Stepping Back From The Brink Of War

Ethiopia stands once again at a dangerous crossroads. In the northern region of Tigray, the warning signs of a renewed and potentially devastating war are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Political tensions are hardening, armed conflict, albeit limited, is reemerging, humanitarian access remains fragile, and trust between key actors is eroding. Barely a few years after one of the deadliest conflicts of the 21st century subsided, the prospect of a return to large-scale violence is not only tragic—it would be catastrophic. The imperative now is clear: Ethiopia must act decisively to avert another war in Tigray before it unleashes irreparable human, political, and regional damage.

The scars of the 2020–2022 conflict, which engulfed the Amhara and Afar regions as well, remain painfully fresh. Hundreds of thousands are believed to have died from violence, hunger, and disease. Millions were displaced. Infrastructure was destroyed, livelihoods shattered, and an entire generation traumatized. The Pretoria Agreement brought an end to open hostilities, raising hopes that Ethiopia had turned a page toward peace and reconstruction. Yet peace, it is now evident, has been fragile and incomplete. Key provisions of the agreement remain contested or unimplemented, and grievances—political, territorial, and security-related—have festered beneath the surface.

What makes the current moment especially perilous is the convergence of unresolved political disputes and growing militarization. Internal divisions within Tigray’s political and security leadership have sharpened, while relations between federal authorities and regional actors remain tense and distrustful. Armed elements that should have been demobilized have not been fully reintegrated, and the presence of multiple security forces with overlapping or unclear mandates has created a volatile environment. History shows that in such conditions, even a localized incident can spiral rapidly into a broader conflagration.

The humanitarian consequences of renewed war would be devastating. Tigray has yet to fully recover from years of siege-like conditions, disrupted agriculture, and the collapse of basic services. Food insecurity remains widespread, health facilities are overstretched, and many communities depend on external assistance to survive. A return to fighting would likely sever humanitarian corridors once again, pushing already vulnerable populations into famine-like conditions. For civilians, particularly women, children, and the elderly, another war would not be an abstraction but a direct assault on survival and dignity.

Beyond Tigray, the implications would reverberate across Ethiopia. The country is already grappling with economic strain, political polarization, and insecurity in other regions. A renewed war in the region, which is likely to spread to adjoining regions, would divert scarce resources from development and reconstruction, undermine investor confidence, and further strain the social fabric. It would also deepen mistrust among Ethiopia’s diverse communities, reinforcing the perception that disputes are settled through force rather than dialogue. For a state as large and complex as Ethiopia, this is a path toward chronic instability.

The regional fallout would be no less severe. Tigray sits at the intersection of sensitive borders, and previous fighting drew in external actors, directly or indirectly. A renewed conflict risks regionalizing once again, destabilizing the Horn of Africa at a time when it can least afford further shocks. Refugee flows, cross-border insecurity, and diplomatic crises are liable to ensue, complicating already fragile regional dynamics. In a region where crises are interconnected, war in Tigray would not remain contained.

Averting this outcome requires urgency, restraint, and political courage. First and foremost, all actors must recognize that there is no military solution to Tigray’s challenges. The belief that force can resolve political disagreements has already been disproven at immense human cost. Leaders—federal, regional, and local—must publicly and unequivocally recommit to peaceful resolution of disputes, signaling to their constituencies and armed followers that war is not an option. Equally essential is the full and faithful implementation of existing peace commitments. The Pretoria Agreement must be seen not as an endpoint but as a framework requiring continuous effort and compromise. Selective adherence breeds resentment and suspicion. Confidence-building measures—transparent security arrangements, credible disarmament and reintegration processes, and guarantees for civilian protection— must be implemented posthaste. Where disagreements exist over interpretation or sequencing, they should be addressed through dialogue and mediation, not brinkmanship.

Inclusive political engagement is of critical importance as well. Sustainable peace cannot be imposed from above or negotiated among elites alone. Communities that bore the brunt of the last war must have a voice in shaping the future. Addressing grievances related to governance, representation, territorial administration, and accountability will require patience and openness. Postponing these conversations only increases the risk of violent relapse.

The international community too has a role to play—but a careful one. External partners, including those which helped broker the Pretoria Agreement, should support de-escalation, humanitarian access, and dialogue without inflaming tensions or taking sides. Quiet diplomacy, technical support for peace implementation, and sustained humanitarian assistance are far more valuable than punitive gestures or inflammatory rhetoric. Ethiopia’s sovereignty and long-term stability are best served by solutions rooted in internal consensus, not external pressure.

Finally, Ethiopians themselves—across regions and political divides—must reject the normalization of war. The suffering of defenseless civilians during the last conflict is not a regional issue; it is a national tragedy. Preventing another catastrophe requires empathy, restraint in public discourse, and a collective insistence that leaders choose peace over pride and compromise over confrontation.

The looming threat of war in Tigray is not inevitable. It is the result of choices—choices that can still be altered. Ethiopia has already paid an unbearable price for conflict. To repeat that experience would be an unforgivable failure of leadership and imagination. The moment demands foresight, humility, and urgency. Peace may be difficult, imperfect, and slow, but it is infinitely less costly than war. Averting another calamity in Tigray is not only a moral imperative; it is essential to Ethiopia’s future as a stable, united, and resilient nation.