On March 3, 2026, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), in partnership with the Institute for Peace and Security Studies (IPSS) at Addis Ababa University (AAU), hosted its seventh lecture series in Ethiopia. The initiative was designed to share Japan’s developmental experiences across the fields of politics, economics, education, public administration, and law.
The series, themed “Experience and Lessons of Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Policies in Japan and Hiroshima,” featured guest lecturer Professor Hideaki Shinoda, an internationally recognized scholar and practitioner known for combining academic leadership with hands-on engagement in global conflict resolution and post-war recovery.
Currently a Professor at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies and Director of the Hiroshima Peacebuilders Center, Shinoda spearheads initiatives aimed at training and empowering the next generation of peacebuilders worldwide.
Professor Shinoda has also served as a Visiting Professional at the International Criminal Court (ICC), acted as a consultant for UN agencies and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee on humanitarian coordination, and delivered lectures at leading institutions across Asia, Europe, and Africa, including the IGAD Leadership Academy.
With a background in international relations, Shinoda’s expertise encompasses peacebuilding and international peace operations. His career has been defined by conducting extensive conflict analysis on numerous peace missions and global disputes, with a significant portion of his research concentrated specifically on Africa’s peacebuilding efforts.
For Professor Shinoda, the current lecture series serves as a pivotal platform for promoting mutual interaction. According to him, by engaging with local stakeholders, the initiative seeks to broaden and strengthen the professional and human networks between Japanese and Ethiopian intellectuals.
Professor Shinoda sat down with The Reporter’s Abraham Tekle for an in-depth discussion on intellectual diplomacy and the “society-first” approach, the path to national unity through shared narratives, and the relationship between peace and justice in the context of the International Criminal Court. The conversation also addressed mechanisms for humanitarian neutrality for conflict-affected communities in Ethiopia, along with other critical issues. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter: What is the specific objective of your visit to Ethiopia?
Hideaki Shinoda (Prof.): While the Japan International Cooperation Agency has long been a fixture of development in Ethiopia, the path toward expansion is often blocked by the complex realities of security and conflict-prone regions. To move beyond these technical hurdles, JICA is pivoting from a traditional project-based approach to a “society-first” philosophy. This strategy demands a deep, granular understanding of life outside the capital, reaching into the heart of regional states like Tigray and Amhara.
By prioritizing direct communication with those leading local reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts, Japanese experts are looking past the potential project sites to engage with the human infrastructure driving Ethiopia’s recovery.
The mission transcends mere site visits; it is an exercise in intellectual diplomacy designed to weave a tighter network between Japanese scholars and Ethiopian society. Through a series of lectures and interactive forums, Japanese academics are joining forces with JICA staff to engage with Ethiopia’s next generation, including university students and researchers.
These exchanges serve a dual purpose: they allow Japanese stakeholders to listen to the specific aspirations of the Ethiopian people while sharing Japan’s own developmental insights. Ultimately, this collaboration aims to foster a mutual understanding that turns academic dialogue into a practical foundation for future cooperation and lasting friendship.
JICA’s role in Ethiopia is multifaceted, focusing on sectors such as agriculture, rural development, manufacturing, infrastructure development, and education. Beyond this, how does the agency support people affected by conflict in Ethiopia?
This is a very real agenda for us. Japan’s dedication to global peace is driven by its core identity as a nation that promotes a pacifist culture. This serious commitment to consolidating a peace-loving identity is a response to Japan’s own history. Despite the difficult and complicated fabric of international relations, Japan views its involvement in conflict-prone areas, specifically in a big, important partner like Ethiopia, as a way to uphold this national character.
By sharing Japan’s own peace-building history through cultural and intellectual exchange, JICA aims to build a foundation for mutual interest and understanding between the two nations.
Contributing to post-conflict reconstruction and peace-building in Ethiopia is a natural extension of Japan’s role as a friend to Africa. To make a practical difference in sensitive, conflict-prone regions that are difficult to access, Japan must study the circumstances very carefully. This requires the cultivation of a robust human network consisting of acquaintances, partners, and stakeholders. By extending this network, Japan seeks to collaborate with those working on reconstruction and rehabilitation, ensuring that its efforts to consolidate its pacifist identity result in tangible contributions to recovery.
If it ceases, we lose our identity. So, we would like to consolidate our identity by trying to do our best to contribute to post-conflict areas in the world, including Ethiopia.
Most of your lecture focuses on post-war reconstruction. Given that Ethiopia is currently grappling with the aftermath of the Tigray war and ongoing internal conflicts, what specific elements of Japan’s “culture of peace” could be practically adapted to help Ethiopia to transition to a country with sustainable peace?
At a very fundamental level, I talked about the history of peace-building in Japan, which is almost like a nation-building story. Japan was disrupted, divided, and even after we successfully unified the country, more or less, we had some other problems like wars against external nations, and we tried to solve these problems one by one. But the story about nation-building and the consolidation of national unity is still a task for Japanese people. We never pretend that we have reached a 100 percent perfect issue. There are some issues like this in Japan, too. But we have managed to reach some higher stages, compared to our state of affairs 100 years ago.
We could examine the process of fostering a culture of national unity within a nation-state like Ethiopia by analyzing historical case studies. This would include an exploration of Japan’s own history, alongside other relevant international examples. The objective is to identify shared strategies for nurturing national cohesion, a goal that remains a priority for many regions globally, including both Japan and Ethiopia.
In one of your previous publications, you’ve written that conflict often stems from weak state mechanisms. So, based on the Ethiopian constitutional arrangement, do you believe the current federal structure strengthens or weakens the rule of law in the country?
This is a sensitive issue, and one must recognize that while you have a long-standing federal system, I’m sure it’s not perfect. But it’s not surprising at all. No country has a very perfect federal system. There are many problems in the world. But at this moment, Japan doesn’t have that level of serious problems in terms of national disruption. But I don’t know, 10 years later, we always have risks. And so, what we do is to identify the shortfalls of this federal system. Our approach is to identify specific shortfalls—areas that must be improved or overcome—without resorting to radical or unnecessarily revolutionary changes, which can be deeply destabilizing.
While it is desirable to respect the basic structure of the state, we must remain open to necessary adjustments. If there are areas where reform is both possible and beneficial, we should study those specific points and establish a clear, structured procedure for introducing them. This ensures that the system evolves through careful calibration rather than sudden shocks.
Ethiopia currently operates under a unique federal system where administrative components are closely tied to ethnic identities, resulting in a highly decentralized structure. This creates a delicate tension: if the federal government is too assertive in its role as the guardian of national unity, it may appear oppressive; if it is too weak, the viability of the union is called into question. Maintaining a fair balance within the constitutional framework is possible, but it requires constant effort. If we remain idle or ignore emerging issues, the situation will inevitably deteriorate. Success depends on our collective commitment to addressing these problems proactively.
A balancing mechanism is essential, and the current constitutional system is an attempt to reach that equilibrium. However, the existence of such a system does not provide a permanent guarantee of stability. We must commit to a constant, conscious effort to maintain this balance, as the framework alone cannot sustain itself without active participation.
The current national dialogue is a response to existing ethnic tensions. While it is vital to respect local cultures, administrative independence, and autonomy as much as possible, the diversity of ethnic backgrounds, histories, and religions makes national unification complex. The challenge lies in avoiding disruption while preserving local identities, yet still emphasizing shared nationwide values and history—the celebration of Adwa being a primary example.
Whether all ethnic groups can share a single historical narrative remains a challenge, as there are often diverging views on the same historical incidents. This process of national narrative-making is not strictly a constitutional issue, though the two are related. If one narrative is forced, it will meet resistance. However, if we nurture a national narrative by inviting broad participation, allowing people to contribute their own ethnic perspectives to the formation of a collective story, we can achieve a more inclusive and welcomed national identity. This requires a constant, dedicated effort.
At its core, national dialogue is about understanding our mutual circumstances and acknowledging that while our problems may differ, we recognize them in one another. This is the fundamental starting point. Ideally, by sharing the same national values and goals, we can transcend individual interests and work together as Ethiopians. The ultimate objective is to move beyond mere dialogue and create a natural environment where people collaborate toward a common goal, thereby consolidating our sense of national unity.
You have served as a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court; in light of the grave human rights concerns following the Tigray conflict and related issues concerning the ongoing conflicts in the country, what is your professional view on the balance between peace and justice?
Peacebuilding today is more difficult and sensitive than it was a decade or two ago. Ethiopia has never been a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), while countries such as Kenya have experienced controversies with the court but remain members. In the past, criticism focused on the perception that the ICC prosecuted mainly African leaders. In recent years, however, the court has issued indictments beyond Africa, including against Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Debates continue over the court’s role, as international law requires accountability for crimes, while the ICC’s capacity remains limited and national governments retain the primary responsibility to prosecute offenders. But still, there are many needs and controversial gray zones.
How does the court’s global mandate align with Ethiopia’s efforts to achieve sustainable peace and ensure accountability for perpetrators? In your view, how can the ICC provide the necessary support to facilitate this process?
While the ICC maintains that peace and justice should ideally be pursued simultaneously, the practical reality is far more complex. Achieving harmony between these two goals is a difficult task, particularly as the ICC faces increasing scrutiny over perceived double standards and the inconsistent application of human rights by major powers. When influential and some other ICC member nations preach human rights while engaging in self-interested political behaviors, it creates a sense of systemic hypocrisy that complicates the pursuit of impartial justice and sustainable peace.
Given your expertise in the sector, is international intervention via the ICC a viable path for Ethiopia to address past atrocities, or should the focus remain on domestic transitional justice frameworks or the national dialogue?
The system is clear. Domestic transitional justice processes must be prioritized over international intervention through the principle of national ownership. According to this principle, if a country’s judicial system is functioning, the ICC is expected to respect that jurisdiction. For example, the court does not intervene in the affairs of Japan because its national legal system is assumed to be operational, even though domestic challenges may still exist.
However, controversies remain despite the clarity of this principle because its application depends on human judgment. Determining whether national jurisdictions are functioning adequately is not always straightforward, even for experienced legal experts. As a result, decisions often involve balancing justice and peace, while maintaining international legal standards. For instance, the ICC’s indictment of Vladimir Putin requires evidence to be presented during legal proceedings. In situations such as that of Ethiopia, discussions among ICC stakeholders often focus on how to balance accountability with peace efforts, a question that remains difficult for the institution to address.
Without addressing these issues, the institution’s survival is at risk given the current climate. It is in a dire situation, yet re-examining its structure remains a formidable challenge.
You have consulted for UN agencies and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee on humanitarian coordination. Given Ethiopia is grappling with post war political disputes in the north, unsettled peace agreement, and the ongoing conflicts, how can the country improve its internal affairs to ensure sustainable peace?
Effective partnership requires continuous consultation among stakeholders and a clear allocation of responsibilities to ensure coordinated action. Through such engagement, institutions including the United Nations, other international organizations, and bilateral partners can align their roles and contributions. In this process, leadership rests with the national authorities—in this case, those of Ethiopia—who are responsible for organizing cooperation, understanding the expertise and interests of different partners, and coordinating their efforts. When partnerships are managed in this informed and structured manner, national leaders are able to guide the process and maintain credibility among participating stakeholders.
What peaceful mechanisms can the federal government apply to reach those most affected by conflict, such as internally displaced persons (IDPs) and conflict-affected communities while ensuring zero political or military interference?
The peacebuilding process requires not only the participation of stakeholders but also their empowerment. This becomes complex when coordination is needed between Ethiopian stakeholders and international partners. Within Ethiopia, the structure involves administrative bodies, local provinces, and the federal government, while conflicts may include multiple regional actors. For example, communities from the Afar region may also be stakeholders in issues related to the Tigray region, and questions may arise about whether neighboring countries should be involved. While it is often stated that the participation of all stakeholders should be secured, achieving this in practice can be difficult due to political sensitivities and competing interests.
In some situations, compromises are required to maintain engagement among partners. Meetings may need to be organized separately for different groups, or participation may be adjusted when certain stakeholders cannot appear together due to political considerations. The process therefore depends on continuous political analysis and coordination rather than a universal formula. These challenges are further complicated by regional dynamics and by changes in the international environment, including reduced financial contributions to organizations such as the United Nations. In this context, leadership by Ethiopian authorities remains central, particularly when the federal government facilitates dialogue and highlights the role of local stakeholders while adapting the approach to each specific situation.
Most recently, Ethiopia has expressed a vital interest in securing sovereign access to the sea to ensure economic survival. Drawing from your expertise on international relations and law and Japan’s experience as a maritime nation, how can Ethiopia navigate this ambition without affecting the region and the sovereignty of its neighbors?
Nobody refuses Ethiopia’s interest in having access to the sea. For example, in the discussions surrounding the so-called Ankara Accord between the federal governments of Somalia and Ethiopia, mediated by Turkey, both sides indicated that Ethiopia’s interest in sea access is recognized while Ethiopia respects the sovereignty of Somalia. In principle, these positions are not contradictory. However, in practice there are sensitivities, and concerns may arise behind the scenes. It therefore becomes important to emphasize that pursuing access to the sea does not imply any intention to destabilize the region. The objective is not regional instability, but rather to pursue national interests in a manner that maintains stability and requires careful and creative approaches.
External observers may expect Ethiopians to demonstrate flexibility in this process, particularly in exploring practical and creative ways to secure sustainable access to the sea. Such access can be pursued for economic trade while avoiding actions that harm regional stability. This may involve political coordination and creative arrangements that do not involve annexing the territory of another country. In principle, arrangements could exist where access is provided through mutually accepted mechanisms by sovereign states. In this context, Ethiopia would need to maintain balanced relations with regional actors including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, and the federal authorities of Somalia, while avoiding the perception of prioritizing one partner over another and emphasizing peaceful cooperation alongside the pursuit of stable sea access.
Given the current global political turmoil, what should be Ethiopia’s strategic role in peacebuilding within the African Union and the wider Horn of Africa to ensure it remains a pillar of stability rather than a source of regional concern?
First, Ethiopia holds a special diplomatic position as the host of the African Union. Because of this role, Ethiopia does not need to present itself as the dominant leader of the organization. Instead, if Ethiopia acts as a constructive and effective coordinator in its capacity as host, this is widely welcomed. Serving as a regional coordinator within the framework of the African Union is therefore a unique and expected role for Ethiopia, a position that few other countries can easily assume.
Second, Ethiopia is a major regional power, even if not a hegemon, and this status requires careful attention to stability in East Africa. This involves maintaining balanced relations with other regional powers, including neighbors such as Kenya. Through such balance-of-power considerations, Ethiopia works to preserve stability with regional partners and avoid actions that could jeopardize regional equilibrium.
A related but distinct dimension is Ethiopia’s position within broader international diplomacy. As a member of BRICS while also maintaining relations with Western powers, Ethiopia operates through multiple diplomatic channels. This multidimensional engagement can sometimes appear complex or difficult, but it also places Ethiopia in a position to act as a bridge linking partners from different global groupings, including major powers and regional actors.
Finally, Ethiopia has a concrete role in regional security matters, particularly in Somalia and in parts of Sudan and South Sudan. One of the current issues concerns discussions about the possible withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from Somalia. While this remains a sovereign decision to be determined through coordination, Somalia continues to face a volatile security situation. Observers note that Ethiopia’s presence has been considered significant for stability, even as political discussions continue.
In the longer term, improvements in Somalia’s internal conditions—such as progress in counterterrorism efforts and cooperation with institutions like the United Nations—could create a more stable environment and allow Ethiopia to manage its role with greater flexibility. However, given the current dire circumstances, Ethiopia must exercise strategic patience.
