Ethiopia’s hegemonic ambitions is a danger to Horn of Africa

Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party officials and elites have been making a flurry of claims and declarations the past few months with respect to their aspirations on the Red Sea. They use the term “sea access” to cloak their real intent of asserting control over a coastline. This obsession with gaining a sovereign sea access serves their goal to reshape the Horn of Africa, project power and achieve regional dominance, seeing Kenya as their competition. It also involves using their navy, once docked in a port, to influence negotiations on ports and maritime boundaries, their words, not mine!

Recently, they have tweaked their script by pushing the ridiculous narrative that their pursuit of sovereign “port access” is not the real reason for Eritrea’s refusal to entertain their demands.

Meanwhile, international institutions such as the World Bank pump billions into Ethiopia against the backdrop of Prime Minister Abiy’s regime that is at war with its own people and itching to start war with its neighbor, Eritrea. But why do these institutions ignore their own guidelines that prohibit their money from enabling conflicts? The article will attempt to cover all of these topics.

“Sea access” or sovereign sea access

In Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party parlance, “sea access” is deliberately used to disguise their demand for “sovereign sea access”. Whereas the former is legitimate, the latter is not. A couple quotes from Ethiopian officials illustrate how they use “sea access” to talk about sovereign ownership. Prime Minister Abiy, in his October 28, 2025 speech addressing the country’s parliament, said:

“Ethiopia’s loss of access to the Red Sea came after a struggle that lasted more than 30 years — as you all know. However, I do not believe that it would take another 30 years to restore what was lost.”

Echoing his boss, brigadier general Bulti Tadesse (Commandant, FDRE Defense War College), in his November 13, 2025 address at the Foreign Policy Forum organized by Addis Ababa University and the Horn Review, similarly noted that:

“historically, Ethiopia enjoyed access to the Red Sea, though currently, its border lies roughly 50 kilometers away. The Red Sea holds a treasure trove of untapped resources, including petroleum deposits, evaporates, sulfur, phosphates, and heavy metals.”

Both the PM and the General clearly meant sovereign ownership when referring to Ethiopia’s supposed historical “Red Sea access”. Of course, they omit the fact that this “historical access” represents the violent, forceful occupation of Eritrea from 1950 to 1991. The General’s reference to the maritime endowment of the Red Sea is also notable in reflecting their unlimited appetite of annexation.

It’s also to be recalled that Ethiopia rejected Djibouti’s 2024 offer to jointly manage the port of Tadjourah as PM Abiy wanted more:

“to establish a corridor with extraterritoriality between the Ethiopian border and Tadjourah and to set up a naval base for their navy”.

This lays bare PM Abiy’s regime is solely after gaining a foothold on the Red Sea coast at the expense of neighboring countries, not “sea access” for commercial activities.

Ethiopia sees Kenya as rival for regional hegemonic power

So why does Ethiopia want to be a coastal state so badly? Why is it willing to engulf the region in yet another devastating war?

A July 2024 “policy brief” by the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Institute of Foreign Affairs discussed Ethiopia’s competition for regional hegemony with Kenya and listed out four scenarios:

(1) competing Hegemonic Power between Kenya and Ethiopia;

(2) Kenya will assert its ascendancy in the region;

(3) Ethiopia will reassert its hegemony/dominance -return to status quo and

(4) a region without a clear hegemon.

To be clear, the Ethiopian government cannot be criticized for pursuing economic growth or its desire to influence the region. Ethiopia’s large population size and economy means the country will have significant influence in the region. But only if it harnesses its internal resources and learns to live in peace within itself and its neighbors. Unfortunately, Ethiopian officials see regional dominance as an end goal in itself. Worse, they see annexing neighboring countries’ resources and territory as part of their plans to achieve that goal. Countries in the region will obviously have a lot to say on the realization of this hegemonic project – they are not and will not take it lying down.

Navy as instrument of power projection and negotiation

It is not clear why prosperity Party officials and elites openly advertise their hegemonic ambitions. For instance, in a November 13, 2025 article, Surafel Tesfaye and Rebecca Mulugeta of the Horn Review laid out the pursuit of power projection with ability to affect “the strategic balance within the Horn of Africa”.

As background, Horn Review is affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Institute of Foreign Affairs and claims to partner with the War College of the Ethiopian National Defense Force. Moreover, the Executive Director of Horn Review, Blen Mamo, works for the MFA’s Institute of Foreign Affairs. Thus, it’s reasonable to treat articles published by Horn Review as coming from one of the government’s propaganda agency; hence as proxy for the Ethiopian government thinking.

Horn Review’s Surafel and Rebecca boasted that:

“Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s 2018 call to revive Ethiopia’s naval power was not mere rhetoric; it represents a decisive declaration of sovereignty and survival. By reclaiming its rightful place on the maritime stage, Ethiopia is asserting its future as a regional powerhouse capable of securing vital trade routes, boosting economic autonomy, and reshaping the strategic balance within the Horn of Africa”.

They continued by noting that reviving the navy is also about gaining the means to project power across the Red Sea while it “also elevates Ethiopia’s diplomatic standing and sovereign authority”.

But why disclose Ethiopia’s real intentions for pursuing sovereign “sea access” is tied to military and hegemonic goals? Perhaps it is meant for domestic consumption, to garner nationalist fervor. Otherwise, they must know that it is ill-advised and untenable.

Strangely, Surafel and Rebecca of Horn Review continued by explaining that:

“naval capabilities serve as powerful bargaining chips in international negotiations over port access, maritime boundaries, and security partnerships.”

In other words, they will use whatever naval power they may develop as instrument of negotiations for sovereign port ownership and maritime boundaries, no less! Do they not care that this is clearly an annexionist tone? Given the real risk of Ethiopia using their newfound naval capabilities for this explicitly expansionist purpose, it is unthinkable for any of the neighboring coastal states to agree to host such a force in the first place. It would be akin to someone inviting a known serial killer to their home expecting them to behave kindly and show mercy!

New script, same dangerous goal

The Prosperity Party regime is lately busy trying to rewrite their script and change the narrative from their dangerous, untenable ambition of annexing Eritrean coastline. One narrative advanced by their foreign minister is the notion that Ethiopia’s ambitions on the Eritrean port of Asseb does not explain Eritrea’s refusal to entertain compromising on its sovereign territory. If that were the issue, they reason, then how come Eritrea refused talks pre-2018 when Ethiopia was not making public claims on Eritrean ports.

This childish reasoning can only be amusing to the rest of the world as we are well aware of the historical record of the TPLF-led Ethiopian government. The then EPRDF government forcefully occupied Eritrean territories in violation of the 2002 Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission decision while also publicizing a policy of effecting “regime change” in Eritrea.

This hostile posture of the Ethiopian government was against the backdrop of the Eritrean government’s desire for normalization by adhering to international law and signed agreements. Notably, Eritrea’s late Ambassador Girma Asmerom, at the African Union summit held in Addis Ababa on January 28, 2013 declared that:

“I have been instructed by your brother, President Isaias Afwerki to assure you that if Ethiopia withdraws its army from occupied sovereign Eritrean territory including the town of Badme in the morning, dialogue between the two countries will start in the afternoon. We have no other issue with the Ethiopian Government except the military occupation of our sovereign territory. The people of Eritrea and Ethiopia are destined by Allah/God to live as neighbours.”

That this clear desire for genuine peace and normalization on the basis of international law and signed agreements was made in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa is more than symbolic. The EPRDF government, however, refused the offer.

The EPRDF regime had similar schemes to today’s Prosperity Party. According to a recent article by Sultan Mohammedsied, in an interview with the Woyin magazine, the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi explained that his 2004 “peace proposal” to resolve the border issue entailed accepting

“the Boundary Commission’s decision in principle and aim to resolve it through the framework of give-and-take.”

As Sultan pointed out, of course, this “give and take” framework entailed Eritrea giving up its sovereign port of Asseb as bargaining chip for other Eritrean territories forcefully occupied by Ethiopia at the time.

Today, the Prosperity Party regime is again demanding Eritrea give up its maritime resources and territories for various iterations of proposals revolving around stakes in commercial businesses, ability to access the large Ethiopian market, “joint infrastructure” investments and reintegration package. Eritrea, of course, has respectfully declined this unreasonable demand. And given PM Abiy’s appetite as exposed by his rejection of Djibouti’s generous offer of joint management of ports, it would be silly for Eritrea to entertain the Ethiopian version of “joint infrastructure investments”.

Timethos: emblematic of diplomatic mediocrity

When Ethiopian foreign minister, Gedion Timothewos, was “pressed about Ethiopia’s Plan B should diplomacy fail with Eritrea” at the same forum as the one attended by brigadier general Bulti, minister Gedion told the Forum participants that “he was in charge of Plan A (i.e. diplomacy) but also reasserted Ethiopia will not abandon its pursuit”, echoing his boss’ public vow of pursuing expansionist dreams by “peaceful or other means”.

Horn Review editorial was ecstatic about Gedion’s response, bragging that “in diplomatic language, this was as close as one can come to signaling that maritime access is an existential red line.”

But this was a callous statement, devoid of the most basic diplomatic norms. It reflected the utter mediocrity of Ethiopia’s diplomatic force.

Foreign Minister Gedion’s speech was an epic representation of historical revisionism, gaslighting, falsehoods, manufactured narratives and overall vindictive diatribe against the people and government of Eritrea. It is inexplicable to see the top diplomat of a country pushing such childish theories about the Eritrean government, the same entity with which he would need to interact, build trust and hold constructive dialogue were the opportunity to arise!

Gedion’s fabricated, non-sensical depiction of a supposed “Isaias doctrine” and Eritrea’s “desire for Ethiopian insecurity” may have fooled Ethiopians and even many in the rest of world if the events of 2020 to 2022 did not transpire. However, it is widely known that the Eritrean Defense Forces saved Ethiopia from a certain disintegration. This belief was once held by Gedion and his boss, with their testimonials having aired publicly! So, it is amusing to see the PP regime act as if Ethiopians and the whole world have suddenly developed amnesia and erased the events of 2020 to 2022 from their collective memory.

After all the invective hurled at Eritrea and its government, Gedion repeated the oft-repeated theme of integration/union as a possible resolution. Lacking in details, Gedion noted “the integration model should also make provisions for joint investment in key and strategic infrastructure projects. Ethiopia’s aspiration for durable and secure maritime access will be addressed within this scheme”.

As noted earlier, while Gedion tries to cloak the real goal in euphemistic language of “joint infrastructure projects” and “durable and secure maritime access”, many PP officials and even ENDF generals have made clear this translates to assertion of sovereignty over a coastline so as to enable them naval power projection and reshape the region.

As noted above, this was also made clear by Ethiopia’s rejection of Djibouti’s offer where Ethiopia’s counter-proposal infringed on Djibouti’s sovereignty.

Foreign minister Gedion also pushed the false narrative that Eritrea is inflaming internal conflicts by providing support to the various rebellions. This transparently false accusation is intended to justify Prime Minister Abiy’s invasion plans on Eritrea. On the other hand, Ethiopia has been openly harboring anti-Eritrea groups the past couple years. It has become normal for PP officials and activists to use social media as substitute for group brainstorming activities! Another article by Horn Review’s Samiya Mohamned on November 5, 2025 promoted Ethiopia’s incubation and support of anti-Eritrea groups operating from Ethiopia.

Samiya also unabashedly exposed that Ethiopia’s ambition does not even stop at the port of Asseb but goes all the way to controlling the islands of Dahlak. She bragged that

“Ethiopia’s relationship with Afar irredentism represents a suave geopolitical strategy that operates on multiple levels…. Any vision for a secure Ethiopian maritime future must, by necessity encompass this dual reality, the door to the sea is Assab, but the key to holding it open lies in the control and fortification of Dahlak.”

It’s noteworthy to mention that Dahlak islands are about 600 kilometers north of Asseb but only about 45 kilometers from Massawa, the other major port of Eritrea. In the midst of their khat-induced hallucinations, it is clear that Prosperity Party elites seem to have forgotten that their powerful navy was eviscerated by the brave EPLF navy that had only speedboats at hand.

International Institutions

Amidst PM Abiy’s wars in Amhara, Oromia and Tigray regions as well as his provocations against Eritrea, the IMF and World Bank separately awarded Ethiopia huge financing packages in July 2024. World Bank pledged USD$16.6 billion over three years while the IMF pledged financing package of USD$3.4 billion over four years.

This was coincidentally a mere eight months after PM Abiy claimed in October 2023 that their natural boundary was the Red Sea, with remarks pointing at the Eritrean port of Asseb.

These two institutions have policy guidelines to ensure their money does not enable or finance conflicts. For example, World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework is a 117-page detailed guideline that sets out mandatory requirements on projects it finances. It involves an in-depth due diligence such as its social and conflict analysis that assess whether the project being financed “may

(a) exacerbate existing tensions and inequality within society (both within the communities affected by the project and between these communities and others);

(b) have a negative effect on stability and human security;

(c) be negatively affected by existing tensions, conflict and instability, particularly in circumstances of war, insurrection and civil unrest.”

Facts on the ground lay bare the hollowness of this guideline! It is not for lack of knowledge on the situation on the ground. But it is hard to guess their motivation to keep pumping billions to a regime hellbent on waging wars on all fronts.

It would take creative imagination of the highest order to pretend that the IMF and World Bank money is not directly or indirectly exacerbating the dire situation in Ethiopia as well as in the Horn of Africa region.

One cannot be blamed for concluding that the UAE and other ally countries are providing war material while the IMF and World Bank provide economic bail-out package to prolong the days of the warmonger regime of PM Abiy.

Of course, this bail out does not come cheap. It does not benefit the people nor country in the long-term. Some will also point out that IMF structural adjustments result in the reduction of budget allocated to important sectors of the country (education, health…etc) as there is a significant loss of independence to design economic policy. This is true! However, the bailout packages buy time for PM Abiy’s regime, not only to prolong the existing wars but to provoke new ones, likely against Eritrea.

In conclusion, Prosperity Party elites are deluding themselves if they think Eritrea would be intimidated by their dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric into compromising on its sovereign maritime territory.

Their call for “dialogue” is dead on arrival given their various pronouncements and hallucinations of achieving regional dominance and exerting power to influence negotiations even on maritime boundaries.

This ambition affects all coastal states even if the primary target is Eritrea.

Given the heightened risk of miscalculation, countries and institutions that have PM Abiy’s ears should work to ease the tension by counselling him to forgo the war path.

Though it is understood that some countries are working behind the scenes to prevent war, his provocations and bogus claims that violate Eritrea’s sovereignty should be condemned publicly.

Indeed, the silence from all countries and international institutions is only encouraging PM Abiy’s regime to escalate tension by upping the ante.

Worse, the World Bank and IMF continuing to periodically disburse portions of the bailout package effectively is allowing him to persist in his warmongering path. These institutions should consider at least pausing the disbursement of additional money until he desists from the war path.