The Illusion of Conquest: Unveiling the True Costs of Abiy’s Military Agenda

Unmasking the True Costs of Abiy’s Militaristic Ambitions

March 7, 2025
Sirak Zena

Introduction

Ethiopia and Eritrea are two sovereign and separate nations with distinct identities, governance, and territorial integrity. Any attempt to undermine or blur this reality through nationalist rhetoric is misguided and risks igniting unnecessary conflict. The pursuit of war to annex the Port of Assab under the pretext of historical grievances or economic necessity disregards Eritrea’s sovereignty and Ethiopia’s obligation to uphold international norms. Sovereignty is not a matter of population size or military might; it is a fundamental principle of coexistence and mutual respect between nations.

While feeling a deep connection to our historical lands is natural, we must recognize that clinging to irredentist beliefs can foster unrealistic expectations and create unnecessary conflict. Instead of nurturing false hope for the return of lost territories, let us build a future based on mutual respect, cooperation, and understanding among the two nations and peoples.

The shadows of Ethiopia’s past with Eritrea—marked by decades of struggle, independence, and conflict—should serve as a reminder that peace can only be sustained when the sovereignty of both nations is respected. Failure to honor this principle risks reigniting old tensions, destabilizing the region, and further isolating Ethiopia internationally. Instead of pursuing military solutions based on outdated notions of territorial claims, Ethiopia must strengthen its relationships with its neighbors through dialogue, cooperation, and economic integration.

In light of the rapidly escalating internal crises, Ethiopia finds itself at a critical juncture, contending with the immediate ramifications of its historical conflicts and the imminent threat of a precarious future. The enduring impacts of devastating conflicts in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia, alongside a fragile state grappling with economic instability and widespread discontent, highlight the government’s alarming propensity to exacerbate tensions with neighboring Eritrea. Veiled in a compelling narrative of nationalism and propelled by strategic propaganda, this trajectory toward armed conflict endangers not only the lives of numerous Ethiopians but also the tenuous stability of the region.

To divert attention from domestic challenges, the Ethiopian government has chosen to externalize its issues by intensifying tensions with a neighboring nation to instigate military action to annex a crucial port. This reckless strategy unfolds amidst ongoing conflicts, a dire economic landscape, and rising unemployment rates. As public dissatisfaction approaches a critical threshold, the regime’s assertive foreign policy serves as a dangerous distraction, obscuring its failures while cultivating a narrative of nationalism to secure support amidst pervasive animosity and dissent. The looming prospect of war not only threatens further destabilization but also highlights the regime’s reluctance to confront pressing domestic concerns. This is Abiy’s perilous waltz with war, contributing to Ethiopian and regional instability.

The Seductive Guise of Nationalism: The Cost of War and Lessons from History

Ethiopia suffers. Two catastrophic wars in Amhara and Oromia, coupled with the lasting scars of Tigray—resulting in millions displaced and countless lives disrupted—amplify the call for war, shrouded in the alluring guise of nationalism for a port. This is not a path to glory but rather a pathway to devastation. It is imperative to recognize that should the government pursue another war; it will not be for Ethiopia’s benefit but to fulfill Abiy’s ambitions.

National pride should never serve as a justification for warfare. The assertion that Ethiopia “deserves” access to a port or that land must be reclaimed through force represents a deliberate manipulation intended to incite emotions and garner support for another potentially disastrous conflict. Historical evidence demonstrates that wars driven by nationalist fervor rarely yield prosperity; instead, they result in devastation. It is imperative that we resist being led down this path of destruction.

The potential for the government to employ nationalistic rhetoric to rationalize aggressive actions, particularly regarding Eritrea, necessitates a response grounded in critical thinking and rational analysis. Although national pride is a natural sentiment, it should never be weaponized to propel us toward conflict. The costs of human lives, economic stability, and international standing are excessively high. We can resist manipulation and make informed decisions about our nation’s future by engaging in critical thinking.

Propaganda and Emotional Manipulation

The Ethiopian government’s strategy effectively exploits the powerful emotional currents of nationalism to further its military agenda. Propaganda skillfully manipulates emotions, particularly anger, to cultivate intense nationalist sentiments regarding the lack of access to a port. This anger forms a core element of the government’s appeal, generating a grievance that legitimizes aggressive actions. Furthermore, historical narratives are strategically utilized within propaganda to construct national identity through emotional appeals, thus shaping a perception of national interests that may be at odds with peaceful resolutions or compromise.

While the Ethiopian government’s advocacy for military action may resonate with some as an issue of national pride and sovereignty, it is crucial to critically assess the broader implications of such a decision. Access to a port is undeniably a strategic interest for Ethiopia, and the frustrations surrounding this matter are understandable. However, historical precedents indicate that pursuing these objectives through conflict frequently results in unintended consequences—prolonged instability, loss of life, and economic downturns. Instead of being swayed by emotional appeals or historical grievances, Ethiopia should strive to balance its legitimate aspirations with a commitment to peaceful diplomacy and regional cooperation. Genuine national strength manifests in resolving disputes without recourse to violence, ensuring all citizens’ well-being while maintaining regional stability. There is hope for a peaceful resolution, and it is within our reach.

Notably, figures Abiy and his associates previously disparaged, such as Emperor Menelik and Haile Selassie, are repurposed as propaganda instruments in AI-generated videos to promote national sentiment for war. This calculated manipulation of emotions, anger, and historical revisionism is a critical tool in the government’s arsenal, raising concerns regarding the potential justification of conflict.

External Influences: A Geopolitical Chessboard and the Red Sea Council and Regional Complexities

Credit: Map: Per Wikström FOI

In addition to propaganda, external influences from established powers may further embolden the ambitions of the Ethiopian government. Nations such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran, and Turkey have provided financial support and military technology, including drones, to the regime. These external actors are primarily motivated by their geopolitical interests rather than Ethiopia’s success, particularly in expanding their influence in the Red Sea region. By aligning with these foreign powers, the Ethiopian government risks becoming a pawn in a broader geopolitical struggle, potentially compromising Ethiopia’s sovereignty and stability for militaristic aspirations.

Moreover, establishing the Red Sea Council on January 6, 2020, exemplifies a regional initiative promoting stability and cooperation among its eight member states: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Eritrea, Yemen, Sudan, Djibouti, and Somalia. The council addresses collective political, economic, cultural, environmental, and security concerns to foster regional stability. However, its limitations underscore the complexities inherent in the geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa. Notably, excluding key stakeholders such as Ethiopia, the UAE, and Turkey undermines the council’s capacity to mediate and resolve critical regional disputes, including Ethiopia’s claims regarding the Port of Assab and broader issues such as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).

The absence of the UAE, a significant player in the Red Sea region, further diminishes the council’s ability to address conflicts effectively. As a financier and supplier of military technology to Ethiopia, the UAE has vested interests that create a gap in the council’s capacity to mediate disputes. Including all relevant stakeholders in the decision-making processes of the Red Sea Council would significantly enhance its role in fostering dialogue and stability.

The increasing influence of global powers in the Horn of Africa adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has made substantial investments in the region and may pressure Ethiopia to reconsider its position to safeguard its economic interests. Concurrently, with its close alliance with Eritrea, Russia will likely support it, further polarizing the situation. The Horn of Africa risks becoming a battleground for proxy conflicts among superpowers, exacerbating instability in an already fragile region. The involvement of these global powers could significantly escalate the conflict and its potential impact on the region.

The Ethiopian regime and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed must acknowledge the broader implications of their policies. Pursuing militaristic ambitions risks alienating Ethiopia from its neighbors and exposes the nation to the dangers of becoming ensnared in the rivalries of global powers. Stability in the Horn of Africa is crucial for the region and the international community; therefore, Ethiopia must refrain from actions that could exacerbate tensions or invite external interference.

Some advocates of military action have drawn parallels between Ethiopia’s current situation and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, citing it as a precedent for Ethiopia’s potential actions regarding the Port of Assab. This comparison is fundamentally flawed and dangerously misleading. Unlike Russia, Ethiopia lacks the economic and geopolitical resilience necessary to withstand the repercussions of such an annexation. The international sanctions, isolation, and prolonged instability that followed Crimea’s annexation serve as a stark warning rather than a model to emulate. An attempt to annex the Port of Assab from Eritrea would likely provoke conflict, destabilize the region, and inflict significant suffering upon the Ethiopian populace. At a time when Ethiopia’s resources and potential should be directed toward rebuilding and development, any reckless course of action would only lead to greater ruin.

The government’s apparent miscalculation of the current international political climate is equally concerning. It seems to operate under the assumption that the global community’s attention is too fragmented by numerous crises—ranging from the war in Ukraine to tensions in the Middle East—to respond decisively to another conflict in the Horn of Africa. This assumption is both perilous and naïve. Ethiopia cannot afford to gamble on the presumption that its actions will proceed unnoticed. The interconnected nature of global politics guarantees that such reckless aggression will attract international scrutiny, potentially resulting in sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or even intervention. Misjudging the world’s response could have catastrophic consequences for the nation, exacerbating the suffering of its people, who are already grappling with poverty, unemployment, and ongoing conflicts.

Diplomatic Failures and Reckless Ambitions: Ethiopia’s Inept Approach to International Relations

The Ethiopian government’s international and diplomacy strategy has been marked by a discernible pattern of incompetence, shortsightedness, and a concerning disregard for fundamental principles of sovereignty and transparency. Recent actions raise significant concerns regarding the regime’s capacity to manage Ethiopia’s relations with its neighbors and the broader global community in a manner that prioritizes stability and mutual respect.

The 2018 joint proclamation between Ethiopia and Eritrea formally concluded the border conflict and was celebrated as a historic moment of reconciliation. However, the absence of documentation or formal agreements delineating the terms of this peace underscores the negotiations’ unprofessional and juvenile nature. What should have served as a foundation for enduring diplomatic relations instead devolved into an opaque personal rapport between the two leaders, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki. This lack of institutionalization has left Ethiopia susceptible to unpredictable shifts in relations. It has fueled suspicions that the agreement was less about peace and more a calculated maneuver to consolidate military aggression against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the people of Tigray. This failure to establish a formal framework highlights a lack of foresight and professionalism in managing Ethiopia’s long-term foreign policy objectives. Like a yo-yo that rises and falls, Abiy, who once united two nations in peace, is now pulling the string taut, poised to let the yo-yo crash into conflict. This situation illustrates his leadership’s unpredictable, paradoxical, and erratic nature.

Further evidence of Ethiopia’s diplomatic mismanagement is evident in its controversial arrangement with Somaliland to gain access to a port and deploy a so-called navy. In a reckless attempt to secure port access, the regime reportedly agreed to recognize Somaliland as an independent nation, disregarding Somalia’s sovereignty and provoking outrage both domestically and internationally. This decision, which drew condemnation from Somalia, Turkey, and the broader global community, exemplifies the government’s propensity for making impulsive agreements without adequately considering the broader implications for regional stability. Although Ethiopia ultimately re-established its relationship with Somalia through Turkish mediation, the damage to its credibility as a reliable and rational diplomatic partner remains substantial.

The regime’s disregard for sovereignty and international norms extends to its borders. When Sudan annexed a significant portion of land in the western Amhara region and when Eritrea seized parts of Tigray following the Tigray war, the Ethiopian government failed to respond with meaningful or transparent diplomatic efforts. Instead of addressing these violations through negotiations or international arbitration, the regime looked the other way, prioritizing its survival over Ethiopia’s territorial integrity. This negligence undermines Ethiopia’s claims to sovereignty and establishes a dangerous precedent for regional actors to exploit Ethiopia’s internal fragility.

While it may appear trivial, the government’s incompetence in international relations was further underscored during the 38th African Union (AU) Summit, where a map displayed portions of Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti within Ethiopia’s borders: cartography annexation or cartography of conquest. This map, showcased alongside the AU and Ethiopian flags, incited outrage among Eritreans, who perceived it as an expansionist statement by Ethiopia. Somalia and Djibouti have opted for silence. In diplomatic language, this silence can be called “diplomatic reticence” or “strategic silence.”  Such terms imply a deliberate choice to refrain from publicly addressing or condemning an issue, often to avoid escalating tensions or to maintain a specific diplomatic posture.

While the Ethiopian government may not have intended such a message, its failure to address the ensuing controversy diplomatically has exacerbated tensions and deepened suspicions regarding its long-term intentions toward its neighbors. This incident reflects a broader failure to manage Ethiopia’s image on the international stage and reinforces the perception that the regime’s approach to diplomacy is clumsy and provocative.

Ultimately, Ethiopia’s international relations under this regime are characterized by a pattern of recklessness, impulsiveness, and an inability to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors. The government’s actions suggest a complete disregard for the principles that should guide effective diplomacy—principles of mutual respect, transparency, and accountability. Instead, the regime appears more focused on utilizing international relations for its domestic survival, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability.

Within this context, the potential for conflict with Eritrea must be understood. The regime’s track record of mismanagement and opportunism renders it unsurprising that it may contemplate initiating hostilities to divert attention from its failures or to fulfill its militaristic ambitions. However, such a course of action would only exacerbate Ethiopia’s isolation, destabilize the region, and inflict untold suffering upon its populace. Suppose Ethiopia is to secure a peaceful and prosperous future; In that case, its leaders must abandon their inept and self-serving approach to diplomacy and instead commit to fostering relationships grounded in mutual respect and genuine cooperation.

The Miscalculation of Numbers: Lessons from the Past

One of the most perilous miscalculations currently being promoted to justify military action against Eritrea is the belief that Ethiopia’s population of over 120 million guarantees an unequivocal victory in contrast to Eritrea’s 3.5 million. This reductionist perspective, which posits numerical superiority as the decisive factor in warfare, overlooks the complexities of contemporary military engagements and the lessons gleaned from Ethiopia’s recent historical experiences. The conflict in Tigray is a poignant illustration of how such assumptions can precipitate catastrophic misjudgments. Despite Ethiopia’s significant demographic advantage, the war with the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) culminated in a devastating stalemate, with the TDF advancing to Debre Tsina, a location merely a short distance from Addis Ababa. The pertinent consideration is whether the Ethiopian military can secure the Port of Assab and maintain control over it—at what cost, for how long, and in the face of what resistance.

Wars are not determined solely by population size; they are influenced by strategy, resources, logistics, and the capacity to endure prolonged conflict. Despite its smaller population, Eritrea possesses a well-trained and resilient military that has historically demonstrated an ability to withstand larger adversaries. Furthermore, Eritrea’s alliance with global powers such as Russia, which seeks to extend its influence in the Horn of Africa, adds further complexity to Ethiopia’s strategic calculations. In reality, the capture of Assab would not signify the conclusion of hostilities but instead herald the onset of a protracted and costly struggle to maintain control over the territory. Such a conflict would likely deplete Ethiopia’s fragile economy, undermine its military capabilities, and inflict significant suffering upon its people.

Historical precedent suggests that aggressors seldom emerge victorious in such protracted conflicts. The ongoing war in Ukraine serves as a cautionary example. Despite Russia’s military strength and initial overconfidence in achieving a swift victory, the conflict has persisted, resulting in severe economic sanctions, international isolation, and substantial losses for both parties. Ethiopia risks replicating this trajectory, potentially becoming ensnared in a drawn-out and unwinnable war that alienates its neighbors, destabilizes the region, and invites the intervention of global powers.

The Ethiopian government and its supporters must engage in critical self-reflection: Is it prudent to plunge the nation into yet another conflict, not for the welfare of its citizens but for the ephemeral gratification of nationalist pride? What will be the human and financial toll of such a conflict? How long will Ethiopia be willing to sustain military efforts to control Assab? What kind of future are we constructing for our children if we persist on this trajectory of perpetual conflict?

Rather than investing in warfare, Ethiopia should address its internal challenges, such as unemployment, poverty, and infrastructural deficiencies. Wars conducted under the guise of nationalism do not yield prosperity; instead, they result in devastation. Ethiopia’s true strength resides not in its capacity for militarization but in its ability to pursue peace, stability, and development. The lessons learned from past miscalculations, including the Tigray War and Russia’s ongoing struggles, should serve as a cautionary tale: Aggression does not lead to triumph; it leads to destruction.

Dangerous Alliances: A Return to Militaristic Ambitions

The alliance between the government and former Derg generals, who previously faced defeat in their conflicts with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), signifies a troubling resurgence of militaristic ambitions driven by personal vendettas. While not yet supported by concrete evidence, the government’s request for collaboration with former TPLF generals has sparked increasing speculation and concern, highlighting a complex and unsettling dynamic. These generals, who once aimed to seize Asmara during the 1998 Eritrean-Ethiopian War but were thwarted by then-Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, now find themselves in a precarious situation. Despite their awareness of the Ethiopian government’s genocidal actions against their own Tigrayan population, if they decide to ally with or advise the government in its military campaign against Eritrea, it is particularly alarming. It might be motivated by nostalgia and regret. Deep down, I struggled to accept what was said. From what I know, these generals will only take actions that serve the interests of Tigray.

These alliances, rooted in desperation and a desire for retribution, threaten regional stability and underscore the internal divisions within the government, which appears to rely on militaristic strategies rather than addressing the nation’s fundamental issues. Prioritizing vengeance over reconciliation poses a significant risk of exacerbating regional chaos, driven by the legacies of historical conflicts rather than the possibilities for a peaceful resolution.

The scars of recent conflicts—specifically in Tigray and the ongoing wars in Amhara and Oromia—serve as an undeniable warning. Have we not witnessed sufficient suffering? Have we not learned that warfare does not yield security but instability? The government’s failure to address existing conflicts exacerbates new tensions, manipulating national sentiments to ensure its political survival. The pertinent question remains: Will we acquiesce to this situation?

Is there any shred of humanity left within this government?

Assab may be the immediate flashpoint, but war is never contained—it is chaotic, unpredictable, and merciless. What begins as a capture of Assab can quickly escalate into a catastrophe engulfing entire regions. And so we must ask: Will we stand idly by while an ambitious, power-hungry tyrant drags Tigray and Afar—and the whole nation—into yet another devastating war?

The Crossroads for Tigray: A Defining Moment

This is not a question of mere alliances or passive observation. The gravity of the situation demands action. Tigray’s political leaders face a defining choice that history will judge with unforgiving scrutiny. As a region within Ethiopia, Tigray’s decisions have profound implications for regional and national stability. The options before them are fraught with complexities and far-reaching consequences:

1. a) Collusion with the Ethiopian government: This path risks contributing to the destruction of Tigray’s people. While it might offer short-term political advantages, it could damage trust and the region’s integrity.
2. b)Passive stance:Remaining inactive could allow Tigray to become a battleground again, repeating the devastating cycle of recent history. This approach risks leaving Tigray’s fate in the hands of others.
3. c) Alliance with the EPLF: Actively resisting Ethiopia’s current regime by aligning with Eritrean forces presents a bold strategy. While it could prevent another cycle of devastation, it significantly escalates tensions and carries high risks.
4. d) Armed neutrality: Maintaining a state of readiness to defend against potential incursions from any party in the conflict aims to protect Tigray but requires substantial resources and may be perceived as provocative.
5. e) Diplomatic engagement:Given the recent devastating war with the Ethiopian government that brought significant international attention, Tigray can appeal to the UN, AU, and other international bodies to ensure it does not become a battleground again. By emphasizing the urgent need to prevent further loss of life and destruction, Tigray can advocate for a peaceful resolution that protects its people and contributes to broader regional stability. This strategy capitalizes on the increased global awareness of Tigray’s situation to push for diplomatic solutions and international guarantees of safety and stability. This crucial appeal to the international community should be led by Tigrayans and other anti-war Ethiopian groups in the diaspora, as they have the networks, resources, and platforms necessary to effectively engage global decision-makers, media outlets, and humanitarian organizations. Their unique position enables them to amplify the voices of Tigray and peace-loving Ethiopians on the global stage, ensuring that the region’s call for peace and protection is not overlooked.

Each of these paths carries profound implications not just for Tigray but for Ethiopia and the stability of the Horn of Africa. The stakes could not be higher. The mere thought of Tigray being reduced to ruins once more fills us with anguish. Inaction is not an option.

Whatever path is chosen must be taken with strategic foresight, unwavering commitment to the people’s welfare, and a clear understanding of the national, regional, and international implications.

We stand at a crossroads where today’s decisions will echo through generations. We must act—and act wisely—before it is too late. Tigray’s future, Ethiopia, and the entire region hang in the balance.

It is important to note that the scenarios and suggestions presented here are the author’s independent views. Ultimately, Tigray’s political leaders possess the most intimate understanding of their region’s complexities and challenges. They are best positioned to determine the most appropriate course of action for their people based on their unique insights, local knowledge, and assessment of the evolving situation.

Fetlework Gebregziabher, a prominent official of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), recently articulated the organization’s neutrality regarding the potential conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Nevertheless, whether this stance is universally shared by all political entities in Tigray, including the Tigray Defense Force (TDF) and the Interim Administration, remains uncertain. What is apparent, however, is that no one desires to see Tigray transformed into a battleground. We anticipate gaining further insights as the situation continues to evolve.

It’s crucial to emphasize that the scenarios and considerations discussed here regarding Tigray are equally applicable to the Afar region. The Afar political elites should carefully consider these points and adapt them to their specific context. Whatever strategies are mentioned about Tigray can serve as a template for Afar, with the understanding that Afar’s unique geographical, political, and cultural landscape will require tailored approaches. With their deep knowledge of their region’s needs and challenges, the Afar political leadership is best positioned to employ what works for their people and their future within Ethiopia and the broader Horn of Africa context.

While the Tigray and Afar regions, bordering Eritrea, face unique challenges and must make critical decisions regarding their stance in this potential conflict, it is imperative that all Ethiopians, regardless of region, unite in opposition to this war. The consequences of such a conflict would not be confined to border areas but would reverberate throughout the nation, affecting every citizen.

Ethiopia’s Alliance with Brigade Nhamedu: A Calculated Move Toward Conflict?

The Ethiopian autocracy’s support for Brigade Nhamedu, an opposition group targeting the Eritrean government, raises serious concerns about its broader regional intentions. Strategically positioned in Semera, in the Afar region near Assab, Brigade NeHamedu appears poised to confront the Eritrean regime directly.

Combined with the Ethiopian government’s deployment of mechanized divisions and drone forces in the same area, this suggests more than mere posturing—it signals a coordinated effort to provoke conflict. Could it be that Brigade Nhamedu has effectively paved the way for Ethiopia to assert control over Assab, using the guise of weakening Eritrea?

Brigade Nhamedu, also known as the “Blue Brigade” or “Blue Revolution,” was formed by young Eritreans in the diaspora around 2022. It initially focused on disrupting pro-regime cultural festivals, which the Eritrean government used for fundraising and propaganda. These actions occurred in countries such as Germany, Norway, Israel, and the United States.

The group seeks to overthrow Isaias Afwerki’s regime and establish a democratic government in Eritrea. It aims to create a transitional government in exile and has emphasized inclusivity across religious and political lines.

Some observers suggest that Brigade Nhamedu primarily comprises individuals from the lowland areas of Akeleguzay, with a smaller contingent from other locations; however, this characterization has not been independently verified. This faction criticizes the Eritrean government for its authoritarian governance and lack of democracy. It claims systematic marginalization and asserts that power is concentrated within a clique aligned with Isaias Afwerki, excluding them from influence or representation.

Eritrea may seem cohesive due to its militaristic governance, which suppresses dissent, but significant fractures exist among various factions. Currently suppressed through fear, these divisions could pose challenges in a post-Isaias era. Whether Isaias Afwerki is removed by force or natural causes, a power vacuum may ignite internal struggles among competing groups vying for dominance in a country held together by repression rather than consensus.

If a war were to remove Isaias from power, Eritrea could face intense internal conflict. The fragmentation of political and military factions may lead to instability, allowing external forces to exploit the situation. For instance, Ethiopia might temporarily assert control over the Port of Assab for strategic and economic interests. However, such a scenario would likely be short-lived. As all Eritrean factions resolve their disputes, groups like Brigade Nhamedu would likely focus on expelling Ethiopian forces from Eritrean territory.

Eritrea has numerous opposition groups despite being officially a single-party state ruled by the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). The opposition landscape is complex and fragmented, with groups often splitting, merging, or changing names. Key opposition entities include the Eritrean Democratic Alliance (EDA), an umbrella organization of 13 parties as of 2014. Notable groups within and outside the EDA include ethnically based organizations like the Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization (RSADO) and the Democratic Movement for the Liberation of the Eritrean Kunama (DMLEK), both committed to armed struggle. Other significant opposition groups are Islam-based organizations, PFDJ dissidents, and remnants of the former Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF). The Eritrean National Salvation Front, the Eritrean Islamic Party for Justice and Development, and the Eritrean People’s Democratic Party are also part of the opposition landscape.

New movements have emerged, such as the Eritrean Forum for National Dialogue (EFND) and the Eritrean Movement for Change (EMC), established by former EPLF members. It’s important to note that all these opposition groups are considered illegal by the Eritrean government, as only the PFDJ is legally allowed to operate in the country. The Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization (RSADO) and the Democratic Movement for the Liberation of the Eritrean Kunama (DMLEK) have their bases in Ethiopia. These opposition groups are mainly based in neighboring countries, such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti, Middle Eastern countries, and Western countries, such as the United States, various European nations, and Australia. (NOREF, 2015)

This scenario illustrates the complexity of Eritrea’s internal dynamics and the potential consequences of external interference. The nationalism and historical resistance of the Eritrean people to foreign domination indicate that any external occupation would encounter fierce opposition from all segments of society. For Ethiopia, this raises the question of whether pursuing a port through opportunistic means is worth igniting a costly and protracted conflict that could destabilize the region.

Eritrea’s internal divisions may offer opportunities for external actors, but such interventions carry risks. The resilience of Eritrean factions like Brigade Nhamedu and others and their potential to unite under a common enemy highlight the dangers of underestimating the consequences of exploiting Eritrea’s instability. For Ethiopia, engaging in this scenario would strain its resources and deepen regional tensions, perpetuating a cycle of conflict without a clear resolution. Ethiopia must respect Eritrea’s sovereignty and avoid entanglement in its internal political struggles.

Such a scenario threatens to upend regional stability, raising urgent questions about the true motivations behind these alliances. These maneuvers could spark a broader conflict, endangering countless lives and plunging an already volatile region into deeper chaos if left unchecked. Now more than ever, we must remain vigilant, critically examining the shifting dynamics of this precarious landscape.

A Militaristic Agenda at the Expense of Progress

In Ethiopia, a regime prioritizing military engagement over establishing factories, creating employment opportunities, and developing educational and healthcare institutions demonstrates a profound misalignment of values and responsibilities. This concerning militaristic focus diverts essential resources away from the fundamental needs of the Ethiopian people. Rather than confronting high unemployment rates, inadequate educational access, and insufficient healthcare services, the government directs its energies toward fomenting conflict. The lack of meaningful investment in critical infrastructure exacerbates economic instability and underscores a failure to prioritize human capital and long-term development. By neglecting the creation of jobs and the expansion of essential services, the regime intensifies poverty and disenfranchisement, leaving millions of Ethiopians vulnerable and despondent. This strategy, centered on power and control rather than progress and prosperity, perpetuates a cycle of suffering and instability threatening the nation and the region. At a time when Ethiopia’s potential and resources ought to be harnessed for growth, the choice to pursue warfare over peace and progress undermines the foundation of a thriving society.

A Call for Rational Nationalism

Image Credit to-Medium

This moment calls for the Ethiopian people and political elites to transcend emotional responses and adopt a stance of rational nationalism. Genuine nationalism is not characterized by blind allegiance to conflict but embodies the wisdom to pursue our interests through diplomacy, negotiation, and peace. Strength is not defined by military aggression but by the capacity to safeguard lives, ensure stability, and construct a future where all Ethiopians can flourish.

We urge you to do the following:

• Reject warmongering:Refuse to support or initiate any plans for military action, regardless of the purported justification.
• Prioritize diplomatic solutions:Engage in peaceful negotiations and international arbitration to address concerns about port access and territorial disputes.
• Resist emotional manipulation:Remain vigilant against propaganda that exploits national pride to garner support for military actions.
• Demand transparency:Insist on factual communication from the government regarding international relations and potential conflicts.
• Support peaceful initiatives:Advocate for and actively engage in efforts that foster dialogue, both domestically and with neighboring nations.
• Hold leaders accountable:Insist that political leaders prioritize peaceful resolutions and governance reforms over militaristic approaches.
• Promote rational discourse:Facilitate discussions emphasizing the long-term implications of actions rather than immediate emotional gratification.

Perilous Ambitions: The Cost of War at Home and Beyond

War with Eritrea:

• Regional Instability:A conflict with Eritrea would destabilize the Horn of Africa, exacerbate tensions, and invite external interference from global powers, turning the region into a proxy battleground.
• Economic Collapse:Increased military spending, trade disruptions, and international sanctions would devastate Ethiopia’s fragile economy.
• Humanitarian Catastrophe:Thousands of lives would be lost and millions displaced, deepening the existing refugee and displacement crisis in the region.
• Unwinnable Conflict: A war with Eritrea would likely be prolonged and costly despite Ethiopia’s larger military and recent modernization efforts. Eritrea’s experienced forces, defensive terrain, and potential alliances (such as with Egypt and others) present significant challenges. Ethiopia’s military is already stretched thin and engaged in ongoing conflicts in the Amhara and Oromia regions. At the same time, Ethiopia has demonstrated military capabilities. The unpredictable nature of warfare, historical precedents, and current internal strife suggest that Ethiopia faces substantial risks despite its strength. A new front against Eritrea would further drain resources, test morale, and divert attention from crucial domestic needs and existing conflicts. The potential human, economic, and diplomatic costs could far outweigh any gains, regardless of Ethiopia’s military capacity, especially given the current internal instability.
• Loss of International Standing:Ethiopia would face further diplomatic isolation, tarnishing its reputation and diminishing crucial international support for development and peacebuilding.

Prevailing Wars in Amhara and Oromia:

• Human Suffering and Displacement:The conflicts have already displaced millions and caused widespread destruction, leaving communities in desperation and deepening Ethiopia’s humanitarian crisis.
• Erosion of Governance:The government’s inability to resolve these internal conflicts highlights its fragility and risks total state collapse, potentially plunging the country into an ethnic crisis of unprecedented proportions.
• Deepening Divisions:Ethnic tensions have become more pronounced, threatening national unity and creating fertile ground for further violence and unrest.
• Neglect of Development:Vital resources are diverted toward war efforts, leaving education, healthcare, and infrastructure neglected, perpetuating poverty and unemployment.
• National Upheaval:The government’s failure to address these conflicts could lead to a complete breakdown in governance, further exacerbating Ethiopia’s already precarious situation.

Cumulative Impact:

The simultaneous pursuit of war with Eritrea and the ongoing conflicts in Amhara and Oromia will lead Ethiopia into a dangerous spiral of violence, poverty, and fragmentation. The government’s reckless militaristic ambitions risk plunging the nation into chaos, alienating its neighbors, and collapsing its economy. Without a shift toward diplomacy, reconciliation, and addressing domestic grievances, Ethiopia’s future is at risk of being defined by endless suffering and instability.

Respecting Sovereignty: Internal Politics Must Be Left to Eritreans

The author recognizes Isaias Afwerki as a dictator who holds absolute control over Eritrea, consolidating power over the constitution, parliament, and presidency. While Eritreans fought an arduous and heroic battle to achieve geographical freedom, the reality today is grim: the people of Eritrea endure conditions that are arguably worse than those during the reign of their principal adversaries, Haile Selassie and the Derg. The Eritrean state has become synonymous with repression, where the aspirations for democracy and good governance remain a distant dream.

However, this article does not focus on Eritrea’s governance or internal political system. It is not a critique of democracy or the lack thereof in Eritrea. Instead, it is a matter of principle: the sovereignty of Eritrea as a nation must be respected. Sovereignty is a cornerstone of peace and coexistence, and disregarding it—no matter the justification—sets a dangerous precedent, threatening to unravel Eritrea’s hard-won independence and the region’s fragile stability. The responsibility of addressing Eritrea’s internal political challenges rests solely with the Eritrean people, who have the right to determine their nation’s future without external interference.

The acknowledgment of Eritrea’s sovereignty is not an endorsement of its leadership but a recognition of the right of its people to self-determination, free from external aggression or territorial ambitions. To wage war against Eritrea under the pretext of nationalism, port, and historical grievances is not only reckless but also a betrayal of the lessons history has taught us about thedevastating costs of militarism.

This article serves as a grave warning against the Ethiopian government’s militaristic ambitions, which threaten to drag the region into further turmoil. True national strength lies not in conquest but in respect for international norms, peaceful coexistence, and the pursuit of diplomacy. Eritrea’s sovereignty must remain inviolable—not for its leadership’s sake but for peace, stability, and the people of both nations.

Abiy Ahmed: The Autocrat of Fragile Ego and Manipulative Ambition

Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s self-styled modern monarch, rules not as a statesman but as an autocrat whose fragile ego drives every decision. His leadership is defined by an obsession with self-image, pursuing personal legacy, and a troubling reliance on lies as a policy tool. This autocrat’s shimmering and fragile ego cannot withstand the slightest critique, prompting him to respond with authoritarian force rather than measured leadership. He governs not for the people’s benefit but to preserve his name in history, no matter the cost to the nation.

Abiy’s approach to governance is emblematic of a leader who is more concerned with his legacy than the country’s well-being. The push for war with Eritrea over the Port of Assab is not a strategic move for Ethiopia’s long-term benefit—it is a personal project to etch his name into the history books. This is not a war for Ethiopia’s interests; it is a war for Abiy’s ego. The Ethiopian people must not be manipulated into yet another catastrophic conflict to satisfy one man’s quest for validation.

The lies underpinning Abiy’s leadership are not incidental but foundational to his rule. Deception is a deliberate strategy to manipulate public perception and obscure the government’s failures. Abiy’s propaganda machine weaponizes nationalism, exploiting historical grievances and emotional narratives to stoke anger and rally support for reckless policies. The use of AI-generated historical revisionism, paired with deliberate emotional manipulation, reveals an autocrat willing to distort the truth for his survival.

Abiy’s weak diplomacy has left Ethiopia vulnerable and isolated internationally. His inability to build meaningful alliances or navigate complex global dynamics reflects a leader who lacks the skill and foresight to protect his nation’s interests. Instead of fostering regional cooperation, his actions alienate neighbors and draw Ethiopia into unnecessary tensions, further destabilizing the Horn of Africa.

Domestically, Abiy’s governance relies on repression and militarism, diverting resources from critical national priorities like education, healthcare, agriculture, and infrastructure. The Ethiopian people suffer under crushing poverty, unemployment, and displacement, while their government prioritizes war over progress. Instead of addressing internal challenges, Abiy’s regime manufactures conflict as a distraction, ensuring the nation’s potential remains squandered.

The Ethiopian people must recognize Abiy for what he is: an autocrat who places his fragile ego and personal ambitions above the nation’s well-being. His calls for war are not rooted in national interest but in vanity. To follow him down this path is to invite further destruction and suffering. Based on these realities, Ethiopians must reject his call to war and the illusion of conquest and resist being swayed by his lies and propaganda. The nation’s future depends on the wisdom to see through his motives and choose peace over destruction.

A Path Forward: Peaceful Strategies for Securing Port Access

In the context of increasing tensions and misguided calls for conflict, it is essential to recognize the availability of peaceful and pragmatic alternatives for addressing Ethiopia’s legitimate need for port access. These strategies facilitate the achievement of national objectives and promise long-term benefits that significantly surpass the devastating costs associated with warfare. Ethiopia can secure its economic future without compromising lives or stability by prioritizing diplomacy, cooperation, and strategic investment. The following approaches provide a comprehensive roadmap to prosperity that aligns with national values and aspirations for regional leadership. They exemplify the potential to transform challenges into opportunities for growth and mutual benefit through judicious and forward-thinking actions. These peaceful strategies are a testament to the accomplishments achievable when dialogue is prioritized over confrontation and shared progress is valued above myopic aggression.

1. Diplomatic Engagement: Initiate direct negotiations with Eritrea and other coastal nations to establish port access agreements, employing international mediation if necessary.
2. Economic Cooperation: Develop joint economic zones or free trade areas incorporating mutually beneficial port access arrangements.
3. Infrastructure Investment: Propose investments in port development or expansion in exchange for guaranteed access and preferential terms.
4. Long-term Leasing: Negotiate long-term leases for dedicated port facilities or terminals in neighboring countries.
5. Regional Integration: Advocate for broader economic integration within the Horn of Africa, emphasizing shared prosperity through cooperation.
6. Alternative Routes: Foster relationships with multiple coastal nations to diversify access options and reduce dependency on a single port.
7. Internal Development: Enhance Ethiopia’s domestic infrastructure and dry ports to maximize the efficiency of any secured port access.
8. International Support: Seek support from global partners and organizations to resolve port access issues peacefully.
9. Legal Framework: Ensure that all agreements comply with international law and respect the sovereignty of the involved nations.
10. Public Diplomacy: Cultivate goodwill among neighboring populations through cultural exchanges and economic partnerships, building support for cooperative solutions.

By implementing these strategies, Ethiopia can pursue vital port access while maintaining regional stability and adhering to international norms. This approach prioritizes long-term cooperation over short-term conflict, ultimately serving Ethiopia’s economic interests more effectively and sustainably.

Crucially, these peaceful approaches are significantly more cost-effective than engaging in military conflict. Warfare incurs exorbitant costs, not only in terms of human lives lost but also in economic damage. A protracted conflict would devastate Ethiopia’s economy, depleting resources the regime could otherwise allocate for development and prosperity. In contrast, these peaceful strategies present the potential for economic growth and stability without the catastrophic human and financial costs associated with warfare.

Conclusion: Reject War, Embrace Peace

Every Ethiopian must resist being influenced by emotional appeals and government propaganda. The trajectory of war represents a perilous path—one that will result in loss of life, exacerbate our divisions, and hinder national progress for generations. Let us not be remembered as a nation that self-destructed in pursuit of reckless ambitions. Instead, cultivate a legacy of wisdom, unity, and peace.

Is it not a profound shame that the actions of one autocrat in Ethiopia cast a shadow over an entire nation, branding it an aggressor? In a country where a single despot’s decisions overshadow countless individuals’ dreams for peace, dignity, and coexistence, we must reflect deeply on the implications of such a label. It serves as a stark reminder of how the choices of a few can tarnish the collective identity of many, reducing a rich tapestry of culture and history to a narrative of conflict and aggression. As we grapple with this reality, let us not forget the voices of those Ethiopians who yearn for peace, harmony, and understanding, for their dreams should define us, not the destructive actions of a tyrant.

All Ethiopians collectively envision secure port access for our nation. However, it is imperative to categorically reject war in favor of the peaceful strategies delineated in this article. The pathway to national prosperity is rooted not in conflict but in diplomacy, cooperation, and strategic partnerships. By adopting these peaceful approaches, we can circumvent the devastating repercussions of war and enhance Ethiopia’s stature on the global stage. It is essential to redirect our collective will toward these constructive methods, securing a peaceful port and a prosperous future for all Ethiopians.

This is a clarion call to action—urging every Ethiopian to transcend the emotional manipulations of a regime seeking to divert attention from its shortcomings. The narrative surrounding the reclamation of strategic ports through aggression is a calculated distraction, weaponizing national pride for political survival. True strength resides not in pursuing militaristic objectives but in the discernment to prioritize diplomacy, reconciliation, and the collective prosperity of all Ethiopians. War does not lead to glory; it paves a path to devastation. Now, more than ever, Ethiopia must opt for peace over destruction.

Reject war. Reject manipulation. Embrace peace.

 

Reference:

Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Center (NOREF), Eritrean opposition parties, and civic organizations (January 2015)

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/187262/9f9d5d39afa27ee550f5632f9b6d03e4.pdf