The recent discussions regarding Ethiopia’s approach to Eritrea, and specifically the talk about the Assab Port feels like there’s been a pretty big shift in direction after years of what seemed like a really close relationship between Prime ministers Abiy Ahmed and President Isaias Afwerki’s administration. The public statements about getting access to Assab, no matter how, have definitely caused some tension.
It honestly seems like this sudden change in tone might not be fully considering all the complex dynamics of the region. Instead, it feels a bit more like it’s coming from some new and perhaps unexpected geopolitical false aspirations, redirecting public attention from domestic challenges.
From Friends to Enemies with both Eritrea and Fano
Following the formal cessation of hostilities in the Tigray region, with the Pretoria Agreement, a new and formidable challenge has emerged. The subsequent engagement in the Amhara regional state, initially characterized by public pronouncements from the Prime Minister’s office suggesting a rapid resolution and the disarmament of local Fano forces within a mere fortnight—a projection now widely seen as a significant underestimation—has dramatically intensified. Now protracted and expanding conflict is increasingly perceived as profoundly undermining the political stability, straining the military apparatus, and eroding the economic foundations of Abiy Ahmed’s dictatorial regime.
“The Majority of Ethiopian Populace Will Support Me For Asseb port” Abiy Ahmed’s Wishful thinking!
The assertion that a majority of the Ethiopian populace would rally behind the Prosperity Party if it were to initiate military hostilities against Eritrea at this juncture is a profound miscalculation, bordering on wishful thinking. The national mood and strategic priorities of the present time is the reverse of what it was during the Badme war, Etho-Eritrea War #1.
Ethiopia’s Withdrawal of Recognizing Eritrea As An Independent Country
There’s also been some chatter about possibly withdrawing Eritrea’s diplomatic recognition as an independent nation. To me, that sounds a bit out of touch with reality, as the military option is really an illusion. Threatening to revoke diplomatic recognition, especially given the more than thirty years history of strategic separation, doesn’t really seem like it would help anyone. In fact, it might even go against standard diplomatic practices and could just make things more complicated for both Ethiopia and Eritrea.
This kind of talk and approach could actually be quite damaging for both nations in the future and might even lessen Abiy Ahmed’s diplomatic standing on the global stage.
Beyond Abiy Ahmed’s pretentious war rehearsal and revoking diplomatic recognition, I really believe that focusing on open discussions and finding win-win solutions through diplomacy would be much more beneficial. That way, both Ethiopia and Eritrea can protect their long-term interests and build a more stable and cooperative future together. When the time comes, with the fall of the dictatorial governments, let’s hope for understanding and peaceful solutions!
Weakened and Fractured Ethiopia, Can’t Afford To Wage War On Any Country!
Ethiopia today is a nation deeply fractured by internal conflicts, battling widespread instability, struggling to find peace within its own borders, often perceived as being under a centralized, authoritarian governance.
For such a state, exhausted by relentless internal strife and external pressures from multiple directions, to embark on another full-scale war with a sovereign neighbor like Eritrea would be an act of monumental political folly, directly imperiling the very fabric of the nation and, by extension, the political survival of its current leadership. This outcome is not merely speculative but a clear and present danger that any discerning observer, including those in power, would readily acknowledge.
Moreover, in the eyes of international diplomacy and global opinion, the precise attribution of responsibility for initiating such a war between two sovereign nations often becomes a secondary concern. The international community’s focus quickly shifts to the humanitarian crisis, regional destabilization, and the urgent need for de-escalation, irrespective of which party nominally launched the first offensive. The ultimate cost, both in human lives and geopolitical standing, would be borne by all involved, making any justification based on initial aggression moot in the face of widespread suffering and instability.
In conclusion, the false rhetoric of potential conflict with Eritrea, therefore, can only be credibly understood as a strategic diversion—an attempt to redirect public attention from critical domestic challenges and governance failures. It is a dangerous gambit, designed to consolidate power or distract from internal discontent, rather than a genuine pursuit of national interest through armed conflict.