Eritrea's Role in Ethiopia’s Politics and Instability

Introduction

Eritrea’s historical and political entanglement with Ethiopia constitutes one of the most complex bilateral relationships in Africa. Despite gaining formal independence in 1993, Eritrea continues to shape the domestic dynamics of its larger neighbor. From strategic military cooperation to deep-seated historical rivalries, Eritrea’s influence extends far beyond the international border that separates the two states. This essay argues that Eritrea plays a paradoxical role in Ethiopia's political landscape—on one hand reinforcing Ethiopia’s central authority against internal dissent, and on the other deepening internal fragmentation, especially through its involvement in the Tigray conflict. The Eritrean factor has thus become both a scaffold and a fault line in Ethiopia’s pursuit of national integrity.

Historical Roots of Entanglement

The seeds of Eritrea’s enduring role in Ethiopian affairs were sown in the mid-20th century. The controversial annexation of Eritrea in 1962 by Emperor Haile Selassie, following a short-lived federation, catalyzed a brutal 30-year war for independence. The war drained Ethiopia’s resources, militarized the state, and laid the groundwork for political centralization that clashed with growing regional and ethnic demands. Although Eritrea achieved formal independence in 1993, the legacy of conflict continued, culminating in the 1998–2000 border war. Even the peace agreement in Algiers failed to restore mutual trust, instead embedding animosity and unresolved territorial tensions into the political psyche of both states.

These historical grievances reverberate into the present. Eritrea’s ruling elite, led by President Isaias Afwerki, continues to view Ethiopia’s domestic power configurations—especially the role of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF)—through the lens of existential threat. Similarly, various Ethiopian actors view Eritrea not merely as a former province, but as a symbolic reminder of Ethiopia’s lost imperial grandeur or, conversely, as an exemplar of self-determination. This divergence in perception feeds into Ethiopia’s internal political discourse, where Eritrea is alternately portrayed as a lost sibling, a rogue neighbor, or an indispensable ally.

Eritrea as a Factor of Centralization

One of Eritrea’s most striking recent roles has been its support for Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed during the Tigray War. The 2018 rapprochement between Abiy and Isaias was heralded as a peace breakthrough, earning Abiy the Nobel Peace Prize. However, beneath the surface, the alliance served tactical rather than reconciliatory aims. Both leaders viewed the TPLF as a common enemy. Their cooperation became explicit during the Tigray conflict beginning in late 2020, when Eritrean forces entered northern Ethiopia to support federal troops.

This military alliance bolstered the Ethiopian government's capacity to reassert control over the rebellious Tigray region. In this context, Eritrea acted as a unifying force—albeit coercively—by helping the central government impose its will over a defiant regional state. In the short term, this external support preserved the cohesion of the Ethiopian state. Eritrea’s participation thus functioned as an authoritarian mechanism of centralization, akin to what scholars describe as “externalized repression.”

Undermining Sovereignty and Federal Integrity

Yet the very same alliance has severely undermined Ethiopia’s internal legitimacy. Eritrean troops were accused by international human rights organizations of committing widespread atrocities, including massacres, looting, and sexual violence in Tigray. These actions not only escalated the humanitarian crisis but also ignited widespread outrage across Ethiopia’s diverse polity. For many Ethiopians—especially in Tigray and Oromia—the government's reliance on a historically hostile neighbor was viewed as a betrayal of national sovereignty.

This perception has been instrumental in deepening Ethiopia’s internal fractures. The federal system, already under strain from ethnic nationalism and demands for regional autonomy, has become even more contested. The use of Eritrean troops against Ethiopian citizens has fueled resentment toward the central government and given ammunition to separatist and federalist narratives that accuse Addis Ababa of suppressing dissent through foreign proxies. Thus, Eritrea’s presence, far from reinforcing national unity, has intensified the debate over what it means to be Ethiopian.

Shaping the National Narrative

Eritrea’s symbolic weight in Ethiopia’s political imagination adds another layer to its destabilizing potential. Among pan-Ethiopian nationalists, Eritrea’s secession is often invoked as a cautionary tale about the perils of ethnic federalism and decentralization. For these groups, reasserting central control is seen as essential to preventing Ethiopia from further fragmentation. Conversely, for ethno-nationalist movements, Eritrea embodies the right to self-determination—a principle they wish to see honored within Ethiopia’s federal structure.

This dual narrative reinforces polarization within Ethiopia. Eritrea becomes both a specter of disintegration and a beacon of self-liberation, depending on the political lens. The result is a symbolic tug-of-war that weakens efforts at national consensus and complicates the task of post-conflict reconciliation. Rather than bridging divides, Eritrea’s involvement perpetuates ideological bifurcation.

Regional and International Dimensions

Eritrea’s influence is not limited to Ethiopia’s borders. Its involvement in the Tigray War has drawn widespread international condemnation. The United Nations, African Union, and European Union have all criticized Eritrea’s role, demanding the withdrawal of its troops. The EU even imposed sanctions on Eritrean entities. For Ethiopia, this association has strained relations with key Western partners and undermined its reputation as a stabilizing force in the Horn of Africa.

Moreover, Eritrea’s own militarized and isolationist policies—marked by indefinite conscription and suppression of dissent—have seeped into Ethiopia’s political climate. The normalization of security-first governance, including the militarization of civil life, risks reshaping Ethiopia in Eritrea’s authoritarian image. This trend threatens not only domestic democratization efforts but also regional stability.

Conclusion

Eritrea’s role in Ethiopia’s politics and instability is both structural and symbolic. It supports the central government in suppressing dissent while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of the state. It represents both a force for national consolidation and a catalyst for fragmentation. This duality reflects the broader dilemmas facing Ethiopia: how to maintain unity without coercion, and how to embrace diversity without disintegration.

Moving forward, any sustainable political settlement in Ethiopia must take into account the Eritrean factor—not merely as a foreign policy issue, but as a domestic challenge embedded in Ethiopia’s own identity crisis. International actors should promote dialogue that addresses not only the security dimension of Eritrean involvement but also its impact on Ethiopia’s federal balance and democratic trajectory. Only through such a holistic approach can the cycle of dependence and destabilization be broken.