Ethiopia’s Ruling Party Fabuled an ‘External Victim’ Narrative to Justify Ongoing Aggression Against Eritrea

The recent opinion article by senior Ethiopian officials Redwan Hussein and Getachew Reda, published on Al Jazeera English’s website, depicts Ethiopia as an innocent victim being “dragged” into conflict by external actors, thereby absolving the ruling Prosperity Party of responsibility for the country’s mounting domestic crises.

This narrative serves as a diplomatic smokescreen that normalises unprovoked hostility, state‑sponsored inflammatory rhetoric, and aggressive military mobilisations that the Ethiopian government has directed toward Eritrea since late 2023.

By recasting contemporary internal tensions as the product of external overreach, Ethiopian security discourse inverts reality and distorts the true drivers of instability to shield federal authorities from international scrutiny.

The catastrophic war that engulfed northern Ethiopia from November 4, 2020, until the cessation of hostilities agreement on November 2, 2022, arose from long‑standing ethnic cleavages and institutionalised political polarisation, not from regional external manipulation or cross‑border instigation.

Eritrea did not instigate this conflict, nor did it harbour expansionist designs on sovereign Ethiopian territory. Instead, Eritrea was reluctantly drawn into an imposed war at the explicit request of the Ethiopian federal government for self‑defence.

The broader objectives of the war agenda explicitly targeted Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from its inception—a fact documented in the public record, not mere speculation.

Getachew’s extensive public statements and real‑time posts on X during those years confirm that the targeting of Eritrea was a deliberate, premeditated strategy by regional forces rather than an accidental byproduct of a domestic policing action.

Following the formal cessation of hostilities, the Prosperity Party’s political and military leadership, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, publicly expressed profound gratitude to Eritrea through official statements, parliamentary discussions, and state media. Portraying Eritrea as an inherent antagonist now contradicts these recorded admissions.

The revisionist tendency is further illustrated by highly romanticised anecdotes about the Pretoria peace talks. Redwan and Getachew concocted a theatrical, fictitious story alleging that South African hosts feared the negotiating teams might come to blows, only to be stunned by a “cordial tone.” This fabricated narrative serves as propaganda, presenting the Pretoria Agreement as a spontaneous triumph of domestic unity over external division while ignoring prior secret contacts in Djibouti and the Seychelles.

Under the Prosperity Party’s prodding, the warring Ethiopian factions explored joint military options aimed at a war of aggression against Eritrea, viewing a sovereign and stable Eritrea as a threat to their political futures.

When the Permanent Cessation of Hostilities Agreement was finally signed, it was understood fundamentally as an internal Ethiopian peace pact concerning constitutional arrangements, disarmament of armed groups, and restoration of federal authority.

Eritrea’s position regarding the Pretoria Agreement remains consistent and principled: it supports genuine efforts that promote peace, stability, and predictability in Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa. A peaceful, stable, and united Ethiopia that respects its neighbours is in the strategic interest of every regional state, and Eritrea has neither the political appetite nor strategic interest to sabotage an internal settlement.

Against this backdrop, recent propaganda and disinformation campaigns—epitomised by the opinion article—are systematically repackaging the unprovoked agenda of conflict and hostility that Addis Ababa has unleashed against Eritrea since December 2023.

During this period, the Prosperity Party abruptly shifted state rhetoric to promote a “sovereign access to the sea” campaign. To legitimise this legally untenable and historically flawed narrative, the ruling party mobilised a vast state‑backed apparatus—educators, researchers, media figures, cultural icons, and academics, both Ethiopian and co‑opted foreign commentators—across international forums, television networks, and digital platforms.

This coordinated campaign normalises the notion that colonial boundaries in the Horn of Africa are negotiable, seeking to challenge inviolable principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin regional stability.

The aggressive rhetoric extends beyond speeches. In an overt bid to drag Eritrea into militarised conflict, the ruling party has amassed substantial military formations, heavy artillery, and mechanised divisions near the Eritrean border.

This pattern is mirrored along the northern frontier, where provocative pronouncements are accompanied by incessant sabre‑rattling about acquiring Assab and other Eritrean coastal lands “by negotiation if possible, by force if necessary.”

Beyond Eritrea, Ethiopia’s recent foreign‑policy conduct has generated tensions with several neighbours. The Memorandum of Understanding with Somaliland, which sought coastal access without Somalia’s consent, triggered a major diplomatic crisis and raised serious questions about respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ethiopia’s repeated interventionist policies in Somalia, Sudan, and elsewhere further fuel regional mistrust and destabilisation, reflecting a reckless agenda of expansionism.

Thus, the narrative that Ethiopia is an involuntary victim being dragged back into war by external forces ignores the reality of active military posturing, illegal treaties, and border threats that undermine peaceful coexistence and good neighbourliness essential for Horn stability.

Ultimately, peace in the Horn of Africa cannot be bargained to appease shifting calculations of a restless neighbour. The path forward demands an immediate end to reckless sabre‑rattling over illicit “sovereign maritime access,” the unconditional cessation of cross‑border proxy alignments, and a return to non‑interference and territorial integrity.

Until the international community confronts the true internal drivers of Addis Ababa’s aggressive posture rather than entertaining its manufactured grievances, the region will remain vulnerable to dangerous miscalculation. Eritrea’s sovereignty is anchored in law and history, neither negotiable nor penetrable. Lasting security can be achieved only when boundaries are respected and international law is upheld without exception.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Source link