Ethiopia and Eritrea: The Dangerous Road to Renewed Conflict

Ethiopia’s internal ethnic divisions may lead to renewed conflict with Eritrea, driven by Abiy Ahmed’s desire to consolidate power amid growing unrest. Historical imperial ambitions echo in current rhetoric, while the Tigray War illustrates the violent complexities of authoritarian rule. Diplomacy is crucial to prevent a regional catastrophe as tensions escalate in the Horn of Africa.

Ethiopia is currently facing a crucial juncture amidst its continued ethnic fragmentation, which has led to a dangerous resurgence of nationalist sentiments, particularly concerning Eritrea. The rhetoric employed by the Ethiopian regime under Abiy Ahmed mirrors historical imperial ambitions reminiscent of Haile Selassie’s annexation of Eritrea. The quickly growing tensions hint at an impending conflict that could serve as a diversion for Abiy, who is becoming increasingly desperate to solidify his power amid internal strife.

Historically, Ethiopia has never been a cohesive entity; its ethnic divisions predate modernity. This fragmentation is falsely attributed solely to ethnic federalism implemented over the past three decades, as it was ingrained long before that. Meles Zenawi’s administration laid the groundwork for ethnic federalism, which sought to balance power dynamics among various ethnic groups. The fractious political landscape cannot simply be blamed on recent policies; the roots of division run deep.

War with Eritrea presents a potential strategy for Abiy to avert national insecurity by redirecting attention outward, allowing him to consolidate power and suppress dissent. His weakening grip on power and growing dissatisfaction among the Oromo people highlight the regime’s precariousness. For Abiy, war would not only provide a distraction from domestic turmoil but also an opportunity to foster a supposed unity within Ethiopia amidst escalating ethnic conflicts.

Engaging in irredentism regarding Eritrea reflects Abiy’s political survival instincts rather than genuine imperial ambitions. His government’s lack of legitimacy and reliance on violence undermine any claims to authority, marking a shift toward desperation. A new military engagement could backfire catastrophically, as Ethiopian forces are already stretched thin dealing with internal uprisings, making further military action against Eritrea a gamble that exposes the regime’s fragility.

The regional consequences of renewed conflict with Eritrea would exacerbate instability in the Horn of Africa, where neighboring countries are already in crisis. Sudan has descended into civil war, and South Sudan is on the brink of renewed conflict. The escalating violence in Ethiopia—highlighted by ongoing scenarios in Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara—mirrors the fragmentation witnessed in Yugoslavia and presents a dangerous parallel that must be addressed.

Eritrea’s leadership is resistant to direct conflict but will react firmly if provoked, with potential ramifications that might involve global powers. The reality demands that the international community engages diplomatically to prevent catastrophe in this already volatile region. The profound internal ethnic divisions in Ethiopia and the overarching threat they pose to stability underline the urgent need for intervention.

The war in Tigray was a premeditated conflict aimed at neutralizing the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), demonstrating the calculated nature of both Abiy Ahmed and Isaias Afewerki’s regional ambitions. This brutal conflict not only resulted in enormous loss of life and widespread destruction but also laid bare a strategic alignment between the two regimes. Their offensive tactics echo past oppressive strategies, revealing a troubling pattern that risks repeating itself.

The Pretoria peace agreement, while marking the siege’s end, left unresolved the more profound issues surrounding security and political legitimacy. Abiy’s strategy aims to eliminate potential challenges from Tigray while preventing any future voter discontent that could emerge from a strengthened regional identity. Both leaders have maneuvered to ensure continued dominance, cultivating animosity among groups that, historically, share cultural ties, to weaken dissent.

The crimes and systematic atrocities from the Tigray war point towards complicity from both regimes. Abiy’s regime sought Eritrean aid, shifting the conflict into a broader regional war, thereby risking exacerbating tensions in Eritrea. Eritrea’s involvement raises questions about national interests versus personal investments in political survival, revealing the complexities of Afewerki’s authoritarian rule.

The path to ending Eritrea’s dictatorship may come from within military ranks, particularly by junior officers who stand to benefit from change. However, the existing opposition raises doubts about its intentions amidst increasing authoritarian control by Abiy. The potential recurrence of conflict in the Horn is alarming, necessitating immediate diplomatic efforts.

Both Abiy Ahmed and Isaias Afewerki exhibit a willingness to jeopardize regional stability in pursuit of power, raising concerns about potential future actions against Eritrea in light of past genocidal behaviors toward Ethiopian citizens. As the Horn of Africa stands at a crossroads, the imperative for proactive diplomacy and conflict resolution becomes critical to prevent a catastrophic consequence that could engulf multiple nations.

In summary, Ethiopia’s ethnic fragmentation and escalating tensions with Eritrea alarmingly indicate the potential for renewed conflict. Abiy Ahmed’s leadership strategy relies on stoking nationalist sentiments to consolidate power, potentially leading to devastating consequences for regional stability. The Tigray conflict exemplifies the dangers of unchecked authoritarianism, as both Abiy’s and Afewerki’s motivations reveal a troubling pattern of self-preservation tactics that neglect the broader implications for their nations. The international community’s involvement is crucial in addressing these tensions before they erupt into larger-scale warfare.

Original Source: moderndiplomacy.eu