Ethiopia and Eritrea: Roots of Tension and Conflicting Security Paradigms in the Horn of Africa

By capadmin On Nov 19, 2025

Zaelnoon Suliman – Progress Center for Policies

Policy Brief Summary

In a speech delivered at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos Hessebon presented a comprehensive vision of Ethiopia’s foreign policy toward current developments. He laid out a set of principles through which Ethiopia seeks to explain the drivers of tension and define its future approach. This comes at a time when the Horn of Africa is witnessing renewed friction between Ethiopia and Eritrea—tensions rooted in the very structure of their relationship and reflective of deep divergences in their regional security outlooks.

⸻

Key Points

1. Ethiopia’s Strategic Outlook

• Ethiopia views its access to the sea as an existential necessity. With an economy supporting over 130 million people, the country considers secure, stable trade corridors essential for continuous growth. Therefore, securing a reliable maritime outlet is framed not as a negotiable demand, but as part of Ethiopia’s national security and economic stability.

• This is accompanied by a strong emphasis on “strategic autonomy,” rejecting regional arrangements or external interventions perceived as weakening regional states or imposing political trajectories misaligned with national interests.

2. Ethiopia’s Accusations Against Eritrea

• Ethiopian discourse accuses the Eritrean leadership of repeatedly aligning with forces hostile to Ethiopia—behavior Addis Ababa argues undermines regional stability and contradicts the requirements for building a secure Horn of Africa.

• At the core of Eritrean policy, according to Ethiopian officials, lies what they call “Isaias’s Doctrine”: the belief that Eritrea’s security and political survival depend on Ethiopia remaining weak, divided, or unstable. Ethiopia argues that such a doctrine perpetuates conflict rather than enabling lasting peace.

• Ethiopia further accuses Eritrea of deploying troops inside several Ethiopian local administrations, and of providing material support to armed groups opposed to the Ethiopian government. Addis Ababa considers these actions violations of its sovereignty and international law, thus entitling it to self-defense.

• Although Ethiopia asserts that it has the right to retaliate, it stresses that it has exercised restraint to avoid a costly regional war—yet this restraint, it warns, cannot be unlimited.

3. Ethiopia’s Proposed Alternative Approach

• Despite rising tensions, Ethiopia advances an alternative framework that places economic integration at the center of resolving security disputes between the two countries.

• Addis Ababa believes that institutional economic integration can build trust and strengthen long-term security cooperation, mitigating traditional drivers of conflict.

• It calls for constructive dialogue with Eritrea and urges the international community to apply balanced pressure encouraging Asmara to abandon provocative policies and engage in a political process aimed at creating a stable and cooperative environment.

⸻

Comparing Asmara and Addis Ababa

• A close reading of these principles shows that the tension is long-standing and rooted in fundamentally different strategic visions:

• Ethiopia adopts a developmental approach, placing maritime access at the heart of its national security.

• Eritrea relies on a strategy of “security through weakening,” perceiving a strong Ethiopia as an existential threat.

• This structural divergence has fueled prolonged distrust and recurring border frictions—including Ethiopia’s recent accusations of Eritrean military presence on its territory and support for armed groups.

• Ethiopia thus faces a delicate balance: maintaining its sovereign right to respond while avoiding large-scale military escalation—especially given its internal challenges following the Tigray war.

• Nonetheless, Ethiopia’s position reflects a pragmatic shift prioritizing development and stability over continuous confrontation. Economic integration, according to its vision, is the most effective mechanism for dismantling historical conflict structures by creating shared interests that incentivize de-escalation.

• The success of this approach, however, depends on Eritrea’s willingness to reconsider its security doctrine and on the availability of coordinated international and regional support pushing for a comprehensive dialogue grounded in sovereignty and sustainable cooperation.

⸻

Conclusions

• The conflict originates from a fundamental divergence in security doctrines: Ethiopia frames maritime access as an existential component of national security, while Eritrea bases its security on keeping Ethiopia weak and fragile—what Addis Ababa calls “Isaias’s Doctrine.”

• Ethiopia views Eritrean behavior as destabilizing, citing support for armed groups, military presence inside Ethiopian territory, and alignment with regional adversaries—actions that deepen mistrust and reproduce tensions.

• Ethiopia proposes regional economic integration as a de-escalation pathway, arguing that shared economic interests can transform the relationship from confrontation to cooperation. It also calls on the international community to pressure Eritrea into genuine dialogue.

• The region faces two main scenarios:

1. Continued hostility, which would deepen the Horn of Africa’s fragility and increase the risk of border conflicts.

2. A strategic shift toward political and economic integration—a scenario favored by Ethiopia but dependent on Eritrean willingness and structured international engagement.

Ethiopia and Eritrea: Roots of Tension and Conflicting Security Paradigms in the Horn of Africa

إثيوبيا وإريتريا: جذور التوتر ومعادلات الأمن المتعارضة في القرن الإفريقي

Dehai News

Ethiopia and Eritrea: Roots of Tension and Conflicting Security Paradigms in the Horn of Africa

Ethiopia and Eritrea: Roots of Tension and Conflicting Security Paradigms in the Horn of Africa

ፈንቅል - 1ይ ክፋል | Fenkil (Part 1) - ERi-TV Documentary

Dehai Events

Latest Posts