WI: The Treaty of Wuchale is properly translated?

In 1889, Italy and Ethiopia signed the Treaty of Wuchale, which basically established the Italian colony of Eritrea and attempted to create a framework for relations between Ethiopia and Italy. OTL, a mistranslation in Article 17 caused Ethiopia to reject the Italian version, leading to the Italo-Ethiopian War:

Article 17 (in Amharic). His Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia can use the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy for all dealings with other powers or governments.

Article 17 (in Italian). His Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia agrees to use the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy for all dealings with other powers or governments.

Apparently, the disagreement was that the Italian version basically made Ethiopia an Italian client state.

What if during negotiations, the error in translation was noticed and corrected? Would the finalized treaty adhere to the Amharic version or the Italian version? Or alternately, might negotiations break down entirely, potentially leading to an earlier Italo-Ethiopian war?
 
Last edited:
Which do you think is the mistranslation? Sounds like one of those []ed passages in modern treaty drafts that never got cleared up properly.

I haven't been able to find a source which says whether the treaty was originally drafted in Italian or Amharic, or exactly which one is the mistranslation. It's possible that it's just the result of a misunderstanding that occurred during negotiations, but frankly we don't know that much about how it came about. We only know that the Ethiopians and Italians walked away with two different understandings of what they had agreed to.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There are three possibilities.

1) The text reads "can" in both languages and the Italians are fine with this. This means everything is fine.
2) The text reads "must" in both languages and the Ethiopians are fine with this. This means Ethiopia is a client state. Things could be fine.
3) There is no version of the treaty both can agree to, hence no treaty is made. Not sure.
 
There are three possibilities.

1) The text reads "can" in both languages and the Italians are fine with this. This means everything is fine.
2) The text reads "must" in both languages and the Ethiopians are fine with this. This means Ethiopia is a client state. Things could be fine.
3) There is no version of the treaty both can agree to, hence no treaty is made. Not sure.

Possibilty 2) does not exist. Ethiopia is never going to accept that.
There is the possibility that the mistranslation/ambiguity was a deliberate ploy by Italian negotiators in order to get the other Western powers recognize an exclusive Italian sphere of control in Ethiopia.
IIRC, the treaty was initally drafted in Amharic.

EDIT: I checked. The drafts were in Italian, but the discussions appears to have occurred mostly in French. Menelik participated personally in the drafting of the final treaty, through an interpreter. The interpreter is reported to have been proficient in French, less so in Italian.
Also, the Italian version shounds literally more "agrees to" than "must", which implies a willing limitation to soverignty, added to the obligation.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Possibilty 2) does not exist. Ethiopia is never going to accept that.
There is the possibility that the mistranslation/ambiguity was a deliberate ploy by Italian negotiators in order to get th other Western powers recognize an exclusive Italian sphere of control in Ethiopia.
IIRC, the treaty was initally drafted in Amharic.
I suspected that might be the case, but I included option (2) for completeness - after all, the establishment of protectorates did happen, see for example the Trucial States.
 
When Menelik had art. 17 of the Treaty read to him in translation, he is on record haing said more or less: "Why even put this in the treaty? What other government would I recur to if I need to?"
 
There are three possibilities.

1) The text reads "can" in both languages and the Italians are fine with this. This means everything is fine.

A question for someone more well-versed in Italian foreign policy than I: Would the Italians be fine with a treaty that doesn't make Ethiopia a protectorate? Outside of that, the treaty doesn't really do much for Italy besides recognizing its possession of territories (Italian Eritrea) that they already own.

2) The text reads "must" in both languages and the Ethiopians are fine with this. This means Ethiopia is a client state. Things could be fine.

As has already been said, I doubt Ethiopia would agree to be a client state if the text reads "must" in both languages, but at the same time Menelik may feel pressured to make some concessions. The Treaty of Wuchale was signed less than a month after Menelik, originally King of Shewa, had established control over Amhara and Tigray and proclaimed himself Ethiopian Emperor. Part of the reason he signed the treaty was to secure the provision of ~30,000 European arms,* and part of the reason he didn't officially repudiate the treaty until 1893 was because he was still consolidating his hold over Ethiopia. So on one hand, giving up Ethiopia's independence is obviously unacceptable, but on the other he can't afford to antagonize the Italians at this point in time.

*I can't remember the breakdown of how much was artillery vs firearms, I only remember the total number.

There is the possibility that the mistranslation/ambiguity was a deliberate ploy by Italian negotiators in order to get the other Western powers recognize an exclusive Italian sphere of control in Ethiopia.
IIRC, the treaty was initally drafted in Amharic.

EDIT: I checked. The drafts were in Italian, but the discussions appears to have occurred mostly in French. Menelik participated personally in the drafting of the final treaty, through an interpreter. The interpreter is reported to have been proficient in French, less so in Italian.
Also, the Italian version shounds literally more "agrees to" than "must", which implies a willing limitation to soverignty, added to the obligation.

Thanks for checking; I'll edit the Italian version in the OP. If I may ask, what source did you use to find this information? All the books I have seem more interested in discussing the battle of Adwa so they mostly skim over the details of Wuchale.

I also see the potential that the ambiguity was a ploy by the Italians. IIRC, after the treaty was ratified Italy notified other Western powers that Ethiopia was now a protectorate, which is when Ethiopia started disputing the treaty.
 
A question for someone more well-versed in Italian foreign policy than I: Would the Italians be fine with a treaty that doesn't make Ethiopia a protectorate? Outside of that, the treaty doesn't really do much for Italy besides recognizing its possession of territories (Italian Eritrea) that they already own.

Notionally, yes, at least regarding they relationship with Ethopia. They cared more about France and al. recognizing Italian influence that the Ethiopians themselves doing so.

As has already been said, I doubt Ethiopia would agree to be a client state if the text reads "must" in both languages, but at the same time Menelik may feel pressured to make some concessions. The Treaty of Wuchale was signed less than a month after Menelik, originally King of Shewa, had established control over Amhara and Tigray and proclaimed himself Ethiopian Emperor. Part of the reason he signed the treaty was to secure the provision of ~30,000 European arms,* and part of the reason he didn't officially repudiate the treaty until 1893 was because he was still consolidating his hold over Ethiopia. So on one hand, giving up Ethiopia's independence is obviously unacceptable, but on the other he can't afford to antagonize the Italians at this point in time.

*I can't remember the breakdown of how much was artillery vs firearms, I only remember the total number.

Mostly firearms IIRC. Selling artillery to Africans was regarded by Europeans of the time as somewhat rude, you know.


Thanks for checking; I'll edit the Italian version in the OP. If I may ask, what source did you use to find this information? All the books I have seem more interested in discussing the battle of Adwa so they mostly skim over the details of Wuchale.

Angelo del Boca, "Gli Italiani in Africa Orientale", Vol 1, par. III. It's in Italian though.

I also see the potential that the ambiguity was a ploy by the Italians. IIRC, after the treaty was ratified Italy notified other Western powers that Ethiopia was now a protectorate, which is when Ethiopia started disputing the treaty.

It was when the matter became relevant, and also when the Ethiopians realized that there was a problem: then Dejach Makonnen was in Italy on a diplomatic mission when the notification was made, and he - more precisely, the would-be Modern Ethiopia's historian, Afework, who accompanied him - learned of it though newspapers, and he didn't takethat very well.
 
Top