Ethiopia-Eritrea: Escalating war of words triggers fears of conflict – BBC

Report on Escalating Tensions Between Ethiopia and Eritrea and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report details the escalating tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, stemming from Ethiopia’s renewed demands for access to the Red Sea. The increasingly hostile rhetoric and military posturing by both nations pose a significant threat to regional stability and directly undermine the progress towards several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). A potential armed conflict would have catastrophic consequences for economic development, regional partnerships, and human welfare, jeopardizing the achievement of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of Diplomatic and Political Tensions

Ethiopian Stance on Red Sea Access

The Ethiopian government has framed its demand for sovereign access to a seaport as an existential issue critical for its economic future, directly linking it to national aspirations for growth and infrastructure development, which are core tenets of SDG 8 and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). However, the methods proposed have severely compromised regional peace.

• Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has publicly stated that Ethiopia’s landlocked status is a “mistake” that must be “corrected”.
• Senior military and diplomatic officials have explicitly claimed ownership of Eritrea’s port of Assab, suggesting it could be taken by force.
• The narrative justifies this stance by citing Ethiopia’s large and growing population (projected to reach 200 million), arguing its economic needs should take precedence. This approach, however, neglects the principles of peaceful coexistence fundamental to SDG 16.

Eritrean Response and Sovereignty Concerns

Eritrea has responded by defending its territorial integrity and sovereignty, key components for maintaining strong institutions under SDG 16. The government has condemned Ethiopia’s rhetoric as a dangerous policy of irredentism that threatens established international borders.

• Eritrea’s Information Minister has described Ethiopia’s agenda as “toxic” and a “redline that should not be crossed”.
• The Eritrean army issued a statement warning that any aggression would lead Ethiopia into an “abyss”, highlighting the severe risk of conflict escalation.
• The response underscores a commitment to defending national sovereignty against external threats, but the situation reflects a complete breakdown in diplomatic dialogue, hindering progress on SDG 17.

Military Posturing and Regional Security

The rhetoric has been accompanied by military preparations, diverting critical national resources away from sustainable development priorities such as poverty reduction (SDG 1), food security (SDG 2), and public health (SDG 3) towards potential conflict.

Ethiopian Military Developments

1. The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) is actively recruiting, with officials citing that “tens of thousands of youths” are joining the army.
2. Numerous senior army officers were recently promoted, with the president stating the country’s military preparedness was “elaborate”.
3. The army has publicly paraded newly acquired weaponry, including tanks and artillery, signaling a readiness for conflict rather than peaceful resolution.

Eritrean Defence Position

1. Eritrea maintains a system of mandatory national service, ensuring a constant state of military readiness.
2. Reports indicate that the government has imposed movement restrictions on its troops, ordering them to remain in their positions, suggesting a heightened state of alert.
3. The lack of public military displays contrasts with Ethiopia’s approach, but the underlying military readiness contributes to the region’s instability, undermining SDG 16.

The Role of Media in Shaping Narratives

Media outlets in both nations have become instruments of state policy, amplifying nationalist rhetoric and potentially inciting conflict, which runs counter to the objective of SDG 16.10 (Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms).

• Ethiopia: State-controlled media consistently broadcast commentaries framing the loss of sea access as an injustice that must be rectified. Footage of demonstrators with slogans like “Assab is ours” is regularly shown. The government is also reportedly using a large digital campaign to disseminate its narrative.
• Eritrea: State media have issued editorials accusing Ethiopia of attempting to reignite a settled issue. Interestingly, some foreign-based opposition media have shifted their stance to support the government in defending national sovereignty against Ethiopian threats.

Historical Context and Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The current crisis represents a severe regression from the 2018 peace agreement, which was celebrated as a landmark achievement for SDG 16 and SDG 17 in the Horn of Africa. The historical timeline reveals a fragile relationship now on the brink of collapse.

1. 1993: Eritrea gains independence from Ethiopia, leaving Ethiopia landlocked.
2. 1998-2000: A devastating border war results in over 100,000 casualties, causing immense setbacks to development and human security.
3. 2018: A peace declaration formally ends the war, with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. This briefly revitalized hopes for regional cooperation and integration aligned with SDG 17.
4. 2020-2022: The two nations become allies in the Tigray war, but relations have since deteriorated, culminating in the current standoff.

The potential for a new armed conflict directly threatens the following SDGs:

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The threat of war is a direct assault on peace and security, risking the collapse of institutions and reversing years of peace-building efforts.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Conflict would destroy infrastructure, disrupt trade, and deter investment, crippling the economies of both nations.
• SDG 1 & 2 (No Poverty & Zero Hunger): War would displace populations, destroy agricultural land, and divert funds from social welfare, leading to increased poverty and food insecurity.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The crisis signifies a failure of bilateral and regional partnership, undermining the cooperation needed to address shared challenges like climate change and economic development.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text focuses on the escalating tensions, “hostile rhetoric,” and the “possibility of armed conflict” between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It details the historical context of a deadly border war and the current military posturing, which directly undermines peace and stability in the region.

2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   The core of the dispute is Ethiopia’s status as a “landlocked” nation and its demand for “access to the Red Sea through Eritrea.” The specific desire to control the “port of Assab” highlights the critical role of transborder infrastructure for economic survival and development, making SDG 9 highly relevant.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   Ethiopia frames its demand for sea access as an “existential matter” linked to its development and large, growing population. The army chief’s statement connecting the needs of a future population of “200 million people” to securing a “sea outlet” and speeding up “development” directly links the conflict to the goal of sustained economic growth.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article directly relates to this target by discussing the threat of a new war and referencing the previous border conflict in which “more than 100,000 people died.” The current military buildup and threats of using “force” are in direct opposition to this target.
  • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence. The article shows national institutions, such as the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies and state media, escalating tensions rather than preventing violence. Statements from the Ethiopian Prime Minister and army chief, and the use of state media to amplify “the government’s narrative,” demonstrate how these institutions are contributing to the risk of conflict instead of building peace.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development. Ethiopia’s demand for access to the “port of Assab” is a call for critical transborder infrastructure. The article highlights the failure to achieve this through peaceful means, with Ethiopia now threatening to take it “by force,” which jeopardizes the development of cooperative regional infrastructure.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.1: Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances. The article implies this target is at risk. Ethiopia’s justification for needing sea access is tied to its large population (“130 million and will grow to 200 million”) and the need to “speed up our development.” The lack of port access is presented as a fundamental barrier to its economic growth, and the potential war would further devastate economic prospects for both nations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence and death rates):

  • Number of conflict-related deaths: The article provides a specific figure from a past conflict (“more than 100,000 people died”), which serves as a stark indicator of the potential human cost of renewed violence.
  • Level of military mobilization: The article implies this indicator by mentioning that “tens of thousands of youths” are joining the Ethiopian army and that Eritrea has a “mandatory national service.”
  • Military expenditure and armament: This is implied through the mention of the Ethiopian army “parading newly acquired weapons, including artillery, tanks and armoured vehicles.”

• For Target 16.a (Strengthen institutions to prevent violence):

  • Frequency of hostile official statements: The article provides numerous examples of inflammatory rhetoric from high-level officials, such as the threat to take Assab “by force,” which can be tracked as an indicator of institutional failure to promote peace.
  • Use of state media for propaganda: The article notes that “State media outlets in Ethiopia have amplified the government’s narrative” and that Eritrean state TV has been issuing editorials. The content and frequency of such media can be monitored as an indicator of institutional intent.

• For Target 9.1 (Develop transborder infrastructure):

  • Access to maritime ports for landlocked countries: The central issue of Ethiopia being “landlocked” is a direct indicator of a lack of essential transborder infrastructure. The status of the port of Assab and its accessibility to Ethiopia is the key metric.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com