Ethiopia faces escalating tensions with Eritrea, spurred by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s authoritarian regime and historical ethnic fragmentation. The resurgence of imperial ambitions threatens regional stability, as Abiy may view potential war as a means to consolidate power and distract from internal dissent. Following the devastating Tigray War, heightened diplomatic engagement is crucial to prevent further conflict and address deep-rooted ethnic tensions within Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa.
War originates not merely from bullets but from deception, exemplified in Ethiopia’s current climate of ethnic fragmentation, where truth is obscured by propaganda. This alarming context is underscored by the recent rhetoric surrounding the potential annexation of Eritrea’s coastline under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, reminiscent of Haile Selassie’s imperial ambitions. Ethiopia’s path toward renewed conflict with Eritrea appears increasingly imminent, raising significant concerns for the region.
Prime Minister Abiy, though presenting himself as a reformist, has devolved into an authoritarian ruler challenged by Ethiopia’s longstanding ethno-political divisions. The historical reality is that Ethiopia has always been fragmented along ethnic lines, contrary to the prevailing narrative that attributes recent divisions solely to the past three decades of ethnic federalism introduced by former leader Meles Zenawi. This manipulation of history serves to redirect blame onto the previous administration while masking the country’s continual ethnic stratification.
As Ethiopia faces internal strife, a war with Eritrea may become a crucial mechanism for Abiy to consolidate power and divert national insecurities outward. In a nation where internal dissent is becoming increasingly pronounced, Abiy’s alignment with Ethiopian ultranationalists indicates political desperation. Engaging in war might provide a unifying cause for a populace fracturing under ethnic tensions—essentially a means for Abiy to maintain control while suppressing opposition.
Abiy’s pursuit of Ethiopian irredentism serves as a façade for his faltering legitimacy. His claims regarding Eritrea’s Red Sea access reveal a regime that relies on violence rather than genuine support to uphold power. The potential conflict would allow for suppression of dissent from internal threats such as the Amhara rebel groups and the Oromo Liberation Army under the pretext of national security. This gambit risks exposing Ethiopia’s military vulnerabilities rather than projecting strength, given its commitments are already stretched across various regions where conflict persists.
The implications of a war with Eritrea could destabilize the already precarious situation within the Horn of Africa. Neighboring states, including Sudan and South Sudan, are grappling with severe internal conflicts, while Somalia remains ensnared in turmoil. Eritrea, although relatively stable under its autocratic governance, could face dire consequences if conflict escalates, compounding the region’s instability and inviting involvement from international actors.
In light of this, the international community must consider the potential for conflict seriously. Diplomatic efforts are vital to mitigating risks, yet the possibility for Ethiopia’s ethnic tensions to be resolved without war remains uncertain. Abiy Ahmed’s willingness to take extreme risks for power underscores the grave outlook for Eritrea and the Horn of Africa at large, given the devastating impact already observed during the siege of Tigray.
The Tigray War starkly highlights a calculated conflict with premeditated objectives, intended to eliminate the Tigray People’s Liberation Front as a threat, benefitting both Abiy and Eritrean leader Isaias Afewerki. Marked by significant loss of life and destruction, this conflict betrayed the suffering of countless individuals while bolstering the regimes involved. The siege imposed by Abiy’s government epitomizes a foreboding strategy reminiscent of historic oppressive practices, aiming to neutralize dissent through starvation and deprivation.
In this context, the Pretoria peace agreement of late 2022 was insufficient in mitigating underlying instabilities. While the Tigray Defense Forces may have been weakened, they remain a critical threat, creating conditions ripe for revenge and unrest. The public’s call for self-determination signals an enduring demand for liberation from an oppressive state. Abiy’s objectives involve preventing Tigray from regaining political influence and neutralizing any collaborative efforts that could threaten his rule.
Simultaneously, Afewerki’s ambitions intertwine personal security with national objectives. His preemptive actions stem from a desire to suppress any semblance of an Eritrean opposition capable of challenging his autocratic rule, ensuring that animosity persists between Eritreans and Tigrayans and that neither can threaten his grip on governance. The tactical collaboration with Abiy reflects a miscalculated strategy, prioritizing regime survival over national sovereignty and unity.
The situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea illustrates the urgency for diplomatic intervention to prevent a conflict that threatens to exacerbate instability in the Horn of Africa. The authoritarian regimes of Abiy Ahmed and Isaias Afewerki are gambling with regional peace as they navigate their political survival. A renewed war not only holds dire ramifications for both nations but also risk igniting wider tensions across an already volatile region, necessitating immediate and effective international engagement to avert catastrophe.
Original Source: moderndiplomacy.eu
