The recent rise in tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea serves as a stark reminder of the precarious state of peace in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia’s demand for direct access to the Red Sea—a critical necessity for its economy and people—has intensified international concerns about the potential resurgence of a devastating regional conflict. History and reality both highlight a painful truth: any renewed conflict will lead to destruction and suffering for both nations. The only viable path forward is through dialogue, negotiation, and a sincere commitment to peace.
Ethiopia’s pursuit of access to the Red Sea is not a new issue, but it has become increasingly urgent for a country that has been landlocked since Eritrea gained independence in 1993. With a rapidly growing population nearing 150 million and aspirations for economic development, Ethiopia cannot afford to be cut off from essential maritime trade routes. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has rightly identified this as a matter of survival and dignity, advocating for international mediation and warning that conflict over Eritrea’s strategic port of Assab will be “inevitable” if dialogue does not occur.
Conversely, Eritrea’s leadership views Ethiopia’s demands with deep suspicion, perceiving them as a threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Eritrea’s Information Minister has accused Ethiopia of trying to “ignite an unjustified war.” This mutual distrust is rooted in decades of hostility and conflict, from their border war in the late 1990s to Eritrea’s military involvement in Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict. Eritrea’s strategic alliances and military presence along disputed borders have only heightened fears of a broader conflict.
Both nations are ensnared in a complex web of grievances and security concerns, yet it is the people who suffer most from prolonged instability. For decades, Ethiopians and Eritreans have faced cycles of conflict that disrupt lives, hinder economic progress, and fracture families. The scars of past wars are evident in devastated towns, displaced communities, and an atmosphere of fear. The region has experienced too many missed opportunities for peace, with agreements failing and negotiations stalling as tensions rise once more.
The recent escalation in hostile rhetoric and accusations—ranging from Ethiopian claims of Eritrean support for rebel factions to Eritrean denunciations of Ethiopian provocations—only deepens the divisions. Armed clashes in disputed border areas and the ongoing presence of foreign troops on Ethiopian territory highlight the fragility of any ceasefire. International warnings, including those from Human Rights Watch and regional experts, stress that the risk of renewed atrocities is alarmingly high.
The cost of another war would be catastrophic. Beyond the immediate loss of lives, the economic devastation would extend far beyond borders, disrupting vital trade routes for both countries and the broader Horn of Africa. The Red Sea is not merely a local asset; it is a critical artery for global commerce and security. Instability in this region jeopardizes not only Ethiopia and Eritrea but also regional and international economic interests.
Even a short conflict could undo years of painstaking peace-building efforts, including the landmark 2018 peace agreement that raised hopes for lasting reconciliation between the two nations. This agreement, celebrated internationally and recognized with a Nobel Prize, has unresolved underlying issues—particularly Ethiopia’s landlocked status and Eritrea’s fears of encirclement—that require honest and patient negotiation.
The international community, particularly the African Union, South Africa, the United States, and regional stakeholders, must intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate a sustainable solution. Effective mediation that acknowledges Ethiopia’s legitimate aspiration for maritime access while respecting Eritrea’s sovereignty can pave the way for pragmatic cooperation rather than confrontation.
Pragmatism must take precedence over rhetoric. Ethiopia should explore negotiated arrangements, such as leasing or sharing Eritrean ports, coupled with economic partnerships that benefit both nations. For instance, Ethiopia’s offer to supply Eritrea with energy from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam can foster aligned interests instead of zero-sum competition.
Simultaneously, both governments must commit to confidence-building measures that reduce military tensions and enable humanitarian relief to reach affected populations. The next generation of leaders—and citizens—deserve more than a perpetual cycle of suspicion and hostility.
Most importantly, the voices of ordinary Ethiopians and Eritreans, who have endured decades of war, must be central to peace efforts. The people are weary. Their livelihoods depend not on military posturing, but on stability, development, and the opportunity to prosper.
This moment calls for bold leadership that favors negotiation over war and dialogue over destruction. The stakes are incredibly high: the future of two nations, the stability of the Horn of Africa, and the well-being of millions hang in the balance.
The world watches anxiously, but Ethiopia and Eritrea have the power to choose peace. They must do so, for the true cost of war will ultimately be borne by their people—and that cost is unbearable.
Here’s why nobody asked the EU when coming up with the Ukraine peace plan
By Rachel Marsden
Someone leaked a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, attributing it to the US and Russia. Apparently, no one bothered keeping the EU in the loop. But it wasn’t long before they were busy proving precisely why they’ve been avoided.
But the screeching from the EU big top tent was so distracting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had to go over to Geneva on Sunday in the same way that a parent has to go calm down their toddler having a tantrum in the supermarket aisle because everyone’s rolling their eyes and staring.
The unelected European Commission President, ‘Queen’ Ursula von der Leyen, said on Sunday that the EU’s “centrality” has to be recognized in any peace plan. And that “Ukraine must have the freedom and sovereign right to choose its own destiny. They have chosen a European destiny.”
Who is she, Ukraine’s mom? Talk about helicopter parenting. Why did Queen Ursula say earlier in the week, in the immediate wake of the leak, that she was going to “reach out to Zelensky to discuss the matter”?
She keeps saying that he’s a big boy, and that Ukraine is sovereign and independent. Which must be why she’s talking like she’s waiting for a phone call from a 12-year old to let her know what time he’s going to be home so he doesn’t break curfew.
The EU was waiting by the phone alright – but it wasn’t ringing. European Council President Antonio Costa had said that he had no idea what was in the proposal because they hadn’t even been told about it.Well, now you know. Feel better? Of course not. Rubio had to go all the way over to Geneva to pay lip service to the idea that you jokers have anything to contribute beyond slogans and demands to pursue a course of war until you can get around to figuring out exactly how you can parlay that into profiting and sticking it to Putin.
But what’s really the EU’s big fear with this new deal? That Ukraine is going to get shafted? Or that the European Union gets left out of a bargain in which everyone else profits and they get stuck with the bill.
Deal points reportedly include mutual Russia-US ventures and profits as sanctions get dropped against Moscow, and the US getting dibs on Ukrainian reconstruction deals. And the only thing that it looks like the EU would get is the opportunity to donate $100 billion to Ukraine to put their money where their big mouth is. And then to continue to use that big mouth to keep whining about Russia after it has effectively become a business joint venture partner of Washington under this proposed new deal.
Then there’s the German foreign minister who’s acting like the arbiter of what a real peace plan looks like. Because he’s done exactly how many of these? “From my point of view, it is not a real plan, but simply a list of topics,” Johann Wadephul told AFP. “It will be Ukraine that decides what compromises it makes,” he added. Like a college kid who ‘decides’ what courses to take while his parents either accept or refuse to let him live under their roof, right?
Seems that the main talking point that went out to EU officials is that this proposed deal is ‘about Ukraine without Ukraine,’ some variation of which has been repeated by the likes of Queen Ursula, the Czech foreign minister, and his Norwegian counterpart.
Quick question though, guys: Exactly how much free stuff does Ukraine have to get in before it’s finally about Ukraine? Christmas is ‘about the children’ because they’re the ones getting showered with cash by everyone else. Same with Kiev.
One thing this peace deal isn’t about is Europe, though. So they’re trying to shoehorn themselves in. “Our position hasn’t changed,” said EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas. “For any peace plan to succeed, it has to be supported by Ukraine, and it has to be supported by Europe.”
Your position hasn’t changed? You don’t say! The whole idea of a peace plan is to change the position – from war. So I guess perhaps that explains the lack of progress, huh?
The Europeans are acting like Ukraine is part of the EU starter pack – conjoined twins, basically. Except the EU is whining way more than even the twin stuck living with some dude she didn’t even want to marry because her sister said yes.
These people literally act like they’re at war with Russia themselves. Putin’s coming in 2030, they say. Gotta shove some tuna cans in your purse for an emergency and let the government blow all your tax money on weapons to prepare.
Don’t want to? Well, guess you’d better just get ready to die for being too cheap, then! Is that not scary enough? Well then how about if the military industrial complex directly threatens your kids. Will that work? Looks like a top French general is giving that one a go. “All knowledge, all economic and demographic power must be directed toward containing the Moscow regime,” said General Fabien Mandon. “Our country could fail because it is unwilling to accept the loss of its children.”
As you might imagine, this guy has totally inspired the French to go fight Russia just so the EU can avoid looking like the slackjawed idiot left holding the bag after the fighting ends.
It’s clear that the EU leaders are banking on a war economy. So just imagine how much it would really suck for them if a peace economy suddenly broke out with prearranged business deals – and the only thing left for Europe is the opportunity to blow all the billions that they promised to Ukraine with no clear return on investment.
What a downer peace would be for them at the very moment that European defense giant, Airbus Group, has just started using the conflict as a pretext to peddle the idea of churning out nuclear weapons for Europe, whose delivery systems Airbus is involved in making.
Why should the tank and missile makers and bomb shelter peddlers have all the fun? Why can’t nukes get in on the grift? That should be great for humanity in the long run.
Adding insult to injury, Poland says that it’ll buy $100 million worth of weapons for Ukraine. From the US. The EU wants to call the shots to Moscow and Washington, but can’t even manage to avoid getting cucked by the Poles as they hop into bed with the US weapons industry to the detriment of Europe’s own.
For the EU, this is less about Ukraine and more about not being the schmuck stuck holding everyone else’s shopping bags during the post-war clearance sale.
