The North Teeters Between Peace And Defense As Horn Of Africa Tensions Reach Boiling Point

Amid escalating tensions between the federal government, the Tigray region, and neighboring Eritrea, the President of the Tigray Interim Administration, Tadesse Werede (Lt. Gen.) said that Tigray will commit to every ‘unexhausted’ peaceful solution available, but stands ready to defend itself if forced.

The President’s remarks were delivered in Mekelle during the 51st anniversary of the founding of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

Against a backdrop of stalled provisions in the Pretoria Peace Agreement—specifically regarding the return of displaced persons and the restoration of regional borders—Tadesse sought to reassure a restive public. He affirmed that while Tigray’s priority is to avoid a return to full-scale conflict, the region maintains the resolve and right to safeguard its security should peaceful options be depleted.

Tadesse’s remarks signal a critical juncture for the region as it balances the fragile Pretoria peace process against growing security concerns on its borders.

However, even three years after the signing of the Pretoria Agreement between the federal government and the TPLF, regional tensions show no sign of abating.

Relations have been further strained by a shifting geopolitical landscape, where reports of a new alignment between Tigrayan leadership and Asmara have raised fears that northern Ethiopia may once again transform into a central battleground.

This buildup follows years of escalating friction fueled by unresolved disputes between the federal government and the Tigray forces

Compounding the security crisis is the internal fragmentation within the region, marked by reports of military engagements between the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) and a dissident faction, the Tigray People’s Forces (TPF).

Adding to the volatility, regional diplomats have observed significant troop movements and equipment transfers by both the federal government and Eritrea toward the northern Tigray region, a development observers warn could lead to a catastrophic return to full-scale war and possible collapse of the 2022 Pretoria Agreement.

However, for President Tadesse there “are still questions that remain unimplemented and must be answered,” citing the Pretoria Agreement, the return of displaced people, and the restoration of Tigray’s borders.

According to him, the federal government, as one of the signatories to the peace deal, is expected to provide peaceful and political solutions, reminded that “any path taken instead of giving a peaceful solution will complicate the problem and is not viable”.

Just last week, the TPLF issued another open letter to the African Union, urging it to safeguard the Pretoria Agreement and alleging that federal troops are currently mobilizing toward Tigray’s borders.

Nonetheless, actors like Tsadkan Gebretensae (Lt. Gen.) argue the situation is a problem that should concern all Ethiopians.

He said any outbreak of war would negatively impact the entire country, and noted there remains an opportunity to spare Tigray from further conflict.

Should that fail, the priority must shift to reducing both the length and the humanitarian cost of the war, said the general.

“The war being waged (against Tigray), we must make it very short and resolve it at a small cost,” he said.

A report from the Pan African Agenda Institute described the Pretoria peace deal as a “negative peace” agreement that fails to deliver “positive peace.”

“Three years after the Pretoria Agreement was signed, its implementation has led to what scholars refer to as negative peace or the cessation of active fighting, while failing comprehensively to deliver positive peace, which would encompass constitutional restoration, justice, reconstruction, and sustainable reconciliation,” reads the research.

In its latest report, titled “Ethiopia, Eritrea and Tigray: A Powder Keg in the Horn of Africa”the International Crisis Group also issued a stark warning that deadly war threatens to return to Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region and neighboring Eritrea.

The report links the ongoing tensions to Ethiopia’s quest to obtain a seaport.

“A war would be devastating for all three players in a region where past conflicts have cost hundreds of thousands of lives,” it reads, warning the war would also overlap with the fighting in neighbouring Sudan, dragging in powerful states from outside the Horn of Africa and further roiling the volatile Red Sea region.

The UN Security Council also warned the war in Sudan might engulf Ethiopia and South Sudan, among others. “The security situation in Blue Nile State has also worsened as recent reports indicate renewed clashes and the risk of escalation as armed groups mobilize in southern and western parts of the state, heightening fears of broader instability in the border region with Ethiopia and South Sudan,” reads UNSC monthly forecast for February.

During last week’s 39th African Union (AU) summit, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) underscored that securing maritime access is a non-negotiable, existential priority for Ethiopia’s 130 million people.

He argued that Ethiopia’s status as a landlocked nation is a “historically unjust” structural bottleneck that stifles its rapid economic growth and limits its contribution to regional stability.

Abiy framed the issue as a matter of “functional sovereignty,” calling for a cooperative continental framework where shared port access serves as a foundation for regional prosperity rather than conflict.

According to him, peaceful resolution is inevitable for the continent’s second-most populous nation.

“The security and stability of the Horn of Africa depend on Ethiopia gaining sea access,” he said, adding that Ethiopia’s interest is an economic and demographic necessity that should be treated as a matter of regional prosperity.

The group calls for all stakeholders to engage in quiet diplomacy to deter the “onset of conflict”.

Using social media, Yemane Gebermeskel, Eritrean foreign minister, dismissed Ethiopia’s ambitions for Red Sea maritime influence, characterizing the suggestion that littoral states cannot manage regional security without Ethiopian naval power as a “ludicrous” distraction from Ethiopia’s internal instability.