The assertion that the Awash to Mekelle railway constitutes a “loss making investment” by Abiy Ahmed may carry rhetorical force, yet it does not withstand rigorous scrutiny when examined through the lens of long term economic strategy, state continuity, and the fundamental logic of infrastructure development. Indeed, when one takes into account that the project was launched by the previous regime shortly before the incumbent administration assumed office, the critique becomes not only analytically weak, but politically evasive.

To begin with, the premise upon which the Prime Minister’s argument rests is deeply flawed. It assumes that large scale infrastructure must justify itself through immediate or even medium term financial returns. This assumption is untenable. Railways, by their very nature, are not profit seeking enterprises in the conventional sense, they are strategic assets designed to unlock economic potential, facilitate mobility, and restructure national markets over extended periods. Judging such a project by its short term revenue generation is akin to assessing the value of a university solely by its first year graduates’ salaries, it is a narrow metric imposed upon a fundamentally expansive endeavour.

More importantly, the argument that the railway lacks sufficient cargo to sustain itself betrays a misunderstanding, or perhaps a misrepresentation, of how economic ecosystems develop. Infrastructure does not merely respond to demand, it generates it. The absence of freight today is not evidence that the railway was unnecessary, rather it is evidence that the state has failed to cultivate the complementary sectors that would make use of it. Industrial parks, agro processing industries, and logistics chains do not emerge spontaneously, they require deliberate policy support. If these have not materialised along the corridor, the responsibility lies squarely with the current administration as much as, if not more than, with its predecessor.

The timing of the project’s initiation further weakens the Prime Minister’s position. Having inherited a partially conceived or newly launched infrastructure project, the role of the incumbent government is not to discredit it retrospectively, but to refine, adapt, and operationalise it. States are continuous entities, not episodic regimes. To distance oneself from inherited projects while benefiting from the authority of the state is to selectively embrace continuity. If the railway is underperforming today, it is not merely a relic of past miscalculation, it is a reflection of present policy inertia.

The comparison drawn between the railway and a fertiliser factory is equally unconvincing. It presents a false dichotomy, suggesting that investment in one necessarily precludes investment in the other. In reality, the two are deeply interconnected. A fertiliser factory, however efficient, cannot fulfil its economic promise without reliable transport networks to distribute its products and to move agricultural outputs to markets. Railways are the arteries through which such economic activity flows. To argue that funds should have been diverted from infrastructure to production is to ignore the symbiotic relationship between the two.

Furthermore, the emphasis on the railway’s reliance on commercial borrowing as a sign of its flawed nature is selectively framed. External financing is a common feature of infrastructure development across the developing world. The critical issue is not whether funds were borrowed, but whether the borrowed capital is being effectively leveraged. If the railway is not generating sufficient returns, this points to a failure in integrating it into a broader economic strategy, not an inherent defect in the decision to build it. Debt, in this context, is not the problem, misalignment is.

There is also a strategic dimension that the Prime Minister’s critique appears to overlook. The railway corridor linking Awash to Mekelle is not merely an economic conduit, it is a political and social lifeline. In a country marked by regional disparities and, more recently, conflict, infrastructure plays a crucial role in fostering integration and rebuilding trust. Connectivity is not simply about moving goods, it is about re establishing links between communities, enabling access to services, and signalling the presence of a functioning state. These are benefits that cannot be captured in balance sheets, yet they are indispensable to national stability.

One must also interrogate the implicit narrative of blame embedded in the Prime Minister’s remarks. By attributing the railway’s shortcomings to the decisions of the previous regime, the current administration positions itself as a corrective force. However, this narrative is incomplete. Several years into its tenure, the government has had ample opportunity to address the structural issues affecting the railway’s viability. If it remains underutilised, this cannot be attributed solely to the circumstances of its inception. Responsibility, in governance, is cumulative.

None of this is to suggest that the project was flawlessly conceived or executed. It is entirely plausible that the railway was overestimated in terms of immediate demand, or that its financing terms were less than optimal. However, these are challenges that call for strategic adjustment, not rhetorical dismissal. To label the project as a loss is to foreclose the possibility of its transformation into a productive asset, and to risk entrenching a narrative of failure that becomes self fulfilling.

In the final analysis, the Prime Minister’s position reflects a constrained understanding of development, one that privileges short term financial metrics over long term structural gains, and political distancing over policy responsibility. The Awash to Mekelle railway should not be seen as a sunk cost to be lamented, but as a latent asset to be activated. Its success or failure will not be determined by the circumstances of its birth, but by the seriousness with which it is integrated into the country’s broader economic vision.