Naod Hailu
Abiy Ahmed cannot survive without creating conditions of instability, beating the war drum, and deliberately inflicting pain to distract from the deeper crises within Ethiopia which is rooted in his own leadership incompetence. His strategy of inventing an objective enemy serves to perpetuate his grip on power and conceal his administrative failures. This tactic has been evident since he rose to power in 2018 and was a major factor in the eruption of war with Tigray. Though the war formally ended with the Pretoria Agreement, another round of conflict now seems increasingly likely. This is due to the nature of Abiy’s strategy, which does not resolve issues but rather further intricate and intensifies them. Constructing an objective enemy has been also responsible for the eruption of the ongoing war in the Amhara region, where the Amhara people are targeted as historic adversaries.
His strategy of inventing an objective enemy has now expanded beyond Ethiopia’s borders and fixated on Eritrea. He has incorporated the policy of extraterritoriality into the short range objective of Ethiopian foreign policy in the name of securing the national interest of the country. This policy asserts that Eritrea was historically part of Ethiopia, but controlling strategic access to the sea is a non-negotiable goal that must be achieved at any cost. Abiy has been reiterating that this part of the country has to be controlled. Addressing the House of People’s Representatives last week, he issued a thinly veiled threat, warning that Ethiopia has the strength to defend its sovereignty if a neighboring country, implicitly referring to Eritrea, provokes conflict. He is simply waiting for a pretext to invade.
The core motives behind his policy are threefold: first, his legitimacy has been significantly getting atrophic due to severe economic hardship, with the economy going to reach the level of starvation and deep instability. War becomes a tool of distraction. For example, health workers recently went on strike demanding fair wages and better working conditions. Though the strike has been temporarily suspended following hollow promises from the Prime Minister, the demands remain unmet. If war with Eritrea breaks out, the regime will use the conflict as justification to reject not only the health workers’ demands but all other social and economic grievances, arguing that national survival takes precedence. In such a scenario, economic and social development will be sidelined, with access to the sea framed as the nation’s highest priority.
Second, Abiy’s extraterritorial claim against Eritrea is designed to stir nationalist sentiment and restore his dwindling domestic legitimacy. In times of interstate war, public support often rallies behind national leadership. Abiy’s primary aim is to secure backing from the Oromo ethnic group. In a recent article, I wrote how he seeks to portray himself as the bulwark of the Oromo people amid a growing threat from Fano movement against his power. He generally frames the northern threats as being directed against the Oromo people. This could fuel an ethnically charged conflict mainly between the Oromo and Amhara groups, with the potential for genocidal violence. Abiy’s underlying strategy is to make Oromo people feel a historic duty to protect Ethiopia’s national interest-particularly in the fight against Eritrea, thereby, using them as a shelter of his power. The consequences of this ethnic manipulation would be catastrophic.
Third, Abiy seeks to immortalize his name in Ethiopian history. He is reportedly an admirer of former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, according to a recent confession by Lidetu Ayalew. Just as Meles is remembered for launching the GERD (Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), Abiy hopes to leave a similar legacy by gaining access to the sea and cementing his image as a defender of Ethiopia’s sovereignty.
Historically, despotic regimes facing domestic legitimacy crises due to economic collapse, corruption, and instability have often turned to extraterritorial policies as part of their short-term foreign agendas. These policies aim to preserve power by redirecting national focus toward external enemies. For example, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein claimed that Kuwait, rich in oil resources, was historically part of Iraq. He stirred nationalist sentiment to portray Iraq as a regional hegemon, deflecting from the disastrous consequences of the Iran-Iraq War. But this ultimately led to his downfall and his death. Abiy risks a similar fate if war with Eritrea erupts.
Halting the Dangerous Path through Nonviolent Movement
The people must not fall prey to this warmongering and aberrant leader. His regime must be dismantled to preclude both a genocidal war and a disastrous interstate war with Eritrea. A nonviolent movement presents the most viable path forward. According to prominent scholars Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, nonviolent resistance is twice as likely to succeed compared to violent methods. It also tends to achieve its goals more quickly and fosters greater democratization in the post-transition period.
Abiy fears nonviolent resistance, as authoritarian regimes are ill-equipped to combat movements rooted in civil disobedience. It is through such strategy his dangerous aspirations would be obliterated.
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory Business Listing Toronto
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly. Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com
The argument that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed relies solely on war and instability to maintain power suffers from several weaknesses, undermining its credibility as a balanced assessment. First, it presents an overly deterministic view of Abiy’s motives, reducing complex political decisions to mere distractions from domestic crises. While conflict has been a recurring feature of his leadership, other factors—such as regional security dynamics, internal factionalism, or a genuine belief in Ethiopian unity—may also shape his policies. Additionally, Ethiopia’s landlocked status and economic reliance on port access provide legitimate strategic motivations for his Red Sea rhetoric, rather than merely being a diversionary tactic.
Tthe comparison to Saddam Hussein is hyperbolic and lacks nuance. Unlike Saddam’s outright invasion of Kuwait, Abiy’s statements on sea access have been framed as negotiable, not as a declaration of war. Historical analogies can be useful, but without clear evidence of expansionist intent, such parallels risk being misleading.
The assumption that war with Eritrea is inevitable is speculative. Despite tensions, Ethiopia and Eritrea have a complex relationship, alternating between conflict and cooperation. Claims that Abiy is actively seeking a pretext for invasion require more concrete evidence than rhetorical posturing.
Moreover, the critique omits counterarguments, such as Abiy’s early reforms, mediation efforts in Sudan, or negotiations with international financial institutions. A fair analysis should acknowledge these complexities rather than attributing every crisis to deliberate malfeasance.
Finally, while advocating for nonviolent resistance is commendable, the argument oversimplifies Ethiopia’s political landscape. State repression, ethnic fragmentation, and limited civic space make mass mobilization extremely difficult, a challenge understated in the critique.
While the argument raises valid concerns, its one-sided, conspiratorial framing weakens its persuasiveness. A balanced assessment must consider structural challenges, alternative explanations, and the broader context of Ethiopian politics—rather than reducing everything to Abiy’s supposed manipulation.
Abiy is the best thing that ever happened to Ethiopia. He deserves 3 more Nobel Prizes! You sound familiar! You remind me of some incidents from my childhood era:
1). EPLF-ELF ‘Eritreans’ are crafty at posing as Ethiopians to use Ethiopians as cannon fodder.
The Derg gunned down over 300 students while on a pro-Eritrea demonstration holding “የኤርትራ ጥያቄ → በሰላማዊ መንገድ ይፈታ” slogans. Adding insult to the injury, their families had to pay [500 Birr(!?)] for ‘wasted bullets’ to pick up their children’s corpses.
NB: According to EPLF’s Addis Ababa Bureau Chief [Engineer T-Y Y], no Eritrean went to that demonstration. They were all instructed not to! ‘Bravo!! Congratulations!!’
2). When Somalia invaded Ethiopia and was closing in on Nazreth, pro-EPLF/ELF ‘parties’ like the EPRP were advising Ethiopians not to support the Derg. Instead, they were advocating “Now is the time to topple the Derg while it is at war with Siad Barre.” That’s the kind of “The Enemy Within” Ethiopia dealt with back then and dealing with now again!
3). Haile-Selassie’s monarchy failed to air drop 100g [10¢] bread for ≈200k famine victims. That made Ethiopia the “World’s Poster Child of Poverty & Famine.”
What a travesty of justice when Abiy who feeds over 10 million kids and turned Ethiopia from “World’s Poster Child of Poverty & Famine” to “World’s Poster Child of Prosperity & Greenery” is demonized so much.