https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/45343
In Depth “The Way Out is Diplomacy”: Will Conflict Return to The North?
“The Way Out is Diplomacy”: Will Conflict Return to The North?
May 31, 2025
Tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea have escalated in recent months, prompting concerns over the possibility of renewed conflict. Ethiopia’s pursuit of direct maritime access, internal political divisions, and evolving regional alliances all play a role in the strained relationship, which analysts warn could boil over into the second war between the two countries in less than three decades.
Ethiopia, a landlocked nation since Eritrea’s independence in 1993, has been vocal about its need for access to the Red Sea. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) and his administration have repeatedly framed the quest for maritime access as an existential matter for Ethiopia’s population of over 120 million.
In several public statements, the PM has pointed to Ethiopia’s landlocked status as a significant barrier to economic development and has proposed “peaceful negotiations” as the preferred path to secure port access.
Nevertheless, remarks indicating that “all options” are being considered have raised concerns about the possibility of military escalation. In response, Asmara has voiced skepticism, viewing Ethiopia’s intentions with caution.
In recent months, Eritrea has initiated military mobilization efforts, calling upon citizens under 60 to enlist. The move has been interpreted by observers as a response to Ethiopia’s actions and statements regarding sea access.
Eritrean officials have described Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions as “misguided”, reflecting the deep-seated mistrust between the two nations.
This week, Eritrea celebrated the 34th anniversary of its independence from Ethiopia.
During an address on May 24, President Isaias Afwerki declared that “no force can undermine Eritrea’s sovereignty,” reaffirming the country’s stance on national independence and territorial integrity.
He stated that his government was intent on “fostering robust ties in the region predicated on mutual respect, stability, prosperity, and integration”, and accused “external actors” of working to destabilize the Horn of Africa. Analysts see the statement as a veiled reference to Ethiopia.
The President, who has ruled Eritrea for all 34 years since its independence, added the region’s geostrategic importance has always made it susceptible to myriad interferences and acts of subversion spurred by perceived imperatives of “increasing influences”.
Isaias forwarded the crises in Sudan and Ethiopia as manifestations and indicators of such machinations.
According to him, “the Ethiopian people have already made their choice to buckle up their relation with their opposition”.
“They [external forces] have declared war against the Ethiopian people under the rubric of prosperity,” he said. “The pretexts and banners are many; the reckless agendas and their pre-emptive features are transparent. They include the issue of water, the Nile, the Red Sea, access to the sea, as well as the ideology of Orommuma that does not represent the Oromo people, the conundrum of a Cushitic-Semitic antagonism and others.”
Isaias also described claims that external actors are aggravating the situation and paving the way for a declared war as “well-known and documented.”
“The dollars squandered to enlist the collaboration of traitors and turn-coats are limitless. The tools of psychological warfare and technology are deployed as a third pillar so as to spread abject lies, suppress and distort truth and facts. The fomented hatred and grievances are also numerous. Overt and covert acts of subversion being concocted against the people and government of Eritrea,” he said.
The provocative speech contrasts with the Ethiopian government’s assertions it is working “peacefully” to secure sea access.
Kenea Yadeta (PhD), a security advisor to the PM, recently stated the administration is striving to ensure its benefit through cooperation with neighbouring countries in the region.
“Ethiopia considers securing access to the sea as a matter of national interest and is actively working towards it,” he said. “Given its geographical location, large population, and history, Ethiopia believes it should have access to the sea. In this manner, all Ethiopians, without division or distinction, should collaborate to advance this initiated agenda of securing a sea outlet.”
Differing perspectives and varying levels of concerns have emerged as President Isaias accuses external forces of attempting to destabilize the region and Ethiopia continues to assert the legitimacy of its claim to sea access.
While Constantinos Berhutesfa (PhD), a former chair of the AU Anti-Corruption Board and a former UN policy advisor, argues the rhetoric amounts to little more than “posturing” in international relations, other analysts, such as Getachew Assefa (Prof.), founder of UMD Media, warn the war on the horizon is not a matter of ‘if’, but of ‘when’.
Constantinos is a little more optimistic, but concedes that things have the potential to suddenly spiral out of control despite both countries claiming they do not seek war.
“Both countries had previously stated their intent to avoid the prospect of war,” he said. “But recently, the Eritrean government alleged Ethiopia was preparing to attack, while the Ethiopian government accused Asmara of fuelling internal unrest.”
Constantinos warns any conflict between the two would result in unthinkable human and economic costs.
“It would also open the door for sanctions,” he said.
Constantinos observes the Eritrean government is in no position to afford war, highlighting the human and economic losses it sustained during its involvement in the Tigray conflict.
“I believe international mediation is the only solution to bring a lasting peace in the region. But what matters the most is the internal dynamics with the armed groups,” he told The Reporter.
Getachew says his more alarming assessment of the situation is tied to Ethiopia’s continued push for direct sea access—potentially through Eritrea’s Assab port—which he described as a move that has significantly shifted Eritrea’s strategic calculations.
“Eritrea has long since concluded that Ethiopia will eventually launch an attack,” he said during a recent interview with The Reporter. “The Eritrean government has now—or rather, for months—made the decision that Ethiopia is not going to sit idle and will eventually attack it, at least on the Assab front. The level of engagement with Tigrayan leaders—both political and military—has increased significantly from zero to its current level, precisely because Eritrea has concluded that an attack from Ethiopia is inevitable.”
He also emphasized that a full-scale war would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, extending far beyond military and political actors.
Another observer who sees a renewal of armed conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea as inevitable is Daniel Berhane, a political analyst and legal expert keeping a close eye on developments in Tigray and elsewhere.
To Daniel, the question of whether the two countries will go to war is a foregone conclusion, leaving only questions about the geographical scope and timing of the looming conflict.
The war, he says, will begin after the rainy season ends.
“The war will likely be extended to the northern side of Eritrea,” he told The Reporter. “If the war extends strongly with the objective of regime change—well, that’s the question about the geographical scope.”
If conflict breaks out, Daniel believes its impact on Tigray will depend on Eritrea’s military response.
“If Ethiopia’s objective is limited to Assab, and Eritrea’s response is limited to that area—and to other proxy wars by supporting rebels inside Ethiopia—the effect on Tigray could be limited,” he said.
However, he emphasized that renewed hostilities would have consequences for the wider region, which is still recovering from the devastating two-year war that saw significant involvement from Eritrean forces.
Political strife in Tigray and developments concerning the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) also have a bearing on the tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Internal divisions have wracked the party in the nearly three years since the signing of the Pretoria Agreement, and reports indicate that a TPLF faction led by Chairman Debretsion Gebremichael (PhD) has taken control of parts of Tigray, challenging the federally appointed interim administration.
There are also reports suggesting that this faction may be aligning with Eritrea, further complicating the situation.
The TPLF recently expressed its willingness to work with the Eritrean government, as stated by one of its Politburo members, Abraham Tekeste, during an appearance on regional media. According to him, the party “does not require any permission to engage with Asmara”.
He added its interest lies solely in pursuing peace with Eritrea.
“For the sake of peace, we work in collaboration with Asmara. We need peace for the community, to embrace each other without anyone’s permission. This doesn’t mean that we need war. Any intimidation is not acceptable,” he said.
The budding ties with Asmara were on display again this week when Debretsion marked Eritrean independence celebrations with heartfelt congratulations on his social media accounts.
However, Asmara has not yet issued an official response to this statement.
Constantinos observes recent developments concerning the TPLF’s legal standing could weigh heavily on the possibility of renewed armed conflict.
Earlier this month, the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) announced its decision to strip the party of all federal recognition.
Constantinos emphasized the need for negotiations to prevent further conflict.
He noted the removal of the interim Tigray government led by Getachew Reda and stressed the humanitarian crisis, including dwindling aid and rising deaths in displacement camps. In addition, Constantinos urged both the Ethiopian government and the TPLF to prioritize civilian welfare to avoid escalation.
“I don’t think it’s a question of position. TPLF has caused concern because it’s not registered. I think it’s a question of maintaining their organization—the TPLF,” said Constantinos.
He underscored the fragility of the situation, particularly in disputed areas like Wolkait and Raya, where territorial claims risk reigniting violence.
With international aid declining, he warned of catastrophic humanitarian consequences unless immediate action is taken to address food, medicine, and stability for displaced populations.
His remarks align with calls for dialogue to uphold the Pretoria Agreement and avert further loss of life.
Daniel, however, argues that while the TPLF’s hardliners appear to be warming to Eritrea, their intentions remain unclear, with no transparent agreement in place.
According to him, some TPLF leaders have publicly hinted at possible cooperation.
“It is uncertain whether Eritrea shares this stance—particularly regarding strategic issues like Assab,” he told The Reporter. “If Tigray is not supporting Eritrea, Eritrea could conduct retaliatory strikes against Tigray, which will naturally push Tigray to react. There’s a high likelihood it will be turned into a battleground.”
He added that Tigray’s potential alignment with Eritrea remains speculative, raising concerns over Assab’s status and broader regional stability.
“The situation underscores the need for transparent diplomacy to prevent renewed hostilities,” he said.
Another critical issue highlighted by political observers as potentially aggravating regional tensions is the involvement of third parties. They foresee that emerging regional alliances could trigger significant geopolitical shifts.
In October 2024, Egypt, Eritrea, and Somalia signed a tripartite defense agreement, signaling a collective stance on Red Sea security and potentially countering Ethiopia’s maritime aspirations. Additionally, Ethiopia’s agreement with Somaliland to develop a naval base has been met with criticism from Somalia and other regional actors, further straining diplomatic relations, although the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has not progressed since it was signed in January 2024.
Nonetheless, analysts agree the regional discord stemming from the agreement and Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions has provided an entry point for Cairo, which has emerged as a key player opposing Ethiopia’s ambitions.
Egypt’s involvement is tied deeply to its long-standing concerns over Ethiopia’s control of the Nile waters via the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
Constantinos highlighted three critical concerns regarding regional instability in the Horn of Africa.
He emphasized the threat to Red Sea trade routes, noting that renewed conflict could disrupt a trillion-dollar shipping industry already impacted by Houthi attacks. He also warned of severe economic consequences, including the potential paralysis of key ports like Assab, Massawa, and Djibouti, which would cripple Ethiopia’s imports and devastate Djibouti’s economy.
He also predicted a dramatic geopolitical shift, with the African Union and UN Security Council likely intervening to prevent further escalation.
Constantinos cautions about the interconnected risks of military conflict, economic collapse, and global trade disruptions in the Horn of Africa.
Amid these developments, the expert and the analyst underscored the importance of diplomatic negotiations to prevent further escalation, highlighting the role of Washington and US President Donald Trump.
Constantinos notes increased US military presence on the Red Sea in light of tensions in Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He suggests that diplomacy is the most viable solution, especially since Eritrea has signaled openness to allowing port access. However, he warns that historical territorial disputes—such as Ethiopia’s past claims over Eritrea—could escalate tensions “unpredictably, possibly triggered by minor incidents like border patrol clashes”.
He adds that behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts are likely underway, pointing to the Ethiopian Prime Minister’s recent engagements with European leaders.
“I think the way out is diplomacy. I’m sure in the background there are a lot of talks, and our Prime Minister is now in Europe. And I’m sure these questions are going to be presented to him in a bigger way,” he said.
However, Daniel said that the US “lacks clear policy direction” regarding the Red Sea region, particularly in its stance toward Ethiopia and Eritrea.
He noted that while the US may not support the Eritrean regime, it also seeks to avoid destabilizing the region. Daniel emphasizes that American leadership—or the lack thereof—will determine whether regional actors like Egypt, Sudan’s Al-Burhan, and Saudi Arabia align with Eritrea or stand down.
“Without decisive US action, countries like the UAE may take sides independently, further complicating the situation,” he said. “If America comes with clarity and tells them to stand down, Egypt and Saudi wouldn’t dare to help Eritrea. But it all depends on them. However, if the US remains undecided and without clear leadership, just like we see now, there is no chance for them to get involved just as the UAE will side with Ethiopia.”
Amid the volatility, the Eritrean President stressed that serious groundwork is needed to assess, from the outset, the underlying policies, approaches, and trends of the new US administration.
“As palpable as this vital approach remains, prudence requires patience and refraining from premature conclusions as the dynamics of this new phenomenon remain complicated and complex,” Isaias said during his address.