By Blen Mamo

Ethiopia, under the premiership of Abiy Ahmed, as with his predecessors, occupies a singularly consequential position within the Horn of Africa – a region historically mediated by external influence, punctuated by internal fissures, and characterized by intricate matrices of power and contestation. Interpretations of Abiy’s leadership often oscillate between guarded commendation for his reformist impulses and suspicion of alleged imperialist tendencies or warmongering proclivities. Yet such assessments frequently betray analytical superficiality, being predicated upon selective reporting, partisan narratives, and enduring historical biases, rather than a rigorous, evidence-based appraisal of Ethiopia’s internal dynamics, strategic imperatives, and regional ambitions. A nuanced, theoretically informed interrogation reveals that apprehension is less about expansionist designs and more about Ethiopia’s assertion of strategic autonomy within a context historically conditioned by structural constraints.

From a realist vantage, Ethiopia constitutes a strategically salient actor navigating the exigencies imposed by both geography and historical precedent. Over the past several decades, external actors have relied upon Ethiopia maintaining a cooperative, yet non-dominant, regional posture. Abiy’s policies – including the consolidation of federal authority, military modernization, pursuit of maritime access, and assertive regional diplomacy – signal a state willing and able to engage in autonomous strategic calculation. The quest for Red Sea access is emblematic of this recalibration: landlocked since Eritrea’s secession in 1993, Ethiopia’s historical deprivation of maritime outlets curtailed its economic agency, constrained regional leverage, and circumscribed its capacity for strategic projection. Engagement with port infrastructure, trade corridors, and regional logistics reflects a rational pursuit of sovereignty and developmental imperatives, rather than a resuscitation of imperial ambition.

Building upon this assertion of strategic autonomy, Abiy’s domestic consolidation has frequently been mischaracterized in discourse as authoritarian or expansionist. Ethiopia’s multi-ethnic federal architecture, beset by chronic fragmentation and localized contestation, necessitates robust federal coordination to preserve institutional coherence. Compared to the EPRDF era, regional states today exercise greater autonomy and enjoy enhanced representation in federal decision-making, reflecting a more balanced distribution of power that accommodates local interests within the national framework. Regions such as Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambela, Harari, Somali, and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region now participate more inclusively and equitably in the country’s power structures, in contrast to the EPRDF period, during which their representation was largely symbolic both within party mechanisms and federal governance arrangements.

Federal interventions in Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara were primarily defensive, aimed at reasserting constitutional authority and sustaining national cohesion rather than imposing hegemony. Similarly, initiatives regarding maritime access and regional economic integration constitute instruments of pragmatic development and strategic security. Domestic power consolidation and regional engagement, therefore, are best understood as deliberate exercises in rational statecraft designed to bolster national resilience and institutional functionality.

Claims that Abiy embodies imperialist or warmongering tendencies are further complicated by the interpretive frameworks applied to the Tigray conflict. While egregious violations undeniably occurred, they unfolded within the context of a defensive military campaign responding to an armed insurrection. International jurisprudence differentiates acts undertaken in the exigencies of armed conflict from genocidal intent; the defense of a legitimate government against insurgent forces does not, in itself, constitute genocide, and no conclusive evidence has emerged to substantiate such a charge so far. Accordingly, labeling Abiy as a militaristic or imperialist mischaracterizes both the empirical record and the normative contours of the conflict. Allegations of imperial revival similarly derive from partisan narratives promulgated by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front and allied ethnonationalist factions within the Ethiopian state, amplified through selective reportage, portraying federal consolidation and defensive measures as aggressive and expansionist.

Abiy’s domestic reforms further illuminate the dissonance between perception and reality. Politically, his administration has expanded civic space, promoted media pluralism, released political prisoners, and nurtured civil society participation, reflecting measured liberalization aligned with accountability and citizen engagement while preserving central authority. Economically, Abiy pursues a hybrid model combining market liberalization, incentivization of private investment, and gradual privatization of strategic sectors, balanced by state oversight of critical infrastructure. This synthesis of reformist liberalization and strategic developmentalism positions Ethiopia as a cooperative and internationally integrated actor, distinct from conventional authoritarian or expansionist typologies.

Strategic apprehension also reflects a limited appreciation of Ethiopia’s indispensable role in regional equilibrium. Its contributions to trade facilitation, counterterrorism, migration management, and security coordination underscore a centrality that is functional, stabilizing, and not easily replicated. Misinterpretation of federal consolidation, assertive diplomacy, or maritime ambition as hegemonic risks undermining these contributions. Viewed through a lens of strategic rationality, Ethiopia’s foreign and economic policies are coherent extensions of state-building imperatives, oriented toward sovereignty, developmental resilience, and regional integration, rather than imperial projection.

A comparative lens further clarifies Abiy’s distinctiveness. Departing from the authoritarian centralization and ethnically fractious governance of his predecessors, Abiy integrates liberalizing political reforms with pragmatic economic policy, signaling an outward-facing orientation while retaining the capacity to act decisively when national cohesion is threatened. Militarily, Ethiopia has exercised the utmost restraint, refraining from hostilities with neighboring states even amidst sustained provocations; its posture has remained principally defensive, aimed at safeguarding federal authority and territorial integrity in response to Sudanese incursions in al-Fashaga (2021–22), tensions arising from Ethiopia-Somaliland agreements (2024), and persistent Eritrean subversive activities extending patterns preceding 2018.

In essence, Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia exemplifies a state navigating structural constraints through a blend of reformist governance, pragmatic economic policy, and strategic regional integration. Misperceptions – of imperial revival, warmongering, or genocidal intent – obscure the coherent rationality of this strategy. Appreciating the subtlety of Ethiopia’s trajectory demands an interpretive lens that accounts for internal federal dynamics, historical deprivation, and geopolitical exigencies, alongside the complex interplay of domestic reform and regional engagement. Only through such a lens can Ethiopia’s strategic autonomy be properly understood, and only through such understanding can external actors engage the Horn of Africa in a manner that is both analytically rigorous and conducive to mutually beneficial outcomes.

While misperceptions about imperial revival and genocidal intent obscure Ethiopia’s coherent strategy, broader structural and geopolitical considerations also inform caution regarding Ethiopia’s assertive agency. Abiy’s federal consolidation, military modernization, and pursuit of maritime access signify a departure from historically subordinate regional postures upon which external actors have relied to maintain predictable influence. An Ethiopia capable of independently shaping regional economic and security dynamics introduces uncertainty into longstanding geostrategic arrangements, challenging expectations that external actors can reliably influence outcomes in regional disputes or infrastructure development.

Economic and strategic considerations further reinforce this caution. Ethiopia’s efforts to secure Red Sea access, expand port infrastructure, and deepen trade connectivity diminish external leverage over its commerce and regional integration, creating a scenario in which international actors must engage with a more self-determined partner rather than a compliant state. These dynamics are amplified by narratives, often originating from domestic opposition groups, portraying Abiy as a leader whose assertive and independent decision-making complicates established expectations of influence. In combination, Ethiopia’s increasing autonomy, regional assertiveness, and the novelty of its governance approach coalesce into a posture of calculated restraint among external stakeholders: not outright opposition, but strategic caution, reflecting both prudence and unease with a Horn in which Ethiopia defines its own terms.

Given both the empirically observable logic of Ethiopia’s strategic posture and the lingering apprehension, a multi-layered engagement strategy becomes essential to bridge perception and reality. Ethiopia should frame its domestic decentralization, economic initiatives, and maritime ambitions within a coherent strategic narrative emphasizing developmental sovereignty, defensive imperatives, and regional stability, rather than abstract notions of expansion or imperialism. Simultaneously, it must operationalize its indispensability to regional security and economic frameworks, demonstrating that cooperation is mutually beneficial while asserting clear boundaries against interference in sovereign decision-making. Initiatives such as port development and trade integration should be explicitly presented as economic and integrative rather than hegemonic, underscoring their rational and defensive character.

Calibrated regional and bilateral engagement is equally important. Ethiopia should continue to participate actively in multilateral initiatives, conflict mediation, and regional development programs, signaling that its assertiveness is stabilizing rather than destabilizing. Equally critical is direct engagement with actors historically concerned about Ethiopia’s rise, through high-level diplomatic exchanges, joint research initiatives, and confidence-building measures that demonstrate transparency, restraint, and a commitment to shared regional interests. Finally, sustained, coordinated diplomacy – including consistent messaging across executive, ministerial, and parliamentary levels, joint fact-finding missions, and monitored implementation of bilateral and multilateral agreements – may continue to institutionalize clarity and trust. By combining narrative clarity, demonstrable cooperation, strategic leverage, and targeted confidence-building, Ethiopia can reshape the framework in which its agency is understood, establishing a durable foundation for engagement predicated on sovereignty, stability, and mutual interest.

About the Author

Blen Mamo is the Executive Director of Horn Review, an independent research and publication think-tank focused on politics, diplomacy and security in the Horn of Africa. She is also an Associate Researcher at the Ethiopian Institute of Foreign Affairs, Executive Editor of Horn Review publications, and Executive Producer of the Strategic Dialogue Podcast Series Co-Produced by the Horn Review & the Institute of Foreign Affairs. She holds an LLB, and MSc in International Security & Global Governance from the University of London.