SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } Ethiopia is sliding toward another rupture amid widening and unresolved conflictsEthiopia stands at a moment of profound strain. Years of conflict, unresolved political tensions, and deepening mistrust between the state and its constituent regions have placed the country on an increasingly precarious trajectory.What was once framed as a period of reform and renewal has, in practice, given way to a pattern of recurring crises in which violence is repeatedly deployed where political settlement is required.At the center of this trajectory lies a governing approach that has normalized coercion as a primary instrument of statecraft. The cumulative effect has been not only the proliferation of armed conflicts across multiple regions, but also the erosion of institutional credibility and the narrowing of political space.Nowhere has this been more starkly reflected than in Tigray, where the scale of devastation and the persistence of post-war suffering continue to raise urgent questions about the direction of the Ethiopian state.A profoundly non-empathetic leader inflicts suffering with chilling indifference, treating others not as human beings with dignity, but as expendable instruments to be crushed, exploited, or discarded without the slightest trace of remorse. This attitude is brutally reflected in Tigray under the rule of Abiy Ahmed.Escalating CrisisThe consequences of this governing logic are now entering a more dangerous phase.As if the devastation of the 2020–2022 genocidal war and the collective punishment that followed the Pretoria Agreement were not enough, the government of Abiy Ahmed now appears poised to hurl Tigray into another war. Several media outlets have already expressed grave concern over the risk of renewed conflict.In a short span, Abiy Ahmed has steered Ethiopia from a nation buoyed by hopes of peace and economic renewal into one engulfed in successive wars. Today, the state struggles to stabilize one region before tensions erupt in another.Following the devastating Tigray war, the government has ignited conflicts in Amhara, Oromia, and other parts of the country, entrenching a governing logic driven by deception and repression. Military force has overtaken political dialogue, pushing prospects for negotiated settlement into serious jeopardy.War has become the defining feature of the current order. Peace remains elusive. Deadly conflicts continue to ravage Amhara and Oromia, while intermittent violence flares in Gambela, Afar, Somali, and Benishangul-Gumuz. This widening arc of instability reflects a pattern now entrenched across multiple fronts.There is now mounting concern that the government is entering a new phase escalating its silent war against Tigray toward another full-scale confrontation.The international response has been, at best, inadequate. Urgent calls for peace continue to fall on deaf ears. The African Union, a central mediator in the Pretoria Agreement, has failed to take meaningful steps to ensure its full implementation. During the war, it largely aligned with the federal government’s framing of the conflict as a “law enforcement operation.”This alignment was reflected in statements by Moussa Faki Mahamat, then Chairperson of the AU Commission, who stated that the federal government had taken “bold steps to preserve the unity, stability, and constitutional order of the country,” thereby framing the war as a legitimate internal matter rather than confronting its scale of destruction and alleged atrocities.This posture is consistent with long-standing criticisms of the AU’s limited effectiveness in conflict resolution. Institutional inertia and bureaucratic constraints have repeatedly undermined its credibility. In that context, expectations of decisive pressure on the Ethiopian government were always constrained.The AU’s inaction, together with broader international complacency, has not only enabled a climate of impunity but has also contributed to conditions in which renewed war has become increasingly likely.Recurring WarsThe war in Tigray resulted in immense human loss, mass displacement, and the destruction of critical infrastructure. Its scale and impact place it among the most devastating conflicts in recent history. By closing political space and framing dissent as treason, the federal government pushed Tigray into a position where external alliances became a matter of survival.The pattern is difficult to ignore: a catastrophic war in Tigray between 2020 and 2022, marked by widespread atrocities described by many as genocidal; sustained violence in Amhara and Oromia; and renewed tensions that now risk drawing Tigray back into conflict.This persistent militarization fractures the social fabric and deepens regional polarization. No state can build durable unity or economic resilience while normalizing conflict as governance.Absent meaningful political dialogue and credible intervention, the crisis risks expanding beyond Ethiopia, further destabilizing an already fragile Horn of Africa.The post-Pretoria period was never one of genuine peace. It marked a transition to a quieter—but still dangerous—phase of conflict. The underlying drivers of war remained unresolved, and mistrust continued to deepen beneath the surface.Today, rising tensions between the federal government, Tigray, and Eritrea threaten to shatter even this fragile calm, pushing the region toward renewed confrontation.The warning signs are clear: escalating rhetoric, shifting alliances, and narratives that elevate ambition over stability. What looms is not merely another conflict, but the risk of wider regional breakdown.Fragile PeaceThe Tigray war was officially framed as a “law enforcement operation.” In reality, it became one of the deadliest wars of the 21st century, a campaign of mass destruction against a civilian population.The involvement of external actors, including the United Arab Emirates and Eritrea, significantly altered the conflict’s trajectory. Advanced drone warfare, cross-border military engagement, and additional regional participation expanded both the scale and lethality of the war.As the conflict intensified, the boundaries between domestic conflict, proxy engagement, and regional confrontation became increasingly blurred.For Tigray, the war was existential. For Addis Ababa and Asmara, it was also strategic: an opportunity to reshape the balance of power and weaken a long-standing adversary. The human cost was immense, and its consequences remain ongoing.The Pretoria Agreement of November 2022 halted active combat but failed to establish a just and lasting peace. While frontlines receded from global attention, the underlying structures of suffering remained intact.What followed was continuation through other means. Essential services remained restricted. Fiscal mechanisms were used as instruments of pressure. Banking and telecommunications were only partially restored. Tigray’s constitutionally recognized territories remain under unlawful occupation. Millions of displaced people were left in conditions of severe deprivation.The war did not end; it transformed into a slower, less visible, but deeply corrosive form of crisis.Crucially, the agreement left core issues unresolved: accountability for atrocities, territorial control, and the long-term political relationship between Tigray and the federal state. Without resolution of these questions, the agreement functions less as peace than as a temporary suspension of open conflict.Domination PoliticsAt the core of Ethiopia’s crisis lies a fundamental tension between domination and coexistence. Efforts to impose unity through force may promise stability, but in plural societies they produce resistance and deepen division.Ethiopia’s modern state formation was shaped by expansion and consolidation, embedding structural inequalities that continue to generate political tension.The introduction of ethnic federalism sought to address these imbalances by redistributing power and recognizing diversity. While imperfect, it represented a departure from centralized domination.Yet consensus over the nature of the state remains elusive. Competing visions—federal versus centralized—continue to define political contestation. Under Abiy Ahmed, the balance has increasingly shifted toward re-centralization, often framed as national unity.The consequences have been profound. Political disagreement has moved from institutional arenas to the battlefield. Efforts to reassert centralized control under the language of unity have intensified, rather than resolved, underlying conflicts.Without inclusive dialogue and a shared political framework, Ethiopia risks remaining locked in cycles of unresolved statehood disputes.The Tigray war underscored this reality. It tested whether dissent could be accommodated within the system or whether it would be suppressed by force. As political rhetoric shifts toward ambition and historical destiny, the risks of further instability increase.Maritime TensionsAbiy Ahmed’s assertions of a “natural right” to sea access have introduced additional volatility into an already fragile regional environment. While Ethiopia’s landlocked status presents strategic challenges, it has not prevented sustained economic growth in the past.Seeking improved access to maritime trade is a legitimate policy objective. However, framing such access as entitlement or historical destiny shifts the issue from diplomacy to confrontation.Access can be secured through agreements, cooperation, and regional frameworks, not through coercion or claims of inherent right.When economic priorities are recast as sovereign entitlement, a manageable policy issue risks becoming a destabilizing geopolitical dispute.In the context of the Horn of Africa, such rhetoric carries serious implications. Eritrea, whose sovereignty was secured through prolonged conflict, is unlikely to interpret it as benign. Tigray, positioned geographically between key actors, risks once again becoming the ground on which competing ambitions collide.In this context, the issue extends beyond ports. It concerns power, influence, and the future regional order.Critical JunctureWar is not a viable instrument of governance. Its consequences are profound and enduring, destroying lives, fracturing societies, and weakening institutions in ways that persist for generations.The Horn of Africa now faces a narrowing set of options. Continued reliance on military solutions risks deepening cycles of retaliation and fragmentation. A different path—grounded in political negotiation, constitutional clarity, and regional cooperation—remains possible, but requires sustained commitment.The trajectory is not preordained, but it is shaped by decisions. If current patterns persist, the danger is less a sudden collapse than a steady descent into recurring crisis.External actors have a role, though their influence is limited. More consistent pressure tied to verifiable benchmarks—on civilian protection, territorial normalization, and implementation of existing agreements—would carry greater weight than general appeals. Carefully coordinated, targeted measures, including sanctions linked to documented abuses, could reinforce that pressure.Another war will deepen an already severe crisis. What lies ahead is a test of leadership and accountability, and the costs of failure are clear. .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } Query or correction? Email us window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function(){if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") {sfsi_widget_set();}}); While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.Main photo: Abiy Ahmed visiting the Western Command. May 2022. Source: Ethiopian News Agency.Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.The post Abiy Ahmed Has Turned War Into a Governing Strategy appeared first on Ethiopia Insight.