Mereja.Forum

Potemkin Party's declared "war manifesto" seems to be morphing - through constant packaging and re-packaging - into "the aggrieved party" mode these days.

Indeed, the incessant and toxic mantra on

acquiring sovereign access to the sea by force if necessary .. the imperative to project naval power in the Red Sea.. the revisionist and blasphemous pronouncements on Eritrea's independence...etc.

that the war-mongering PP has been floating for the last two years has been temporarily turned on "mute-mode" in the past few weeks.

The transparent ploy is designed to hoodwink public opinion by rationalizing the unprovoked and reckless war that the PP has been itching to unleash against Eritrea for the past two years as a

legitimate act of self defense.

This is the gist of the long and monotonous diatribe that PP's Foreign Minister delivered at a "Foreign Policy Forum" in Addis Ababa on Thursday this week whose central theme was on

Eritrea's perennial acts of destabilization against Ethiopia.

Strange as it may sound, PP's senior officials seem to suffer from acute deficits of institutional memory - they claim they are not able

to retrieve them from Cabinet, Parliamentary and other archives.

In the event and to refresh the memories of the FM and his Potemkin Party colleagues in a broad-brash and snapshot manner, we will dwell on the following indelible historical facts:

1. Eritrea's three decades war of national liberation was sparked because Ethiopia unilaterally abrogated the sham Federation and annexed Eritrea in flagrant contravention of international law. The Federal Act itself was a blatant violation of Eritrea's inalienable rights of decolonization. Ethiopia's surrogate role in the original illicit act; annexation, and intermittent relapse of its expansionist and irredentist agendas were, and continue to remain, the singular causes of the periodic conflicts that have raged between the two countries.

2. In a nutshell, Eritrea has invariably been on the receiving end for the costly and unnecessary conflicts that successive Ethiopian regime have and continue to unleash because they covet their neighbour's land and endowments.

3. The vicious 1998-2000 border war between the two countries was unleashed by the incumbent Ethiopian regime under the putative pretext of

dispute on Badme and its environs.

Although they are singing to a different tune these days, PP's senior officials - including the current Army Chief of Staff - confessed only four years ago that they were ashamed and embarrassed at the time when the Parliament accused Eritrea for aggression and declared war in May 1998 while the army had been given explicit instructions to unleash war weeks earlier. The maximalist agenda of the war went beyond regaining the "disputed territory". In the early weeks of the war, the then Deputy Foreign Minister, Tekeda Alemu, publicly announced to a gathering of the Ethiopian community in Washington that "capturing Assab" was one of the central objectives of the war. During the 3rd Offensive, the Ethiopian regime halted the US-EU facilitated negotiations in Algiers while the Ethiopian army launched a massive military assault on Assab with disastrous consequences. Ethiopia signed the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement only after, and because of, this debacle. The Moratorium on Air Strikes brokered by President Clinton in July 1998; the Technical Arrangements; the Algiers Agreement, and later the EEBC Award were violated by incumbent Ethiopian regimes because they were not sincerely committed to nurturing and consolidating good-neighbourly ties between the two countries on the basis of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

4. The Potemkin Party is suffering from the same irredentist malaise with its current war agenda cloaked in "sovereign access to the sea". The accusation alluding to Eritrea's visceral stance and "Isaias doctrine" of fomenting perpetual "destabilization" of Ethiopia is too ludicrous to merit elaboration. Small Eritrea must indeed have Providential powers if it is potent enough to destabilize its much larger neighbour, for decades. The truth is the wars that are raging in virtually all of Ethiopia's Regions are incubated by the regime's own flawed governance architecture.

5. The FM further digresses to what has become normative among PP officials and trolls these days of disparaging Eritrea's economic endowments and growth as well as its governance architecture. Again, this is too audacious coming as it does from a country whose economy is overstressed and burdened by debilitating poverty in spite of over 84 billion US$ of receiving international development assistance over the last three decades; periodic IMF financial bailouts; and cyclical rounds of intensive care (Food Safety nets etc.). Currently, 21.4 million Ethiopians are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, while 68.7% are multidimentionally poor. And as mentioned above, the country is seething under spiraling conflicts that emanate from misguided governance structures that polarize society along entrenched and centrifugal ethnic cleavages.

We could go on and on.. but it would be meaningless:

ዘረባ ኣደይ ለቱ፥ ኣየውፍር ኣየእቱ፥

ስለዝኾነ እቲ ነገሩ!

Opinion
A Speech Built on Sand: Exposing Ethiopia's FM Gedion Timothewos’s Gaslighting on Eritrea

By Ternafi

https://mesobjournal.com/post/ethiopia- ... ng-exposed

Nov 14, 2025


Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gedion Timothewos Hessebon

By any standard of diplomacy, Ethiopian FM Gedion Timothewos’s speech at Addis Ababa University should be taught — not as foreign policy, but as an Olympic-level exercise in historical revisionism, projection, and victim theatrics.

He spoke confidently, but confidence does not disinfect a lie. And this speech? It is a mosaic of selective memory, deliberate omissions, and recycled propaganda meant to shift blame away from Ethiopia’s own destructive choices.

Let’s unpack it — calmly, surgically, and factually.

The Speech Begins with a Lie by Omission

Gedion starts his “history” of Eritrea–Ethiopia relations in the 1950s, as if this story began with a mysterious federation that somehow kept producing conflict. Convenient.

Here’s what he doesn’t dare say:

• In 1950, the UN created a federation guaranteeing Eritrea its own parliament, flag, and autonomy.

• In 1962, the Emperor of Ethiopia abolished that parliament at gunpoint, annexing Eritrea illegally.

• The 30-year armed struggle was not a “cycle of tension”; it was a liberation war against an occupation.

Hiding the original crime is the foundation of his entire narrative. Without that erasure, his speech collapses like a wet cardboard roof.

The Badme Gambit: Half the Truth, None of the Consequences

Gedion recites the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission’s ruling on jus ad bellum like a priest quoting scripture. Yes, the Commission attributed the start of combat in May 1998 to Eritrean units. Yes.

Eritrea explicitly accepted the EECC’s decision because the Algiers Agreement required both sides to accept all rulings as “final and binding.” Asmara did not appeal, challenge, or reject it.

But he commits the cardinal sin of diplomacy: he stops the story before the verdict that matters.

The same Algiers Agreement birthed the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), whose binding ruling awarded Badme to Eritrea.

Ethiopia:

• accepted it on paper,

• rejected it in practice,

• froze the ruling,

• and held Eritrea hostage in “no war, no peace” for 18 years.

So Gedion’s moral theatrics about “aggression” ring hollow. International law already settled Badme. Ethiopia simply refused to obey it.

That’s the real record.

Ethiopia Didn’t “Rehabilitate” Eritrea — It First Helped Sanction It

The audacity here is astonishing.

Ethiopia spent years lobbying for sanctions against Eritrea, based on allegations that the UN itself later admitted had no supporting evidence.

And when sanctions were lifted in 2018 — unanimously — it wasn’t because Ethiopia suddenly “rescued” Eritrea; it was because the global system acknowledged the case had been politically fabricated and legally hollow.

Ethiopia built the wall, painted it, and now wants applause for pointing at the exit.

Projection 101: Accuse Eritrea of What Ethiopia Is Actively Doing

Gedion claims Eritrea meddles in Ethiopia’s internal affairs.

This from a government whose leader:

• publicly claims the Red Sea as Ethiopia’s “unfairly lost inheritance,”

• signs a legally invalid MoU with Somaliland for a naval base,

• threatens neighboring states with “existential” language,

• and lectures Eritrea about “economic justice” while floating fantasies of “returning” to the sea.

Eritrean officials, by contrast, repeatedly say:

We have no territorial claims. We seek no war. A stable Ethiopia is in Eritrea’s interest.

Gedion calls Eritrea a “proxy.”

Yet Ethiopia — the country hosting Western drones, UAE airlifts, and multi-billion-dollar Gulf influence — has the nerve to label others puppets?

That takes talent.

The “Isayas Doctrine” Fiction — A Strawman Fit for Theatre, Not Diplomacy

The so-called “Isayas doctrine” he introduces is not found in any Eritrean policy, speech, or doctrine. It exists only in the fevered imaginations of Ethiopia’s propaganda class.

Eritrea’s actual doctrine is simple:

• Respect sovereignty.

• Reject foreign bases.

• No external interference.

• Regional solutions for regional crises.

• Respect International laws

That is the opposite of the Ethiopia-led security clientelism that has defined Horn politics, since 7 decades.

Gedion invents a doctrine only to knock it down.
Classic strawman. Classic deflection.

Demonizing Eritrea’s Domestic System to Justify External Ambitions

Calling Eritrea a war machine with

no concern for development

is not analysis — it is a caricature designed to dehumanize.

And it collapses, the moment you hold it against the record.

How does an allegedly “anti-development” state:

• build dozens of dams — large, medium, and micro — even under sanctions and “no war, no peace,” while Ethiopia, awash in donor money, still struggles with basic water security?

• drive down child mortality at a rate praised by WHO, outperforming countries with exponentially larger health budgets and endless NGO caravans?

• expand rural health coverage to levels unmatched in much of Africa, ensuring that even remote villages have clinics within walking distance — something Ethiopia has not achieved despite three decades of IMF, World Bank, and NGO saturation?

• maintain social cohesion and stability through war, sanctions, isolation, foreign pressure, and an 18-year security siege created by Ethiopia’s refusal to demarcate the border — while Ethiopia, the continent’s top aid recipient, fragments under ethnic insurgencies, civil wars, displacement, and state breakdown?

• remain self-reliant and debt-free, feeding itself without becoming another IMF-dependent “success story” that collapses the moment donors shift priorities?

These achievements were not purchased with billions in loans or donor conferences. They were built quietly, collectively, inside a sovereign project that chose dignity over dependency and servitude.

Eritrea’s challenges are real — but Gedion’s framing isn’t designed for understanding.

It’s designed to paint Eritrea as so abnormal, so irrational, that international audiences will quietly accept whatever Ethiopia demands next, including “access” to ports.

It’s psychological operations executed with comic incompetence.

The Real Elephant in the Room: Ethiopia’s Obsession with the Red Sea

Despite 20 minutes of gaslighting, this is the core:

Ethiopia wants a corridor to the Red Sea — preferably Assab — framed not as negotiation, but as necessity.

Gedion insists:

The tension is not about Assab.

Then, in the same breath, calls sea access “existential.”

That’s like setting your neighbor’s fence on fire, while insisting you

don’t even like wood.

Eritrea has no dispute with Ethiopian trade. Ethiopia can use Eritrea’s ports any day — through lawful, commercial, mutually respectful agreements.

What it cannot do — ever — is use population size, geography, or economic pressure to dilute Eritrean sovereignty.

Assab is not up for ideological reinterpretation.

It is Eritrean territory.

Full stop.

“Restraint”? Ethiopia Is Rehearsing Its Justification, Not Showing Mercy

The darkest part of Gedion’s speech is his claim that Ethiopia has:

“ample grounds” for war
but is generously exercising “restraint.”

When a foreign minister starts listing “legal grounds” for military action, he is not restraining himself.

He is laying out an argument for future escalation.

This is exactly how Ethiopia framed the 1998 war.

It is exactly how it framed military operations in Tigray.

It is exactly how it frames the Somaliland MoU.

Talk peace, prepare conflict, blame the neighbor — this is the pattern.

Eritrea isn’t fooled.

The region isn’t fooled.

And increasingly, neither is the international community.

Integration Is Welcome — Hegemony Is Not

Eritrea has always supported regional cooperation rooted in:

• equality,

• sovereignty,

• mutual respect,

• rejection of foreign military presence,

• and rejection of imposed “blocs.”

But Ethiopia repeatedly dresses its hegemonic instincts in soft, misleading language.

When Gedion says Ethiopia and Eritrea are “one people,” he is not talking about harmony.

He is talking about blurring borders, diluting sovereignty, and pulling Eritrea into an Ethiopian-centered political orbit that soothes Addis Ababa’s domestic insecurities.

Eritrea didn’t fight for 30 years to become anyone’s “special region,” “economic hinterland,” or sentimental extension of a larger state.

It fought to stand upright — as a sovereign state among sovereign states.

Cooperation? Always.

Respect for sovereignty? Non-negotiable.

But any formula that masks dominance, absorption, or hierarchical relationships has no place in the Horn.

Call it what it is:

Partnership? Yes.

Subordination? Never.

A Speech Built Not for Peace, But for Narrative Warfare

Strip Gedion’s speech of its elegant phrasing and it becomes painfully clear:

• He rewrites annexation out of history.

• He hides Ethiopia’s refusal to implement the binding border ruling.

• He portrays Eritrea as congenital trouble.

• He denies Ethiopia’s open Red Sea ambitions.

• He manufactures moral ground for Ethiopia to claim “restraint”, while warming up the legal case for future action.

This is not a call for peace. It is a cover story for pressure. A narrative for external consumption. A blame-shifting campaign in the face of Ethiopia’s internal failures and external overreach.

Eritrea has no designs on Ethiopia.

Eritrea has no ambitions to destabilize anyone.

Eritrea’s only demand is the same since independence:

Respect the border. Respect sovereignty. Respect international law.

If Ethiopia wants peace, it knows the path.

If it wants confrontation, no speech — however poetic — will disguise that choice.

Eritrea, doesn’t fear rhetoric. Eritrea, fears only injustice.

And it will not bow to fantasies, dressed as foreign policy.

GUEST COLUMN
Lies, Calumny, and Obscurantism: Potemkin Party’s Modus Operandi Cannot Change the Immutable

Nov 14, 2025



By Yonas Araadom

https://shabait.com/2025/11/14/guest-column/

The Horn Review’s fixation on Eritrea continues unabated. Its latest piece, part of a series of propagandistic articles, once again attempts to legitimize the PP’s illicit and futile quest for “sovereign access to sea”.

Ethiopian Regime’s Sea Access Delusion and Eritrea’s Strategic Alliances

The delusional notion of a

right to sovereign sea access and port ownership

has now reached a dead end.

The international community cannot, in all honesty, entertain or accommodate this absurd claim. The only option is to relegate it to the dustbin of history.

Consequently, the Prosperity Party (PP) appears to have shifted gears. In a recent series of articles, its mouthpiece—the Horn Review (HR)—has sought to undermine Eritrea’s maritime security strategy, draw false parallels between Ethiopia and Bolivia’s sea access cases, malign the Red Sea Trading Corporation, and link Ethiopia’s isolation and instability to Eritrea and Egypt, as well as the TPLF.

Masquerading as an independent research platform, the Horn Review has moved from its earlier obsession with “sovereign sea access” to meddling in Eritrea’s sovereign security and strategic policy choices. In its article

Foreign Military Presence and Eritrea’s Calculus,

https://hornreview.org/2025/11/06/forei ... e-red-sea/

it offers a poorly argued critique of Eritrea’s maritime strategy, claiming that

the country’s engagements over the years reflect a pragmatic approach to foreign partnerships, one guided less by ideological consistency than by strategic necessity.

The so-called “researcher” behind this claim fails to grasp that strategic priorities inevitably reshape security partnerships, trade blocs, and alliances. The fluidity of international relations and the constantly shifting global landscape compel all nations to adapt their alliances. These shifts arise from complex interplay of power dynamics, economic interests, security imperatives, shared values, and global challenges. Eritrea’s strategic location as a littoral State, naturally situates it within this broader matrix of international relations.

Eritrea’s consistent position has been that the security of the Red Sea basin should first and foremost rest with the littoral States themselves—to prevent the kind of external interference that has historically destabilized the Horn of Africa. Eritrea therefore emphasizes dynamic diplomacy, multilateral collaboration, and conflict-prevention mechanisms that strengthen regional peace and stability.

How, then, can Eritrea be expected to engage in mutually beneficial strategic alliances with the Potemkin Party when the latter continues to reject the sanctity of internationally recognized borders?

Record of Opportunistic Alliances

Ironically, the Horn Review’s critique of Eritrea’s strategic interests attempts to obscure Ethiopia’s erratic record of shifting allegiances since the dawn of its modern history. Scholars have long noted that Ethiopia’s foreign policy – well before the PP’ accession to power – was fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. Its interventions in South Sudan and Somalia were deeply problematic, justified under the guise of “regional peace and security,” yet driven by narrow self-interest and principally carried out under the bidding of major powers.

Ethiopia has never been a neutral actor in Somalia. Over the years, successive Ethiopian regimes supported multiple factions, culminating in the 2006 invasion aimed at toppling the Islamic Courts Union. Today, the Potemkin Party’s alignment with the UAE similarly reflects opportunism and proxy politics. The UAE’s expanding influence under the current Ethiopian regime, raises serious questions about whether this partnership serves Ethiopia’s national interest. The UAE’s record in Sudan and Somalia, where its backing of armed groups like the Rapid Support Forces has fueled instability, underscores these concerns.

Bolivia’s Case and the False Parallel

The Horn Review also attempts to equate Ethiopia’s situation, with Bolivia’s “right to the sea.” To set the record straight, Bolivia brought its case before the International Court of Justice, arguing that the Chilean government had an

obligation to negotiate in good faith with the goal of granting Bolivia sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

However, on October 1, 2018, the ICJ ruled against Bolivia, dismissing the case as untenable on grounds of legal substance and merit. As such, the parallel the Prosperity Party attempts to draw collapses under the weight of this undeniable fact.

The Horn Review repeats a familiar distortion:

A similar story unfolds at the opposite end of the African continent. Ethiopia, once a country with a strong presence on the Red Sea, became landlocked after an agreement following a war with Eritrea…

Invoking connections with a distant past in an attempt to legitimize the quest for sovereign sea access, runs counter to historical reality. While it is hardly necessary to delve into the ancient and medieval history of the Horn of Africa and Northern Africa, it is worth noting that various civilizations arose at different times, sharing neither historical, political, nor geographical continuity. These include the Land of Punt (c. 2500–980 BCE); the Adulite Civilization, which flourished mainly in the Eritrean coastal lands and both predated and coexisted with the Axumite Empire (1st century BCE–8th century CE); and the Axumite Empire itself (1st century CE–940 CE). In addition, various fiefdoms with disparate centers of power and limited territorial reach emerged across disconnected regions.

“Conjuring up’’ the debunked fabricated myths of continuum and congruence to justify encroachment upon or invasion of a sovereign neighboring country constitutes a grave and unequivocal violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. In reality, Ethiopia’s political presence in Eritrea’s coastal lands was limited to the bogus Federation and subsequent Annexation periods, spanning from 1952 to 1991.

Following Italy’s defeat in World War II, Eritrea came under British Military Administration until 1952. At the same time, the US leveraged its diplomatic and political clout at the UN to impose the ill-advised federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, denying Eritrea’s right to decolonization. Emperor Haile Selassie later violated that federation, annexing Eritrea as Ethiopia’s 14th province, an act that sparked a 30-year war of liberation.

In May 1991, the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) decisively defeated the Ethiopian army, leading to the collapse of the regime and Eritrea’s independence, debunking the false claim that Ethiopia “lost” access to the sea due to ‘’political indecision’’ or ‘’mismanagement.’’ Ethiopia’s later attempt to seize Assab during the 1998–2000 border war, also ended in a decisive defeat. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC), established under the Algiers Agreement, reaffirmed Eritrea’s borders as originally defined by the Treaties of 1900,1902 and 1908 on the basis of the foundational principle of the Sanctity and Inviolability of Sovereign Borders. It must be recalled here that the litigation and subsequent 13 April 2002 EEBC Arbitral Award were sparked by the Ethiopian regime’s putative claims on the town of Badme; not on any part of Eritrea’s sovereign coastal territories as the PP seems to insinuate these days.

The Potemkin Party’s recurring claim that its “loss of sea access” resulted from “agreements” or “political mismanagement”, is nothing more than a denial of reality. It epitomizes a dogged refusal to acknowledge the forcible eviction of Ethiopian occupation after three decades of a costly war, with deleterious consequences to the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia. In the event, PP’s officials are desperately clinging to myths, excuses, and historical revisionism to conceal their irredentist ambitions. In a broader perspective, it is unfortunate that certain segments in Ethiopian elite circles seem to be incapable of coming to terms with reality and the contemporary history of both nations with a positive and forward-looking mindset.

On the Red Sea Trading Corporation (RSTC)

The Red Sea Trading Corporation (09), established in 1984, supports Eritrea’s socially responsible development programs and ensures the steady provision of essential goods—stabilizing domestic markets. RSTC originated from the EPLF’s wartime efforts to organize trade and development in liberated territories, laying the groundwork for self-reliant economic growth.

Potemkin Party’s Self-Inflicted Regional Isolation

It is hardly necessary to detail the current Ethiopian regime’s chronic tendency to externalize its internal problems. The country is now suffering the consequences of its own actions. Its self-aggrandizement and irredentist ambitions have set it on a collision course with its neighbors, undermining regional stability and endangering peace in the Horn of Africa. In addition, the siege mentality that the PP harbors stems from narrow tribalist grandeur camouflaged in national Ethiopian garb; political shortsightedness; reflexive and reactive tendency to deflect public attention from the domestic quagmire that it has stoked; and its persistent mishandling of regional affairs. The Amharic proverb:

የቆጡን ላውርድ ብላ የብብቷን ጣለች

succinctly encapsulates the reckless and shortsighted political culture that has characterized successive Ethiopian regimes.

Burying historical facts, recycling fallacies, and drawing false parallels will not advance peace or coexistence in the Horn of Africa. The Prosperity Party’s unfounded claims over Eritrea’s maritime territory are not only baseless—they are dangerously counterproductive to regional stability. Its futile attempt to draw parallels from other nations in an effort to legitimize its quest for sea access, only exposes the depth of its delusion. Moreover, such fixations and siege-mentality will ultimately inflict greater harm on those who perpetuate them. Circumventing long-standing and well-established international laws, will inevitably set it on a dangerous collision course with its neighbors.

The great Eritrean rapper Nipsey Hussle uses the "gangbanger" metaphor to unpack the Ethiopian politicians' mindset, such as their self hatred and inferiority complex that manifests itself when they go on their routine self-destructive mercenary missions, ironically "looking for themselves" on the other side of the fence -- all the while bypassing non-Africans and people from other races-- however the moment they see people that may look like them, dress like them, and talk like them, it triggers their cruel savage behavior towards such people because their pea-sized brain is subconsciously wired to kill themselves.

ይህቺ ውርጭላ: እንደ ዛሬ «የተከፈለ ተከፍሎ አሰብን ማስመለስ አለብን» እያሉ የሙት እጩዎችን እንዲመለምሉ ከተቀጠሩ የብልግና ካሬዎች አንዷ ከመሆኗ በፊት: "ወደ ኤርትራ የዘመተ እና ቄራ የገባ በሬ" እጣው ምን እንደሆነ ሳግ እየተናነቃት እንዲህ ስትል መስክራ ነበር ... 🫏

__________





Ethiopia Cannot Use Demography to Bully Eritrea

By cph

https://puntlandpost.net/2025/11/15/eth ... trea/?s=09

November 15, 2025


Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, whose actions have sparked growing international concern.

Addis Ababa (PP Editorial) — Several months ago, the former President of Somaliland, Muse Bihi Abdi, explained in an interview why Ethiopia failed to implement the maritime MoU that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed signed with him on 1 January 2024. According to Bihi,

the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud proposed relocating the African Union from Addis Ababa if Ethiopia failed to respect one of the articles of the AU Charter concerning the sovereignty of member states.

Somalia’s next step in addressing the illegal maritime MoU was to exclude Ethiopia from the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Ethiopia was permitted to resume a peacekeeping role only after it agreed to respect Somalia’s territorial integrity and signed an agreement brokered by Turkey. In 2023, Ethiopia boasted of 120 years of diplomacy, yet within months it violated a core tenet of the African Union Charter.

It is true that Assab Port was once part of Ethiopia, but the 1993 referendum in Eritrea ended any legitimate claim Ethiopia might advance against the territorial integrity of the State of Eritrea, which is protected under international law. Member states of the African Union are duty-bound to defend any member whose territorial integrity is violated by an irredentist or expansionist power.


President Isaias Afwerki, standing firm as Eritrea rejects any attempt by Ethiopia to use population size as political pressure.

In 2017, Leenco Lata, former Chairman of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), told Professor Ezekiel Gebissa that in 1991, Isaias Afwerki, then Secretary-General of the Provisional Government of Eritrea, and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir decided that theTigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) would become the national army of Ethiopia. Lata claimed that this decision led to the disarmament of the OLF and enabled the long reign of the TPLF in Ethiopia.

Abiy Ahmed, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, is overseeing conflict with FANO, the Amhara resistance group, as well as a rejuvenated OLF. He sees aggression against Eritrea as an opportunity to distract attention from mounting domestic conflicts.

Ethiopia’s recent actions have resulted in significant diplomatic setbacks, especially after the European Union issued a joint statement with Egypt, in which the EU

reiterates its support to Egypt’s water security and the compliance with international law … including concerning the Ethiopian Dam (GERD).

The statement continued:

The EU strongly encourages transboundary cooperation among riparian countries based on the principles of prior notification, cooperation, and ‘do no harm’.

Ethiopia was once a member of the League of Nations and is a founding member of the United Nations. Professor Messay Kebede, a political philosopher, reflected on the condition of Ethiopian politics:

Since ethnicity dictates both discriminatory practices that obstruct national integration and the pursuit of dictatorial rule to ensure the hegemony of one ethnic group, it should not come as a surprise that the country is on the edge of disintegration and civil war https://zehabesha.com/the-ethiopian-political-system/

Professor Kebede wrote.