amhara-associated provinces and was subsequently transferred into Tigray during the political restructuring after 1991.

Some Amhara activists also argue that demographic changes occurred during the TPLF insurgency and subsequent period of rule.

These claims remain politically contested and should not be treated as an uncontested historical record.

What Do Tigrayan Claimants Say?

Tigrayan arguments place greater emphasis on the population’s language, identity, historical presence and the boundaries established under Ethiopia’s federal system.

Tigrayan advocates argue that Tigrinya-speaking communities lived in the area before the creation of the current regional boundaries and that the territory was legitimately incorporated into Tigray after 1991.

International Crisis Group documented the contrasting narratives: Amhara claimants emphasized earlier provincial administration, while Tigrayan advocates emphasized ethno-linguistic patterns and the longstanding presence of Tigrinya speakers.

This is why reducing the dispute to “Amhara versus Tigray” misses an important part of the story.

The underlying question is which principle should determine territorial belonging: historical provincial administration, contemporary ethnic identity, existing constitutional boundaries, or the wishes of residents?

Different sides prioritize different answers.

Why Ethnicity Makes the Territorial Dispute So Difficult

Ethiopia’s federal system gives territory an unusually important political meaning.

Regional states are not simply administrative divisions.

They are connected to ethnic representation, political authority, language, land administration and constitutional rights.

Consequently, changing a boundary can affect who controls local government, security institutions, land administration and political representation.

For communities living inside disputed areas, a territorial decision can also determine whether they are treated as members of the dominant local political community or as a minority.

This is one reason boundary disputes in Ethiopia can become existential rather than bureaucratic.

What Happened in Western Tigray in November 2020?

The territorial dispute became inseparable from the Tigray War almost immediately.

When fighting began in November 2020 between the federal government and forces aligned with the TPLF, Amhara forces entered the western and southern parts of Tigray alongside federal forces.

They quickly took control of Western Tigray.

The federal and Amhara military campaign transformed a long-running territorial argument into a question of physical control.

The International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia later documented that Western and Southern Tigray remained under Amhara militia or Eritrean control after Tigrayan forces retook much of central and eastern Tigray in 2021.

That military reality changed the dispute permanently.

Why Did the Territory Become a Major Flashpoint During the War?

The territory was strategically valuable to all sides.

For the Ethiopian federal government and its allies, control of Western Tigray provided access toward the Sudanese border and removed an important area from TPLF control.

For Amhara forces, the 2020 offensive presented an opportunity to establish control over territory they had long claimed.

For Tigrayan forces and civilians, losing the area meant losing territory they regarded as constitutionally part of Tigray.

The military campaign therefore produced a situation in which territorial claims, wartime alliances and ethnic identity became physically fused.

What Happened to Tigrayan Civilians?

The human consequences were catastrophic.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented a systematic campaign against Tigrayan civilians in Western Tigray beginning in late 2020.

Their investigation found that Amhara regional forces, militias and newly appointed authorities expelled hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans through killings, threats, sexual violence, arbitrary detention, torture, forced transfer and other abuses.

Researchers interviewed more than 400 people and used additional sources including satellite imagery, medical evidence, court documents, photographs and video material to corroborate accounts.

The organizations concluded that the pattern amounted to crimes against humanity as well as war crimes.

These findings are central to understanding why the territorial dispute remains so emotionally and politically charged.

What Happened to Amhara Civilians?

A complete account cannot portray civilians from only one community as victims.

On November 9, 2020, the town of Mai Kadra witnessed a massacre in which large numbers of Amhara residents and migrant laborers were killed by forces associated with the Tigrayan side, according to international investigations.

The killings were followed by retaliatory violence.

Human Rights Watch documented subsequent attacks on Tigrayans by Amhara forces and federal troops.

The result was a cycle in which violence against one community became justification for further violence against another.

That cycle is essential to understanding why the territorial question became so difficult to resolve after the shooting stopped.

Was Western Tigray Ethnic Cleansing?

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International concluded that the campaign against Tigrayans in Western Tigray amounted to ethnic cleansing and included conduct constituting crimes against humanity and war crimes.

“Ethnic cleansing” describes the deliberate removal of an ethnic or religious population from a particular territory through coercion or violence.

It is important, however, to distinguish the term from genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is not itself a separate crime under international criminal law in the same way that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are, although the acts used to carry out ethnic cleansing can constitute those crimes.

International investigators documented serious violations against multiple communities during the Tigray War.

That broader context matters because accountability must address abuses regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or victims.

Why Did So Many Tigrayans Leave?

Displacement resulted from several overlapping forces.

Some civilians fled active fighting.

Others were expelled directly.

Others left after killings, threats, detention or the destruction and seizure of homes and property.

Human Rights Watch reported that signs and public threats were used in some communities to order Tigrayans to leave, while detention and restrictions on movement were also used as tools of coercion.

By 2021, hundreds of thousands of Tigrayans had been forcibly displaced from Western Tigray.

Some crossed into Sudan.

Others moved east into areas controlled by Tigrayan forces.

This created a second dispute alongside the territorial question: who has the right to return to the land after wartime demographic change?

Why Does the Displacement Question Matter So Much?

A territorial settlement cannot be separated from the people who lived on the territory.

Suppose a government simply redraws a boundary while hundreds of thousands of displaced residents remain unable to return.

The territorial dispute may appear settled on a map while remaining unresolved in people’s lives.

That is why questions of property, documentation, security and voluntary return are inseparable from the political dispute.

For many displaced Tigrayans, returning home is part of restoring their rights.

For Amhara residents who moved into or remained in the territory during and after the war, the prospect of another population movement raises its own security and humanitarian concerns.

Any durable settlement therefore has to address both communities.

What Does the Pretoria Agreement Say About Disputed Territories?

The November 2022 Pretoria Agreement ended the principal phase of the Tigray War and created a framework for political and security normalization.

It did not provide a final territorial settlement for Western Tigray.

That distinction is crucial.

The agreement required the restoration of Ethiopia’s constitutional order and territorial integrity while establishing mechanisms for postwar political processes.

But the question of who should administer disputed territories remained unresolved.

The United Nations described the agreement as a critical first step and stressed that outstanding issues still required negotiation.

This is why Western Tigray remains one of the most sensitive issues left over from the war.

Has Western Tigray Been Returned to Tigray?

The territory has not simply been transferred back to Tigray through the Pretoria Agreement.

Recent assessments have continued to describe the disputed areas as outside Tigrayan control.

International Crisis Group reported in 2026 that territories disputed between Tigray and Amhara, including areas taken by Amhara forces during the war, remained outside Tigrayan control and continued to be a major point of disagreement in the postwar political settlement.

That means the territorial question remains unresolved years after the formal end of the war.

Why Is There No Simple Answer to Who Owns Western Tigray?

Because “ownership” is not the only legal or political question.

The more precise questions include:

• Which regional state should administer the territory?
• Which historical boundary should be recognized?
• What does Ethiopia’s federal constitution require?
• What role should local residents play in determining their status?
• How should displaced people be allowed to return?
• What happens to property acquired or occupied during the war?
• Which security forces should control the area?
• How should abuses committed during the territorial takeover be investigated?
• Can a referendum be conducted under genuinely free and secure conditions?

Each question produces complications that cannot be resolved by simply drawing a line on a map.

Could a Referendum Settle the Dispute?

A referendum is sometimes proposed as a solution because it appears to give residents the final say.

But conducting one would be extraordinarily difficult after mass displacement.

Who would be eligible to vote?

Would eligibility depend on current residence, prewar residence or historical ancestry?

Would displaced Tigrayans have the right to participate?

What would happen to people who moved into the area during the conflict?

How would voting occur if communities remained divided and armed?

These are not technical details.

They determine the legitimacy of the result.

A referendum conducted before displaced populations can safely participate could itself become another source of grievance.

Why the Tekeze River Matters

The Tekeze River has acquired political significance because competing historical narratives use it differently.

For some Amhara claimants, the river represents an older boundary associated with the historical administration of the region.

For Tigrayan narratives, the river does not invalidate claims based on the presence of Tigrinya-speaking communities or the federal boundaries established after 1991.

The river is therefore simultaneously a geographic feature and a political symbol.

Its importance illustrates a larger problem with historical borders: natural geography, administrative boundaries and ethnic settlement patterns rarely align perfectly.

Western Tigray and Sudan: Why the Border Matters

Western Tigray is strategically located along Ethiopia’s border with Sudan.

Humera and surrounding territory have therefore had significance beyond the Tigray-Amhara dispute.

The area connects agricultural production and cross-border trade with Ethiopia’s western frontier.

Conflict in the territory also pushed refugees into Sudan during the Tigray War.

That gave the territorial dispute an international humanitarian dimension.

The presence of a major international border also means that instability in Western Tigray can affect relations and security beyond Ethiopia itself.

How the Dispute Connects to the Larger Tigray War

Western Tigray was not the original cause of the Tigray War.

The war grew out of a much broader confrontation between Ethiopia’s federal government and the TPLF over political authority, constitutional legitimacy, elections, federalism and control of security institutions.

But the territorial dispute became one of the war’s most consequential dimensions.

It created a powerful alliance between Tigrayan and Amhara political grievances on opposite sides of the battlefield.

It also transformed the war’s outcome into a territorial question.

The guns could stop without resolving who governed Western Tigray.

That is exactly what happened.

Why the Dispute Survived the 2022 Peace Agreement

The Pretoria settlement successfully reduced large-scale fighting, but it could not automatically reconcile incompatible territorial claims.

The agreement was primarily designed to stop the war and establish a pathway toward political normalization.

The United Nations and African Union subsequently emphasized implementation, restoration of services, humanitarian recovery and unresolved political questions.

The territorial dispute therefore moved from the battlefield into politics.

That is a major transformation, but it is not the same thing as resolution.

What Happened to Displaced Families After the War?

Some displaced people began returning to parts of northern Ethiopia as conditions improved.

The United Nations reported in 2025 that families were returning to homes in parts of northern Ethiopia and attempting to rebuild livelihoods after the war.

But Western Tigray presents a more difficult problem because displacement is directly connected to the unresolved territorial dispute.

A family cannot confidently return if the political authority over its former home remains contested or if security conditions are uncertain.

This makes return, restitution and territorial administration three parts of the same problem.

Why Accountability and Territory Are Connected

Justice is not separate from the boundary dispute.

If people were expelled from their homes specifically because of their ethnicity, simply changing the administrative label without addressing the expulsions could leave the underlying grievance intact.

Likewise, if serious crimes committed against Amhara civilians are ignored, Amhara communities may see a future territorial settlement as inherently unjust.

The postwar process therefore faces a difficult task: establish responsibility for crimes without turning justice into collective punishment.

The UN and Ethiopian Human Rights Commission have emphasized transitional justice involving accountability, truth, reparations, reconciliation and healing.

Why Western Tigray Could Still Destabilize Northern Ethiopia

The issue remains dangerous because several unresolved questions overlap:

Territory: Tigray and Amhara actors maintain competing claims.

Identity: Communities associate territorial control with ethnic security.

Displacement: Large numbers of people were forced from their homes.

Property: Homes, farmland and businesses changed hands during the conflict.

Security: Armed groups remain a factor in northern Ethiopia’s political environment.

Politics: Tigray’s postwar political settlement remains contested.

These issues reinforce one another.

A territorial decision without a displacement solution could produce new conflict.

A return program without security guarantees could fail.

A political agreement without accountability could leave grievances unresolved.

What Has Changed Since the Pretoria Agreement?

The most important change is that Western Tigray is no longer being contested primarily through the same level of full-scale warfare seen between 2020 and 2022.

But the absence of large-scale war should not be confused with a final settlement.

In January 2026, the United Nations warned about renewed tensions and reported clashes in Tigray, calling on all parties to exercise restraint and fully implement the permanent cessation of hostilities.

That warning matters because the unresolved territorial question exists within a wider postwar political crisis.

The longer the territorial issue remains unsettled, the more difficult it becomes to separate it from broader struggles over power and security.

The Larger Historical Pattern Behind the Dispute

Western Tigray illustrates a recurring problem in political history: borders that appear permanent can be relatively recent creations, while communities often remember earlier administrative arrangements differently.

The same problem appears in many historical conflicts in which political authority, identity and territory become inseparable.

Fatuma’s Voice’s examination of the French Revolution and the political crisis that turned France into a battlefield provides a broader example of how disputes over legitimacy can become violent when political institutions lose their ability to mediate competing claims.

Its analysis of the Reformation and Europe’s religious wars similarly shows how religious identity, territorial authority and political power can reinforce one another over generations.

And the Thirty Years’ War demonstrates how a conflict that begins with apparently specific political or religious disputes can expand into a much wider struggle over sovereignty and power.

These historical comparisons do not make the conflicts equivalent to Tigray.

They help explain why territorial disputes can survive long after the original political circumstances that created them have changed.

What Would a Durable Western Tigray Settlement Need?

A sustainable settlement would probably require more than a single decision about which regional government administers the territory.

At minimum, it would need credible security arrangements, a legitimate process for determining administrative status, protection for civilians, mechanisms for voluntary return or resettlement, property and land dispute resolution, and accountability for serious crimes.

The process would also need to recognize that the territory is home to people with competing identities and histories.

A settlement that treats one community as politically legitimate and the other as an obstacle would risk reproducing the same problem in another form.

The most difficult part may therefore be designing a settlement that protects individual rights even when collective territorial claims cannot satisfy everyone.

Western Tigray Explained in One Timeline

The Key Question Is Not Just Who Controls Western Tigray

Western Tigray is often described as a territorial dispute between Amhara and Tigray.

That is accurate, but incomplete.

It is simultaneously a dispute about history, ethnicity, constitutional federalism, political representation, land, displacement, security and justice.

That is why the issue has survived the end of the Tigray War.

The military takeover of the territory changed who controlled it, but it did not establish a universally accepted legal or political settlement.

The Pretoria Agreement stopped the main war, yet left this central question for the political process: how can competing territorial claims be resolved without creating another cycle of displacement and violence?

As of 2026, that question remains unresolved, and renewed tensions in Tigray demonstrate why it cannot simply be treated as a historical footnote.

For readers trying to understand the wider conflict, the territorial question should therefore be read alongside the political crisis that preceded the war and the peace agreement that followed it—not as a separate dispute, but as one of the central unresolved consequences of Ethiopia’s 2020–2022 conflict.