With analysis from Pulse of Africa (POA) Sept. 2, 2026 (ENA) By Mahder Nesibu In a session with senior government leaders in 2023, Ethiopia's Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, stated that his country's fortunes are intimately tied to the Nile and the Red Sea, and that these two bodies of water are fundamental factors to the country's growth or its decline. In that session, the Prime Minister set out the geographical, historical, ethnic and economic foundations of what he termed Ethiopia's legitimate need for access to the sea. The Ethiopian state has echoed that framing consistently in the years since, and securing maritime access now stands as a defined objective within Ethiopia's national interest thinking. The geographical argument begins with scale. Ethiopia sits in close proximity to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and stands as the largest country by area in a Horn of Africa region whose other states it dwarfs in size. Addis Ababa regards its landlocked status, which it has taken to describing as a geographical prison, as an unnatural condition rather than a settled fact of geography. That framing carries into a set of ethnic considerations centred on the Afar communities along the Red Sea coast, whose cultural and political centre lies within Ethiopia's own Afar region but who have been structurally separated, on both sides of the border, from the freedom to interact as one community. The separation, among many other negative consequences, severely restricted access to the Red Sea coast, and by extension to lucrative trade and resources, of significant number of Afaris who consider the sea a home. An economic imperative runs alongside these arguments. The Ethiopian economy has sustained growth of roughly ten percent a year for close to three decades, expanding its demand for engagement with the Red Sea correspondingly. Neighboring Djibouti services approximately 95% to 97% of Ethiopia's international trade, and that degree of dependence on a single conduit makes diversification a pressing concern as the economy continues to expand and requires more reliable and resilient supply chains. Demography reinforces the same case. The Horn of Africa's total population, spanning Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti, is estimated at around 170 million people, of whom Ethiopia accounts for roughly 80 percent, a population exceeding 130 million and still expanding. For Addis Ababa, this represents a structural dilemma, in that a population of this scale remains poorly connected to global maritime trade and exchange, and the toll of that disconnection grows heavier as the country's economic and demographic weight increases. The historical dimension of the argument is, in some respects, the most telling, and it is the one the Prime Minister invoked directly in referring to the Red Sea's influence over Ethiopia's periods of strength and weakness. The pattern he described holds up under scrutiny: Ethiopia's most active and prosperous historical periods have consistently coincided with its presence on the Red Sea, while its darkest moments of decline and dormancy have tended to follow its retreat from the coast, whether through internal weakness or foreign intervention. The recent past illustrates this most clearly. In his work “አሰብ የማን ናት” (“To Whom Does Assab Belong”), the Ethiopian intellectual Dr Yaqob Haile-Mariam —prominent lawyer, legal scholar and politician — revisited the question of Assab in 2011, arguing that the port had long served as a natural outlet for Ethiopia and that the Ethiopian government of the period had erred in allowing Eritrean secession to proceed without first securing an outlet to the Red Sea, an outlet he regarded as fundamental to Ethiopian statehood. He criticised Addis Ababa's lack of initiative in pursuing the matter seriously through negotiation and advocacy on international platforms. For Dr Yaqob, Assab embodies a longer sequence of historical episodes that pushed Ethiopia away from the Red Sea, even as it remained, in recent history, Ethiopia's most actively used port. Ethiopia was rendered landlocked when Eritrea seceded in May, 1993. Tracing a lineage back through the historical ports of Adulis and Zeila, Assab connected Ethiopia to the Red Sea until Eritrean secession, and continued to do so in more unconventional arrangements afterward. Dr Yaqob argued that Ethiopia's landlocked status constitutes a structural national problem, and that Assab remains the clearest historical case through which that problem should be understood and addressed. He was particularly critical of how Assab came to be left within Eritrean territory during the secession process, and of the broader terms under which Eritrea separated from Ethiopia. This fits into a considerably longer pattern. The Red Sea has functioned as a critical corridor for global commerce and connectivity since antiquity, and it was through this waterway that Axum, one of the earliest manifestations of Ethiopian civilisation, achieved its prosperity. Axum traded through its port of Adulis on the Red Sea as far as the Roman Empire and India, with that trade forming the principal pillar of a prosperity that made Axum one of the major powers of Late Antiquity. The Red Sea, as a source of state power, was equally an arena of competition. Axum's decline at the turn of the first millennium CE is generally attributed to its loss of standing as a trading power, following the emergence of the Umayyad Caliphate, which challenged Axumite control of the maritime route and forced a retreat into Ethiopia's interior. That pattern recurred through much of the second millennium, as Ethiopia repeatedly re-establish its presence on the coast and repeatedly encountered geopolitical resistance, including from the Ottoman Empire in the medieval period, which understood the strategic value of the Red Sea as clearly as Ethiopia did. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries followed a similar trajectory, though the arrival of colonialism, and later the geopolitics of two world wars and the Cold War, made the competition sharper and the Red Sea theatre considerably more complex. Italian colonialism, beginning in the late nineteenth century, marked the start of Ethiopia's modern retreat from the sea. Ethiopia's Bahr Negash resisted colonial incursions along the coast, but resistance proved insufficient to prevent Italy from annexing Ethiopia's coastal territories, a colonial advance ultimately halted at Adwa in 1896 before it could extend across the whole country. Italian colonial strategy was shaped in part by the significance of the Red Sea, beginning with the occupation of Assab and extending later into the economically rich Ethiopian interior. (The 1869 purchase of Assab was a direct private transaction between an Italian agent and local Afar leaders without the formal consent or prior knowledge of the central Ethiopian imperial government.) Although the colonial project ended in 1952, when Ethiopia regained sovereignty over what is now Eritrea, that arrangement did not endure. A secessionist movement took root in the territory and eventually reshaped the regional order entirely. The place of Eritrea within Ethiopia, referred to by Ethiopian intellectuals as the “Eritrean Affair”, is a complex question that extends well beyond the matter of maritime access, but the direction the affair ultimately took, culminating in Eritrean secession, has been shaped substantially by the question of access to the sea and by what Ethiopian analysts describe as a conspiracy to deprive Ethiopia of it. The role of External actors was crucial to that trajectory. The Eritrean secessionist movements, from the Muslim League during the federation period to the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) and later the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), received support from states such as Egypt, which regarded Ethiopia as a historical rival. Ethiopia's leadership has long been aware of this dynamic. In 1928, Emperor Haile Selassie, addressing the Eritrean question, spoke of his country's hope in reclaiming the territories and seaports that had been taken by its enemies. External support for Eritrean secessionism following Eritrea's unification with Ethiopia reflected a strategy pursued consistently by regional and other powers, chief among them Egypt, which shared the Red Sea with Ethiopia and viewed it as a competing power over that waterway, and which regarded Ethiopia, over the Nile even more than the Red Sea, as its principal rival. Ottoman and Egyptian incursions into the Red Sea coast during the 16th and 19th centuries systematically chipped away at the Ethiopian Empire's direct access to maritime trade ports, laying the groundwork for its modern landlocked status. Emperor Yohannes IV successfully defeated major military incursions by Khedivial Egypt—then an autonomous vassal state of the Ottoman Empire—during the Egyptian–Ethiopian War in the mid-1870s. The current Ethiopian administration has internalised this history directly. Beyond describing the Nile and the Red Sea as the twin determinants of Ethiopia's prosperity, Prime Minister Abiy's government has developed what it calls the vision of the two waters, a framework built around the geopolitical interconnection between these two bodies of water rather than treating either in isolation. The historical foundation for this argument is substantial. It runs from Ethiopia's ancient rulers, who regarded the Red Sea as a natural frontier of their state and ruled accordingly, to the country's contemporary leadership, which now treats Red Sea security as a fundamental national security interest and the possession of a reliable maritime outlet as central to that interest. Whether that outlet is eventually secured through Assab or through other arrangements, Ethiopia's pursuit of renewed access to the sea aims to reverse a historical pattern in which loss of the coast has repeatedly coincided with periods of national decline, and access to it with periods of national strength. Combined with the mounting demographic and economic imperatives now shaping Ethiopia's position, that argument rests on considerable historical and material weight. The question carries consequences that extend beyond Ethiopia itself, reaching the wider region and the international community. An Ethiopia genuinely integrated into the global maritime system would loosen a structural constraint that has long limited its growth, and given Ethiopia's scale as one of Africa's largest and most closely watched economies, that growth would carry transformative implications for the Horn of Africa and the continent more broadly. On the geopolitical side, the Red Sea has become, in recent decades, a site of considerable instability for international trade and shipping, a dilemma that concerns the international community and Ethiopia in equal measure. Dependent on the Red Sea for its commerce yet excluded from direct access to it, Ethiopia's landlocked status prevents it from playing a substantive role in addressing the security challenges that affect both itself and the wider region. Ethiopians tend to read their own history on the Red Sea as one of prosperous trade and stability, and a reliable outlet today, in their reading of that history, would allow the country to play a meaningful part in securing it once again.

By Staff Writer August 30, 2026 Ethiopia’s week unfolded at the intersection of continental diplomacy, health cooperation and the country’s broader development ambitions, with Addis Ababa once again serving as a major platform for regional and international engagement. From hosting the 76th Session of the WHO Regional Committee for Africa (RC76) to renewed national discussions on development along the Abay River and Ethiopia’s pursuit of sovereign sea access, the week highlighted a central theme: Ethiopia’s determination to advance development while deepening regional cooperation and economic integration. The developments also underscored the growing importance of the Abay River and the Red Sea in Ethiopia’s long-term economic strategy—one focused on energy security, connectivity, trade and regional prosperity. Ethiopia Hosts Africa’s Leading Health Forum Addis Ababa took center stage in Africa’s health diplomacy as Ethiopia hosted the 76th Session of the WHO Regional Committee for Africa. Co-organized by Ethiopia’s Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Africa, the three-day meeting brought together President Taye Atske Selassie, African Union Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Health Minister Dr. Mekdes Daba, and delegates from 47 WHO African Region member states, alongside ministers, global health leaders, development partners, donors and WHO representatives.   The gathering reviewed progress on regional health priorities and considered new strategies, resolutions and collective actions aimed at strengthening health systems, advancing universal health coverage, improving health security and enhancing emergency preparedness. It also provided an opportunity to showcase Ethiopia’s progress in expanding essential health services and strengthening its capacity to respond to public health emergencies. The WHO Regional Committee for Africa, the governing body of WHO’s African regional office, meets annually to shape regional health policy, review the organization’s work and establish priorities for improving health outcomes across the continent. Africa’s Health Future Must Be African-Led A strong message emerging from the gathering was the need for greater African ownership of the continent’s health agenda. President Taye Atske Selassie called for a new approach centered on African priorities, stronger integration and measurable action, arguing that the continent’s next chapter in health should be driven increasingly by domestic capacity rather than fragmented responses and prolonged dependence. External assistance, he noted, can complement national health objectives, but development support should respond to Africa’s priorities rather than being shaped primarily by reform agendas designed elsewhere. “We must not sit here and adapt to reforms designed elsewhere,” President Taye said, urging African countries instead to “shape the reform agendas” according to their own priorities and vision. AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf similarly stressed that health sovereignty is becoming an essential component of Africa’s development agenda.   He pointed to persistent and emerging challenges, including Ebola, cholera, Mpox, HIV and tuberculosis, as well as the growing burden of non-communicable diseases. At the same time, he highlighted structural constraints facing African health systems, including limited infrastructure, inadequate financing and shortages of trained health professionals. WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom noted that Africa has continued to make progress toward important health targets despite facing some of the deepest reductions in international health financing in a generation. The discussions therefore went beyond public health emergencies, touching on a broader question of how Africa can build resilient, self-reliant and sustainable development systems. Abay River: Development, Energy and Regional Cooperation Alongside health diplomacy, the Abay River remained central to Ethiopia’s national development discourse. Ethiopia views the Abay—one of the major contributors to the Nile, as a critical resource for expanding electricity generation, supporting industrialization and strengthening economic transformation. The inauguration of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) marked a major milestone in that development trajectory. The project, Africa’s largest hydropower facility, has been presented by Ethiopia as a cornerstone of its ambition to expand electricity access, accelerate industrial development and strengthen its position as a regional energy hub.   The GERD has also intensified the broader regional debate over the equitable and reasonable utilization of shared Nile waters. Ethiopia maintains that the development of its water resources should be pursued in accordance with principles of equitable and reasonable utilization, while recognizing the interests and concerns of other Nile Basin countries. Against this backdrop, former Water Minister Shiferaw Jarso told ENA that Ethiopia should remain firm in pursuing its development interests on the Abay River. He also called for Egypt to compensate Ethiopia for the use of its water resources, citing Ethiopia’s contribution of about 86 percent of the Nile’s flow through the Abay system. Shiferaw argued that continued Egyptian opposition would not prevent Ethiopia from developing additional water infrastructure and reiterated Ethiopia’s longstanding position on the equitable utilization of Nile waters. Similarly, Water Resources researcher Professor Yacob Arsano noted that Egypt’s accusations against Ethiopia over the Abay (Nile) River, despite Egypt contributing no water to the river’s flow, are baseless and completely unacceptable. He stressed that Ethiopia has no allocated share of the Nile waters under the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement, to which Ethiopia was not a party. “Ethiopia has a legitimate right to utilize its water resources for development while ensuring equitable and reasonable use of the Nile waters,” Professor Yacob underscored. He said Egypt has historically sought to hinder Ethiopia’s development and progress, including by supporting internal groups, to prevent the country from utilizing its abundant natural resources. Red Sea Access: From Strategic Necessity to Regional Opportunity Ethiopia’s pursuit of sovereign sea access also remained an important part of the country’s development discourse. For Africa’s second-most populous country, which is landlocked, access to maritime trade routes carries significant economic implications for logistics, trade competitiveness, industrialization and regional connectivity.   Fethi Mahdi, Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Relations and Peace Affairs Standing Committee of the House of Peoples’ Representatives, told ENA that Ethiopia’s demand for sea access extends beyond cargo handling and transshipment. He emphasized that the issue has a broader economic foundation, citing United Nations studies indicating that landlocked countries can face significant economic disadvantages compared with countries that have direct access to the sea. Ethiopia has repeatedly framed its quest for sea access around sovereign access, mutual benefit, peaceful dialogue and partnership with neighboring countries. The emphasis is increasingly shifting from the question of access alone to the larger economic possibilities that maritime connectivity could unlock for the Horn of Africa: expanded trade, integrated infrastructure, investment, industrial corridors and stronger regional markets. In this sense, Ethiopia’s maritime ambition can potentially become not only a national economic project but also an opportunity for regional economic integration and shared prosperity. Thailand-Ethiopia Ties Gain Strategic Momentum Ethiopia’s diplomatic engagement also gained momentum during the week with the official visit of Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sihasak Phuangketkeow. The visit reflected Thailand’s interest in deepening its bilateral relationship with Ethiopia while expanding its engagement with Africa through the African Union, headquartered in Addis Ababa. Phuangketkeow said his visit had two strategic objectives: strengthening Thailand’s partnership with Ethiopia and broadening Thailand’s engagement with Africa through the AU.   The development points to Addis Ababa’s continuing importance as a diplomatic bridge between Africa and the wider world. Beyond traditional political relations, Ethiopia and Thailand have opportunities to expand cooperation in trade, investment, technology, tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and connectivity, potentially linking Southeast Asian expertise and markets with Africa’s growing economic opportunities. The relationship therefore carries significance beyond bilateral diplomacy, particularly as both sides seek new partnerships in an increasingly interconnected global economy. Ethiopia Pushes Youth-Centered Growth Through BRICS Ethiopia also used the BRICS platform to advance its economic and development priorities, calling for stronger investment in Africa’s young population. At the BRICS Youth Ministers’ Meeting in Visakhapatnam, India, the Ethiopian delegation called for dedicated financing mechanisms for youth-led enterprises and greater investment in digital and green technologies. With more than 70 percent of Ethiopia’s population under the age of 30, the delegation emphasized that young people should be viewed not simply as beneficiaries of development but as drivers of innovation, entrepreneurship, productivity and economic transformation.   The call for dedicated financing and joint investment reflects Ethiopia’s broader push to connect its youthful population with emerging opportunities in technology, green development and entrepreneurship. A Week Defined by Development and Diplomacy Taken together, the week offered a snapshot of Ethiopia’s increasingly interconnected development agenda. Hosting Africa’s leading health forum reinforced Addis Ababa’s role as a center of continental diplomacy. Discussions over the Abay River highlighted Ethiopia’s determination to expand energy and water-resource development. The pursuit of sea access underscored the economic importance of maritime connectivity, while engagement with Thailand and BRICS demonstrated Ethiopia’s effort to diversify partnerships and mobilize new opportunities for investment, technology and trade. These developments point toward a broader strategic vision in which development, diplomacy and economic integration increasingly reinforce one another. For Ethiopia, the challenge ahead is not simply to pursue national development objectives, but to translate them into platforms for cooperation that can generate benefits beyond its borders. The Abay River can become a foundation for energy and economic transformation; improved maritime connectivity can strengthen regional trade; health cooperation can build continental resilience; and youth investment can drive the next generation of African growth. Ultimately, Ethiopia’s evolving development narrative is increasingly about turning strategic geography and natural resources into engines of economic opportunity—while building partnerships capable of converting regional challenges into shared solutions.

By Staff Writer August 30, 2026 The final week of August was marked by intensifying geopolitical competition, continuing wars, humanitarian emergencies, economic uncertainty and devastating natural disasters. From the Middle East and Europe to Africa, Asia and Latin America, governments confronted a series of crises that demonstrated the increasingly interconnected nature of global security, economics, public health and climate change. The Middle East remained at the center of international attention as the United States intensified economic pressure on Iran while diplomatic efforts continued to ease tensions surrounding the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. In Europe, Russia's-Ukraine war remained intense despite renewed diplomatic contacts involving Washington and Moscow. Africa faced several overlapping challenges, including a worsening Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, continuing conflict and infrastructure destruction in Sudan, and the deepening security and humanitarian crisis in Haiti. In Asia, China and India sought to maintain stability along their disputed border, while China continued to confront economic difficulties and growing international trade pressure. The global economy remained vulnerable to geopolitical developments. Oil markets responded to changing expectations over the situation around Hormuz, while concerns about inflation, debt, trade tensions and monetary policy continued to weigh on governments and investors. At the same time, severe natural disasters highlighted the growing vulnerability of communities to climate related risks. Catastrophic flooding in the Himalayan region caused extensive loss of life and destruction, while rescue teams struggled to reach affected communities. Middle East: Iran Crisis and the Struggle Over Hormuz The Middle East once again dominated the international agenda as the confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran continued to reshape regional security and global energy markets. Washington intensified its economic campaign against Tehran during the week, targeting entities and networks linked to Iran's economy and seeking to discourage other countries from maintaining significant commercial relations with the country. The United States also warned foreign governments and companies that continued economic engagement with Iran could expose them to secondary sanctions. The approach demonstrated Washington's attempt to combine economic pressure with diplomatic and strategic measures. However, Iran rejected the American pressure, describing the sanctions as hostile and insisting that such measures would not force Tehran to abandon its strategic interests. The most immediate international concern remained the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy and shipping corridor. The confrontation has disrupted normal commercial activity in the area and increased the risks and costs associated with transporting energy. Diplomatic efforts continued during the week to reduce tensions and create conditions for shipping to gradually return to normal. Qatar, Pakistan and Oman remained involved in efforts to maintain communication between the parties. The possibility of progress in diplomacy also influenced international energy markets, with oil prices easing as concerns about a prolonged disruption appeared to moderate. However, uncertainty remained because shipping activity through the waterway had not fully returned to normal. The significance of the crisis extends beyond oil. Disruption around Hormuz can increase shipping costs, insurance premiums, fertilizer prices and food costs, potentially adding to inflationary pressure in economies far from the Middle East. The conflict has also affected the strategic calculations of Gulf countries. Months of confrontation have raised questions about existing regional security arrangements and the ability of governments to protect critical infrastructure and international shipping routes. Gaza and the West Bank The humanitarian and security situation in the Palestinian territories remained deeply concerning. Despite efforts to maintain a ceasefire arrangement, violence continued in Gaza and the West Bank. Israeli military operations and clashes demonstrated the fragility of the ceasefire and the difficulty of achieving a lasting reduction in violence. The continuing insecurity has complicated international efforts to stabilize Gaza and establish a longer-term political framework. Disagreements over security, governance, disarmament and the future administration of Gaza continue to obstruct progress toward a durable settlement. In the West Bank, tensions involving Israeli settlers and Palestinian communities added another layer of instability. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned settler violence, while Washington also expressed strong criticism of attacks against Palestinians. The Gaza crisis continues to affect international diplomacy far beyond the Palestinian territories. It remains an important factor in Israel's relations with European governments, Arab states and the wider Muslim world, while also being closely connected to the broader confrontation involving Iran and other regional actors. Europe: Ukraine War and Renewed Diplomatic Contacts Russia's war against Ukraine continued to cause extensive destruction, with Russian missile and drone attacks targeting Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. One of the week's most serious incidents involved a powerful explosion near Kyiv after a Russian strike on an ammunition storage facility. The incident caused significant casualties and damage to nearby structures and prompted Ukrainian authorities to review ammunition storage procedures. The incident came amid continued Russian attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, industrial facilities, ports and logistics centers as Ukraine prepares for another difficult winter. Ukraine also continued attacks against Russian energy and industrial infrastructure. The increasingly reciprocal targeting of economic and logistical facilities demonstrates that both sides are seeking to weaken the other's ability to sustain the war. Yet alongside the fighting, diplomatic activity showed signs of renewed movement. Ukrainian officials indicated that technical discussions could resume, although they cautioned against expecting an immediate breakthrough. Territorial control remains one of the most difficult issues separating Moscow and Kyiv, with Russia continuing to demand territorial concessions that Ukraine rejects. There were also reports of renewed contacts between Washington and Moscow concerning the possibility of high-level negotiations involving the leaders of the United States, Russia and Ukraine. The diplomatic developments have created an unusual contrast. On the battlefield, the conflict remains intense. At the diplomatic level, Washington is exploring possible channels for negotiations. Whether the two tracks can eventually converge remains uncertain. Russia continues to seek territorial concessions and security guarantees, while Ukraine insists on protecting its territorial integrity and obtaining stronger international security assurances. Africa One of Africa's most serious public health emergencies continued to unfold in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an Ebola outbreak has expanded across several areas. The outbreak is particularly difficult to contain because it is occurring in communities affected by insecurity, displacement and limited health infrastructure. virus involved is the Bundibugyo species of Ebola, which presents particular challenges for health authorities because the medical tools available for some other Ebola strains are not directly applicable in the same way. The World Health Organization and African health institutions have intensified surveillance, contact tracing, treatment and community engagement efforts. Health authorities have emphasized that public cooperation is essential to controlling the outbreak. Mistrust, misinformation and insecurity can make it difficult for medical teams to identify cases, trace contacts and provide treatment. The spread of the outbreak also creates concerns for neighboring countries because population movements across borders can facilitate transmission. Uganda has made progress in controlling Ebola transmission, but its proximity to eastern Congo continues to present a risk. Other neighboring countries also face challenges because of population displacement and limited health infrastructure. The Congo outbreak is therefore not simply a national public health emergency. It represents a broader regional health security challenge requiring cooperation among Central and East African countries. Asia China and India took steps to reduce tensions along their disputed Himalayan border. Following high level discussions, the two governments reaffirmed the importance of maintaining peace and stability along the frontier. They also agreed to strengthen communication and continue efforts toward resolving their differences through dialogue. The development is significant because relations between the two Asian powers have been affected by years of border tensions. For Beijing and New Delhi, maintaining stability is increasingly important as both countries seek to concentrate on economic development while expanding their influence in international affairs. China remains one of India's most important economic partners, while India is seeking to strengthen its position in global manufacturing, technology and diplomacy. Improved communication could reduce the possibility of military incidents even though the underlying territorial disagreements remain unresolved. The Global Economy: Energy, Debt and Interest Rates The global economy demonstrated considerable resilience but remained vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. International economic institutions continued to warn that disruptions in energy markets could revive inflationary pressures. A sustained increase in energy prices would make it more difficult for central banks to reduce interest rates and could raise borrowing costs for governments, businesses and households. High public debt, trade tensions and geopolitical uncertainty remain significant risks to the global economic outlook. Central banks therefore face a difficult balancing act. They must contain inflation without weakening economic activity at a time when governments are already carrying heavy debt burdens. Financial markets are closely watching developments in energy markets, interest rates, currencies and international trade. The Iran crisis has demonstrated once again how quickly a regional conflict can become a global economic issue. Japan and the Yen Currency markets also remained under pressure. The Japanese yen continued to trade weakly against the U.S. dollar, raising concerns about the wider effects of currency instability. Japanese authorities have previously taken measures to prevent disorderly movements in the currency, while U.S. officials have warned that sharp fluctuations could create instability in global financial markets. The yen's importance extends beyond Japan because the country is deeply integrated into international financial markets. Major currency movements can affect investment flows, government bond markets and international borrowing conditions. The situation also reflects broader uncertainty over monetary policy in the United States, Japan and Europe. Natural Disasters One of the week's most devastating natural disasters occurred in the Himalayan region along the Nepal China border. A major glacier related flood triggered destructive flows of water, mud and debris, causing widespread damage and loss of life. Communities were cut off as landslides destroyed roads and damaged infrastructure. Rescue operations were complicated by unstable terrain, continuing rainfall and difficult mountain conditions. Hydropower infrastructure was also affected, while some people were believed to have become trapped in tunnels connected to development projects. China and Nepal mobilized rescue teams and requested additional technical assistance as authorities attempted to reach isolated communities and identify missing people. The disaster has renewed concerns about the vulnerability of Himalayan communities to glacier instability and climate change. Mountain regions are particularly exposed to sudden flooding, landslides and other hazards associated with changing temperatures and unstable glacial systems. The tragedy also demonstrates how climate related disasters are increasingly connected to infrastructure, food security, energy supply and regional development. Climate and Environmental Pressure The week also highlighted the broader climate pressures facing different parts of the world. Wildfires, heatwaves, floods and extreme weather events continue to place pressure on governments and emergency services across Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. Developing countries face particular difficulties because their emergency response systems often have fewer resources and their populations may have less capacity to recover from disasters. Climate change is also placing growing pressure on agriculture, water resources and public health. For Africa, the combination of conflict, food insecurity and climate shocks presents especially serious risks. Drought, flooding and extreme heat can quickly transform local economic difficulties into humanitarian emergencies. The challenge for governments is therefore not simply responding to individual disasters but strengthening resilience before disasters occur. International Trade and the G20 Global economic diplomacy is receiving greater attention as governments prepare for discussions under the G20 framework. Issues including global growth, trade imbalances, sovereign debt, supply chains and access to critical resources are expected to remain central to international economic discussions. The meetings come at a time when economic relations are increasingly influenced by geopolitical competition. The United States is pushing for what it describes as fair competition and more balanced trade relations. China faces criticism over its export driven economic model, while Europe is concerned about competitiveness, energy security and its economic relationship with Washington. Developing countries are seeking greater access to markets, investment, technology and affordable financing. The central question is whether the G20 can continue to provide a platform for cooperation at a time when major powers are increasingly pursuing competing economic and strategic interests. Technology and Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence remained an important driver of the global economy. Investment in AI infrastructure, advanced computing and robotics continued to expand even as some traditional manufacturing sectors faced difficulties. The United States remains a major center of AI investment, while China is rapidly expanding its capabilities in artificial intelligence, robotics and advanced manufacturing. China's robotics industry received particular attention during the week as Beijing hosted a major international robotics event showcasing advances in automation and industrial technology. The competition over AI is increasingly connected to semiconductor production, electricity generation, data centers and national security. Governments increasingly view advanced computing as a strategic asset rather than simply a commercial technology. This is creating a new form of international competition in which economic policy, industrial policy, technological development and national security are becoming increasingly interconnected. Latin America: Venezuela Latin America witnessed significant political and economic developments during the week, with an emerging energy relationship between Venezuela and the United States standing out as one of the most consequential. Washington’s reported agreement to give American companies a major role in developing Venezuela’s oil resources could mark a significant shift in relations between the two countries and open a new phase of economic engagement. The development comes as Venezuela seeks to revive its oil industry after years of underinvestment, economic difficulties, international sanctions, political instability and deteriorating infrastructure. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has struggled to maintain production capacity and fully capitalize on its petroleum resources. If implemented successfully, greater involvement by U.S. companies could bring much needed investment, technology and technical expertise to Venezuela’s energy sector. A recovery in Venezuelan oil production could also increase supplies to international markets and contribute to greater flexibility in global energy trade. For Washington, the arrangement carries both economic and strategic significance. Additional Venezuelan oil supplies could provide an alternative source of crude at a time when global energy markets remain vulnerable to disruptions linked to conflicts and instability in the Middle East. Closer energy ties with Caracas could also give the United States greater influence over Venezuela’s economic trajectory and its engagement with the wider Western Hemisphere. For Venezuela, renewed access to Western investment and technology could accelerate the rehabilitation of its petroleum infrastructure, increase export earnings and provide additional government revenue. However, the prospects for a sustained recovery will depend on political stability, the legal and regulatory framework governing foreign investment, sanctions policy and the ability of companies to rebuild production infrastructure that has deteriorated over many years. The development also has wider geopolitical implications. Venezuela has maintained close economic and political relationships with countries such as China and Russia. A stronger economic relationship with the United States could therefore alter Venezuela’s external partnerships and influence the broader balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. The emerging U.S. Venezuela energy relationship nevertheless faces considerable uncertainties. Questions remain over the implementation of the agreement, the scale and speed of potential investment, the future of sanctions and Venezuela’s domestic political environment. Restoring the country’s oil industry to substantially higher production levels will also require significant capital, infrastructure rehabilitation and sustained technical investment. Beyond Venezuela, Latin American governments continued to confront a range of longstanding challenges, including migration, organized crime, economic inequality, weak institutions and political polarization. Haiti’s worsening security situation remained a major regional concern, while governments across the continent continued to balance domestic economic pressures with demands for greater social stability and public security. The developments underscore the increasingly interconnected nature of Latin America’s political, economic and energy affairs. Venezuela’s oil recovery, in particular, could have consequences extending beyond its borders, affecting regional diplomacy, U.S. energy policy and global oil markets. Conclusion The final week of August offered little evidence that the world's major crises are nearing resolution. Instead, it revealed a global system under simultaneous pressure from war, economic rivalry, humanitarian emergencies, public health threats and climate related disasters. Yet there were also signs of diplomacy and cooperation. China and India renewed efforts to stabilize their border relationship. International mediators continued working to reduce tensions around Hormuz. Washington explored renewed diplomatic contacts over Ukraine. International health organizations intensified efforts to contain Ebola in Congo. Rescue teams in the Himalayan region continued working to reach communities affected by catastrophic flooding. The central challenge for the international community is therefore not simply to manage individual crises but to prevent them from reinforcing one another. Energy insecurity can deepen inflation. Inflation can increase social pressure. War can disrupt food and energy supplies. Climate disasters can intensify displacement. Displacement can place additional pressure on fragile states. Weak institutions can make countries more vulnerable to armed groups, disease and economic shocks. The events of this week demonstrate that the global order is entering a period in which security, economics, health, climate and technology are increasingly inseparable. As September begins, the direction of major conflicts and diplomatic initiatives will determine whether the international community moves toward greater stability or faces another period of escalation. Sources: The roundup draws on reporting and background information from Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, France 24, DW, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Financial Times, Bloomberg, CNBC, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal.

By Tewodros Habenom August 29, 2026 For more than a decade, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has stood at the center of one of Africa’s most consequential geopolitical and hydropower shifts. Yet reducing Egypt’s unfounded propaganda against Ethiopia over water risks missing a larger and increasingly important story. Egypt’s opposition to Ethiopia’s development of the Abay (Nile) River did not begin with the GERD, and Cairo’s latest escalation about Ethiopia’s plans to develop additional water infrastructure cannot be understood in isolation. They form part of a broader strategic contest involving water security, regional influence, the Red Sea, Ethiopia’s internal politics and the shifting balance of power in the Horn of Africa. The central question, therefore, is no longer simply how the two countries should manage the Nile. It is whether a dispute over a river is gradually becoming a wider struggle over Ethiopia’s strategic choices and regional position. A dispute that escaped the negotiating table The most revealing evidence that the dispute has long extended beyond technical questions of water came into public view in 2013. During a meeting chaired by then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to discuss the GERD crisis, several Egyptian political figures were inadvertently heard discussing possible ways of pressuring Ethiopia. The meeting was being broadcast live, apparently without all participants realizing that their comments were on air. The statements were extraordinary. Younis Makhyoun, then head of Egypt’s Al-Nour Party, suggested supporting Ethiopian opposition movements as a means of putting pressure on Addis Ababa. He specifically referred to the Oromo Liberation Front and the Ogaden National Liberation Front. He also discussed strengthening Egypt’s relations with Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti and viewing those relationships as potential pressure points against Ethiopia. Ayman Nour, then head of the Ghad al-Thawra Party, went even further. He advocated a political and intelligence presence capable of engaging with Ethiopia’s internal affairs and argued that relations with Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti could constitute an important card for pressuring the giant East African nation. Contemporary reporting recorded his call for political, intelligence and military teams to operate in Ethiopia. These were not diplomatic communiqués. Nor should statements by individual politicians automatically be treated as proof of a formal, enduring Egyptian state policy. But their significance cannot simply be dismissed. They exposed, in unusually direct fashion, the thinking circulating within an influential segment of Egypt’s political establishment at one of the most sensitive moments in the GERD dispute. The world did not learn about these ideas through leaked intelligence documents or diplomatic speculation. It heard them on live television. From water politics to pressure politics What makes the 2013 episode particularly important today is the logic behind the proposals. The discussion was not limited to negotiating the operation of a dam. It included internal Ethiopian political dynamics, neighboring states, intelligence capabilities and even the possibility of military pressure. Makhyoun referred to Ethiopian opposition groups as potential “pressure cards,” while contemporary accounts reported discussion of using intelligence capabilities against the dam if other options failed. Nour, meanwhile, proposed creating the perception that Egypt was preparing for military action as a means of intensifying pressure on Ethiopia. Yet Egypt has never tested Ethiopia through direct military confrontation. The military option remains a dead end for Cairo, constrained by Ethiopia’s geography, strategic depth and military capabilities. Taken together, the remarks revealed a broader conception of the dispute: pressure could potentially be applied not only through diplomacy, but also through Ethiopia’s internal political vulnerabilities and its regional environment. That distinction matters. A disagreement between two sovereign states over the management of a transboundary river belongs at the negotiating table. Efforts to manipulate a country’s internal political divisions or transform neighboring states into instruments of strategic pressure belong to a fundamentally different category. This is precisely why the 2013 episode remains relevant. The Horn of Africa has changed—and so has the battlefield More than a decade later, the geopolitical landscape surrounding Ethiopia has become considerably more complicated. The Nile dispute now intersects with Red Sea security, Ethiopia’s pursuit of maritime access, the conflict in Sudan, Somalia’s security concerns and competition for influence across the Horn of Africa. Egypt’s relations with countries surrounding Ethiopia have also become more strategically significant. In June 2026, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi received Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki in Cairo, with the two sides discussing bilateral cooperation, Sudan and coordination on Red Sea security. Egypt and Eritrea have subsequently continued consultations on their strategic partnership and regional security. When today’s regional alignments are viewed alongside the strategic thinking publicly articulated during the 2013 GERD crisis, a legitimate question emerges: Is Cairo’s strategy fundamentally about water interests—or is it increasingly about managing Ethiopia’s growing regional influence? That question has become more relevant as competition over the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa intensifies. Recent regional analysis has noted that Egypt’s concerns now extend beyond the Nile to Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions, regional partnerships and expanding geopolitical role. In July 2026, consultations involving Egypt, Somalia, Eritrea and the United States also highlighted the increasingly interconnected nature of Red Sea security, Ethiopia’s regional ambitions and broader Horn of Africa competition. Ethiopia’s rise changes the calculation There is another reality that Cairo must confront. Ethiopia today is not the Ethiopia of previous decades. The GERD itself has become a symbol of this transformation. For Ethiopia, the project is not simply an electricity-generating facility. It represents a national effort to mobilize domestic resources, expand energy production and demonstrate that a major African development project can be financed and built through national determination. That transformation has altered the political psychology surrounding the Nile. Ethiopia is increasingly asserting that development, sovereignty and regional economic integration cannot be subordinated indefinitely to downstream preferences. This does not mean Ethiopia has no responsibility toward downstream countries. It does. As an upstream country, Ethiopia has demonstrated its commitment to the sustainable and equitable use of shared water resources, maintained communication with downstream states, and acted with due regard for the interests of downstream countries. But responsibility does not mean surrendering sovereign rights. Ethiopia does not need Cairo’s permission to develop projects on Ethiopian soil, just as Egypt does not require Addis Ababa’s permission to develop its own territory. Ethiopia’s responsibility is cooperation. Not submission. The line is crossed when Egypt’s water concerns are transformed into an entitlement to dictate what Ethiopia can build, where it can build it, or how it can use its own natural resources. Abay (Nile) is a shared resource. But Ethiopia’s territory, sovereignty and right to development are not Egyptian possessions. Cooperation requires mutual respect; it cannot mean Ethiopia develops only when Cairo approves. The question Cairo must answer If Cairo’s case is truly about water, why does it increasingly look like a struggle for political leverage over Ethiopia? And if Cairo’s objective is stability in the Horn of Africa, how can the region achieve lasting peace if neighboring states increasingly view one another through the lens of containment and strategic rivalry? These are not questions directed against the Egyptian people. Ethiopians and Egyptians have centuries of historical, cultural and human connections. The two societies have far more reasons to cooperate than to become permanent adversaries. The real issue is not the GERD alone. But it is a decades-old strategic logic of confrontation against Ethiopia embedded in Egyptian political thinking—a pattern that has repeatedly treated pressure, regional alliances and political leverage as instruments for containing Ethiopia’s rise. A dangerous cycle for the Horn The greatest danger is that Abay (Nile) dispute becomes a gateway into a much wider regional confrontation. The Horn of Africa is already one of the world’s most strategically sensitive regions. It sits alongside the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, through which critical global trade routes pass. It is also affected by conflicts in Sudan and Somalia, unresolved regional rivalries and growing competition over ports, maritime access and security partnerships. Adding Egypt’s reckless proxy strategy to an already fragile regional environment carries risks far beyond the borders of the two countries. A strategy of containment could produce the opposite of its intended outcome. Instead of forcing Ethiopia to abandon its development ambitions, it could encourage Addis Ababa to deepen strategic partnerships elsewhere, accelerate efforts to diversify its regional relationships and adopt an even more security-oriented approach to its foreign policy. That would make compromise harder—not easier. Ethiopia cannot be treated as a pressure card The central lesson of the 2013 episode is therefore not simply that Egyptian politicians once discussed aggressive measures against Ethiopia. It is that the idea of influencing Ethiopia through its internal vulnerabilities and regional surroundings was publicly articulated at a critical moment in the Nile dispute. That history deserves to be remembered—not to perpetuate hostility, but to prevent the repetition of a dangerous logic. Ethiopia’s internal political affairs belong to Ethiopians. Its development choices belong to its sovereign institutions and people. And its relationships with neighboring countries cannot legitimately be transformed into a permanent geopolitical battlefield. The answer to pressure should not be escalation. It should be strategic confidence, diplomacy and regional engagement. Beyond the GERD: Abandon the Politics of Fear and Pressure Egypt has no reason to fear Ethiopia’s development. Thus, Egypt should stop treating Ethiopia’s development as one. Ethiopia has repeatedly demonstrated maximum generosity and a willingness to negotiate under the African Union-led framework, grounded in a simple principle: "African solutions to African problems" What is needed is not pressure, proxy competition, or regional maneuvering, but dialogue, transparency, mutual respect and genuine African-led solutions. Egypt must abandon the outdated assumption that political pressure can dictate Ethiopia’s strategic choices or produce a sustainable outcome. Rather than turning the Horn of Africa into a geopolitical chessboard, Egypt should choose cooperation over confrontation and dialogue over destabilizing regional competition. The consequences of continued brinkmanship will ultimately be borne by the people of the region. GERD was built as a development project. But politically, it has become something far greater: a symbol of Ethiopia’s determination to control its own development, pursue its national interests and shape its own future. That reality cannot be negotiated away through pressure, threats or alliances forged beyond Ethiopia’s borders. Nor can Ethiopia’s future be written in Cairo or in any other capital, without Ethiopia at the table. The era when Ethiopia’s strategic choices could be dictated from outside its borders is over. Egypt’s choice is now clear: negotiate with Ethiopia as an equal partner—or remain trapped in a politics of fear that cannot stop Ethiopia’s rise. Egypt’s choice is now clear: negotiate with Ethiopia as an equal partner—or remain trapped in a politics of fear that cannot stop Ethiopia’s rise.

By Staff Writer August 23, 2026 Global affairs this week were dominated by the continuing US-Iran conflict, growing uncertainty over the Strait of Hormuz, the unresolved Gaza war, renewed fighting in Ukraine and worsening humanitarian pressures across Africa. At the same time, heightened risks around the world's major maritime chokepoints continued to raise concerns over oil supplies, shipping costs, inflation and the resilience of global trade. The crises are increasingly interconnected. Developments in the Middle East are affecting energy markets and maritime transport, while the wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to reshape military alliances and diplomatic relations. In Africa, conflict, food insecurity and climate pressures are compounding one another, creating new challenges for governments and humanitarian organizations. Middle East The confrontation between the United States and Iran remained one of the most consequential developments of the week, with diplomacy struggling to keep pace with escalating economic and military pressure. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian defended a memorandum of understanding with Washington as a possible route out of the stalled conflict. He said an agreement could provide a basis for resolving the confrontation and easing the economic pressure that has intensified under US sanctions and restrictions on Iranian trade. At the same time, Iranian officials have continued to reject what they describe as attempts to force Tehran into submission. Iran's new security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, adopted a more confrontational position, warning Gulf countries against assisting US economic measures against Iran. His remarks have heightened concern that the conflict could expand beyond direct US Iranian confrontation and draw additional regional states into the crisis. The economic consequences inside Iran are also becoming increasingly visible. The Iranian rial has fallen sharply, with reports this week putting the open market exchange rate at around two million rials to the US dollar. The currency collapse reflects the severe pressure created by the war, sanctions and disruption to Iran's external economic relations. Strait of Hormuz Becomes A Major Global Economic Concern The Strait of Hormuz remained at the center of international concern because of its importance to global energy supplies. Any prolonged interruption of shipping through the narrow waterway could affect oil exports from the Gulf and increase costs for countries dependent on imported energy. Oil prices rose for a second consecutive week as the conflict continued to threaten supplies and US President Donald Trump warned of sanctions against countries trading with Iran. The implications extend well beyond the Middle East. Higher oil prices can increase transportation and production costs, raise consumer prices and complicate efforts by central banks to control inflation. A prolonged disruption could therefore turn a regional security crisis into a wider global economic shock. Diplomatic efforts have continued alongside attempts by governments and companies to find alternative routes and reduce exposure to the chokepoint. But the strategic importance of Hormuz means that there is no easy substitute for the volume of energy and maritime trade normally passing through the waterway. Gaza Crisis Continues The Gaza conflict remained unresolved despite continued diplomatic efforts. Israel has rejected the US backed 15-point proposal intended to establish a pathway toward ending the war, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintaining that Israel will not accept arrangements that leave Hamas armed or require an Israeli withdrawal under terms his government considers unacceptable. The disagreement has exposed a significant gap between Washington's diplomatic initiative and the Israeli government's position. While the US plan has sought to establish a framework for ending the conflict, Israel has continued to emphasize the dismantling of Hamas's military capabilities and its own security requirements. The continuing dispute has also complicated wider regional diplomacy. Egypt has remained involved in efforts to advance negotiations, while US envoys have continued consultations with regional governments. Meanwhile, the humanitarian consequences of the war remain severe. Continued military operations, displacement and restrictions on essential supplies have kept Gaza's humanitarian situation at the center of international concern. The failure to secure a durable ceasefire means that the conflict continues to pose risks not only to Palestinians and Israelis but also to wider regional stability. Red Sea Security Remains Fragile Security in the Red Sea and around Yemen deteriorated further this week as Houthi forces increased their military activity against Saudi and maritime targets. The Houthis have claimed dozens of operations against Saudi targets over the past month, while reports indicate that attacks have also affected commercial shipping. Four sailors were killed in a recent Houthi missile attack on a commercial vessel, highlighting the continuing danger faced by international crews operating in the region. The escalation comes as fighting between the Houthis and Yemen's internationally recognized government has also intensified. The situation is particularly significant for global trade because the Red Sea connects the Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean. Continued insecurity around the Bab el Mandeb Strait can force ships to take longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing fuel consumption, insurance costs and delivery times. The simultaneous instability around the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea creates an especially serious strategic problem. Hormuz is central to global energy shipments, while Bab el Mandeb is a major gateway for trade between Asia and Europe. Disruption at both points could place substantial pressure on international supply chains. Russia-Ukraine War The Russia Ukraine war remained intense, with heavy attacks continuing while diplomatic prospects remained uncertain. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that he sees a potentially important diplomatic window stretching from the US G20 summit later this year into the summer of 2027. His remarks indicate that Kyiv continues to view negotiations as possible but not necessarily imminent. At the same time, the military situation remains highly volatile. Zelenskyy said Russia is preparing to expand its military manpower and could draft an additional 300,000 troops after parliamentary elections scheduled for September. He also warned that Moscow could pursue a broader mobilization in the following year. Russia has continued missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian targets, while Ukraine has expanded its own drone strikes against Russian infrastructure and economic facilities. The growing use of long-range drones and missiles is increasingly pushing the conflict beyond traditional front lines. Western military support remains another major issue. Ukraine faces shortages of air defense systems, particularly Patriot interceptors, as Russian missile attacks increase. France and Germany have been working to strengthen Ukraine's air defense capabilities ahead of the winter period. The conflict therefore remains both a battlefield confrontation and a broader contest involving European security, defense spending, energy supplies and relations between Russia and Western countries. Global Economy and Energy Energy security remained one of the most important economic issues of the week. Oil prices increased as the US Iran conflict threatened supplies and uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continued. Brent and US crude futures recorded weekly gains as markets assessed the possibility of prolonged disruption. The economic effects could extend well beyond the energy sector. Higher crude prices increase the cost of transportation, electricity generation and industrial production. They can also raise the cost of food because agriculture, processing and distribution all depend heavily on energy. For central banks, the situation presents a difficult policy dilemma. A geopolitical energy shock can push inflation higher at a time when policymakers may already be seeking to reduce interest rates. If the shock persists, governments could face renewed pressure to subsidize fuel, support vulnerable households or intervene in strategic supply chains. Global shipping is also under pressure. If vessels continue avoiding major conflict zones, longer routes will increase fuel consumption, insurance premiums and delivery times. These costs ultimately affect manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Technology and Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence remained a major area of economic and strategic competition. The global AI race is increasingly extending beyond the development of individual applications toward control of computing infrastructure, advanced semiconductors, data centers and large-scale AI models. Nvidia is preparing to report its latest earnings on August 26, an event that financial markets are closely watching because of the company's central role in supplying advanced chips for AI systems. The company's strategic ambitions are also expanding. Nvidia announced a $6 billion investment deal involving AI startup Poolside, aimed at developing advanced open weight AI models and strengthening US competitiveness against rapidly developing Chinese AI systems. The competition is therefore increasingly linked to national security. The United States and China are competing not only over AI software but also over semiconductor manufacturing, computing capacity and access to advanced technologies. For developing countries, the expanding AI economy presents both opportunities and risks. Access to affordable computing and digital infrastructure could accelerate development, while unequal access to advanced technology could widen the digital divide. Climate and Food Security Climate risks remained closely connected to food security, water availability and humanitarian conditions. The World Meteorological Organization said this month that a strong El Niño is developing and is expected to intensify during August to October. The phenomenon is likely to influence global rainfall and temperature patterns, with above normal temperatures expected across much of the world. For the Greater Horn of Africa, the picture is more complicated. WMO reported this week that El Niño is expected to contribute to warmer and wetter than normal conditions during the final quarter of 2026. ICPAC, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre, forecasts a 90 percent likelihood of enhanced rainfall over southern Ethiopia, central and southern Somalia and northeastern Kenya. However, the regional outlook is not uniform. ICPAC forecasts wetter than normal conditions in parts of the eastern Horn while expecting drier than normal conditions across parts of South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, western Kenya, northern Tanzania and Rwanda during August to October. Most of the region is also expected to experience above normal temperatures. These contrasting conditions increase the need for early warning and preparedness. Heavy rainfall can increase the risk of flooding and displacement, while dry conditions in other areas can threaten agriculture, livestock and water supplies. The broader food security picture remains particularly worrying in conflict affected parts of Africa, where climate shocks are occurring alongside displacement, damaged agricultural systems and reduced humanitarian funding. Global Outlook The week's developments demonstrate how closely connected today's global crises have become. The US Iran conflict is no longer only a Middle Eastern security issue. Its effects are being transmitted through oil markets, maritime transport, financial markets and global supply chains. At the same time, the Red Sea remains vulnerable to attacks that could disrupt one of the world's most important commercial corridors. The Russia Ukraine war continues to reshape European security and military policy, while the Gaza conflict remains a major source of regional instability. In Africa, Sudan's war, Sahel insecurity and food crises are interacting with climate pressures to create a complex humanitarian emergency. The coming weeks will therefore be closely watched on several fronts. The immediate priority will be whether diplomatic efforts can prevent further escalation between Washington and Tehran and restore stability around the Strait of Hormuz. Developments in Gaza and the Red Sea will also determine whether pressure on regional trade routes intensifies. Beyond the immediate conflicts, markets will be watching oil prices, inflation and global shipping costs. Technology markets will focus on Nvidia's earnings and the continuing US China AI competition, while governments in climate vulnerable regions will prepare for the effects of a strengthening El Niño. Taken together, these developments point to a global environment in which security, trade, energy, technology, climate and humanitarian issues are increasingly interconnected. A crisis in one strategic region can rapidly produce economic and political consequences far beyond its original borders. Note: This analysis was compiled from reports and updates published during the week by Reuters, The Associated Press (AP), Agence France-Presse (AFP), BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, the Financial Times, The Economist, Africanews and other leading international media outlets.

Staff Writer August 23, 2026 National Dialogue reaches a historic milestone as Ethiopia reasserts its sovereign right to develop the Abay, while diplomacy, security and strategic partnerships reinforce the country’s growing regional profile. The past week marked a defining chapter for Ethiopia, one shaped by historic political dialogue at home and an increasingly assertive posture on the regional and international stage. After 40 days of intensive deliberations involving nearly 4,000 Ethiopians from diverse backgrounds, the National Dialogue Conference concluded in Addis Ababa with approximately 400 recommendations addressing some of the country’s most pressing political, social and institutional challenges. At the same time, Ethiopia strongly reaffirmed its sovereign right to utilize its water resources, pushing back against criticism over plans to develop additional dams on the Abay (Nile) River. The message from Addis Ababa was unequivocal: Ethiopia will develop its resources to meet its national needs while pursuing cooperation with fellow Nile Basin countries.   Beyond these two defining developments, Ethiopia remained in the international spotlight through high-level engagement on security, diplomacy, regional affairs and strategic partnerships. National Dialogue: From Differences to a Search for Common Ground The conclusion of Ethiopia’s National Dialogue represented a significant milestone in the country’s attempt to address longstanding challenges through a nationally driven process. For 40 days, participants from different regions, political, social and professional backgrounds listened to competing perspectives, debated difficult questions and sought common ground. The process culminated in nearly 400 recommendations intended to contribute to a more peaceful, inclusive and stable Ethiopia.   The closing ceremony brought together senior government officials, former presidents, religious leaders, national figures and international guests, underlining the wider significance attached to the process. Former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta described the dialogue as an important opportunity for Ethiopians to turn the country’s diversity into a source of strength and make inclusive dialogue a foundation for lasting peace and prosperity. He praised the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission for bringing thousands of voices together, calling the initiative an “act of patriotism of the highest order.” Kenyatta also placed Ethiopia’s experience within a broader African context, recalling the country’s historic role in the continent’s political consciousness—from the victory at Adwa to Emperor Haile Selassie’s international leadership and Addis Ababa’s role in the establishment of the Organization of African Unity.   But he also stressed that lasting peace requires reaching those who remain outside the process. “Your peace is not a favor. Your peace is the condition of your own rest, and our peace is a condition for all of us in our region,” he said, linking Ethiopia’s stability directly to peace and security across the Horn of Africa. Former Nigerian President and African Union High Representative Olusegun Obasanjo likewise described Ethiopia’s National Dialogue as historic and potentially exemplary for the rest of Africa. Congratulating Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the National Dialogue Commission, Obasanjo said the ultimate objective of the process should be lasting peace, security and stability—conditions he described as essential for development and national growth.   “Peace is so important and it is worth giving everything,” he stressed, noting that preparations for the dialogue had taken four years. With its 40-day deliberations and thousands of participants, the process, he said, was “a serious and great undertaking” and “an example for the rest of us in Africa.” Abay: Ethiopia Draws a Clear Line on Sovereign Resource Development While the National Dialogue focused on finding common ground within Ethiopia, the country delivered an equally firm message abroad over the utilization of its water resources. Ethiopia has reaffirmed plans to develop additional dams on the Abay River, triggering strong reactions from Egypt and once again placing the Nile at the center of regional attention. Water and Energy Minister Habtamu Itefa made Ethiopia’s position clear: the country does not require permission from another state to develop its own water resources. “Ethiopia is a sovereign country,” the Minister said, pointing to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam as an example of the country’s determination to pursue its development priorities.   In an exclusive interview with Pulse of Africa, Habtamu said the GERD was built primarily for electricity generation and is already contributing hydropower to Ethiopia while creating opportunities for regional energy cooperation. He categorically rejected proposals for joint management of the dam, arguing that Ethiopia would not accept arrangements that could give another country control over infrastructure built and financed by Ethiopians. “How come any entity asks to jointly manage the dam built by Ethiopians. This is impossible and unacceptable,” he underscored. Ethiopia’s broader position is that Nile Basin countries should pursue negotiation, cooperation and equitable development rather than arrangements that restrict Ethiopia’s ability to utilize its water resources. For Addis Ababa, the issue is ultimately tied to development: expanding electricity access for its population, generating economic opportunities and exporting power to neighboring countries. The Abay, therefore, is not simply a waterway in Ethiopia’s development discourse. It has become a central symbol of the country’s pursuit of energy security, economic transformation and sovereign decision-making. A Stronger Security Partnership with the United States   Ethiopia’s strategic engagement also expanded on the security front. A high-level Ethiopian delegation led by Major General Teshome Gemechu, Director General of Foreign Relations and Military Cooperation at the Ministry of Defense, visited the United States from August 19–20. During consultations at the Pentagon, Ethiopian officials met with senior U.S. defense and diplomatic officials to discuss bilateral security and defense cooperation. The talks, co-led with U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of War for African Affairs Brian J. Ellis, resulted in an agreement to elevate military and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries to a new level. The development signals Ethiopia’s interest in strengthening strategic partnerships at a time when security dynamics across the Horn of Africa and the wider Red Sea region are rapidly evolving. Ethiopia–China Ties: From Partnership to Strategic Alignment China also remained central to Ethiopia’s international engagement. Chinese Ambassador to Ethiopia Chen Hai described the two countries’ all-weather strategic partnership as a cornerstone of efforts to build a community with a shared future between China and Africa. In an exclusive interview with ENA, Ambassador Chen said the relationship had moved beyond traditional diplomacy, evolving into a broad partnership based on political trust, economic cooperation and mutual support.   “China and Ethiopia support each other politically and economically,” he said, emphasizing closer coordination to deliver benefits to both peoples. The partnership also carries significance beyond bilateral relations. Ethiopia’s role as a major African diplomatic center and China’s expanding engagement across the continent give the relationship wider implications for Africa-China cooperation. A Week That Signals a More Assertive Ethiopia Taken together, the week’s developments point to an Ethiopia seeking to balance national reconciliation at home with greater strategic confidence abroad. The conclusion of the National Dialogue offered a platform for Ethiopians to confront difficult questions through dialogue and compromise. The firm position on the Abay demonstrated Addis Ababa’s determination to defend its development interests and sovereign rights. Meanwhile, renewed engagement with the United States and China showed Ethiopia’s continuing effort to diversify and deepen strategic partnerships. The common thread is clear: Ethiopia is seeking greater national consensus, greater control over its development choices and a stronger voice in shaping the political and strategic future of the Horn of Africa. The coming months will reveal Ethiopia’s increasingly assertive approach to its resources, security and diplomacy can help reshape its role in the region. For a country at the crossroads of the Nile Basin, the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, last week was more than a sequence of major events. It was a week that underscored Ethiopia’s determination to define its future on its own terms while remaining a consequential actor in Africa and beyond.

It Is Time to Stop Pretending Ethiopia Has No Stake in the Red Sea By Yordanos D. August 22, 2026 The strategic importance of Ethiopia’s maritime question has become increasingly difficult to separate from the wider security crisis unfolding across the Middle East, the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Recent disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated how quickly instability at a single maritime chokepoint can affect energy prices, shipping networks, insurance markets, supply chains and consumers thousands of kilometres away. These developments offer a wider lesson: maritime chokepoints are not simply geographical passages. They are arteries of the global economy. When their security deteriorates, the consequences can spread rapidly across continents. This raises a critical question for the Horn of Africa: what would happen if prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz were accompanied by a major disruption at Bab el Mandeb? The consequences could be severe. Hormuz is vital to the movement of energy from the Persian Gulf, while Bab el Mandeb connects the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, forming a crucial trade route between Asia and Europe. A simultaneous disruption at both chokepoints could force ships to choose between navigating dangerous waters and taking substantially longer routes around Africa. The resulting increase in fuel consumption, insurance costs, freight rates and transit times could create another major shock to global trade.   It is against this backdrop that Ethiopia’s pursuit of reliable access to the Red Sea assumes significance far beyond its own commercial interests. For a country of more than 130 million people, secure maritime access is an economic necessity. But Ethiopia’s return to the Red Sea could also have broader implications for regional connectivity, maritime security, investment and the resilience of international trade. Let us break down the calculus. The central question, therefore, is not simply whether Ethiopia should regain access to the sea. It is whether a stable and legally negotiated Ethiopian maritime presence could become part of a broader regional system capable of protecting one of the world’s most important trade corridors. Let us break down the strategic calculus. Hormuz and Rising Cost of Global Maritime The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz is enormous. In the first half of 2025, about 20.9 million barrels of oil and petroleum liquids per day passed through the strait, equivalent to roughly one fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption and about one quarter of global maritime oil trade. The strait also carries substantial volumes of liquefied natural gas, making it one of the world’s most important energy corridors. The disruption of these flows illustrates the vulnerability created by such dependence. By the second quarter of 2026, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that oil flows through Hormuz had fallen sharply compared with 2025 levels, reflecting the impact of regional conflict and maritime restrictions. Oil prices have responded to the uncertainty. Brent crude reached about $91.62 per barrel on August 19, 2026, and remained above $93 per barrel on August 21 amid continuing concerns over supply disruptions. The lesson is clear: instability at a strategically located maritime chokepoint can increase the cost of energy, transportation and insurance almost immediately. The significance of Hormuz, however, cannot be understood only through oil prices. The strait is embedded in a wider commercial system that connects energy producers in the Gulf with consumers across Asia, Europe and other regions. Any prolonged disruption can therefore generate secondary effects across manufacturing, transportation, electricity generation and food production.   Bab el Mandeb: The Other Critical Gateway Bab el Mandeb connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean. Together with the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, it forms part of one of the world’s most important maritime corridors linking Asia and Europe. When vessels cannot safely navigate the Red Sea, many are forced to travel around the Cape of Good Hope. The longer route requires more fuel, crew time and vessel capacity and significantly increases voyage times. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, disruptions around Bab el Mandeb or the Suez Canal can force ships onto the longer southern African route, increasing freight rates and shipping costs. Container ships carrying manufactured goods, bulk carriers transporting commodities, tankers carrying petroleum products and vessels carrying agricultural inputs can all be affected. A ship that spends several additional weeks at sea is also unavailable for another shipment during that period. Consequently, effective global shipping capacity can decline even when factories, warehouses and ports remain operational. The world has already experienced this problem following attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, which prompted major shipping companies to divert vessels around Africa. The resulting increase in voyage distances and transit times demonstrated how quickly maritime insecurity can spread through freight markets, supply chains and consumer prices. For Africa, the implications are particularly serious. Many countries depend on imported fuel, fertilizers, machinery, food and manufactured products. Higher shipping costs can therefore translate into higher domestic prices and increased pressure on foreign exchange reserves. The Dual Chokepoint Crisis A simultaneous or successive disruption of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb would transform two regional security problems into a potentially much larger global maritime crisis. Hormuz is principally critical for Gulf energy exports, while Bab el Mandeb is a key gateway for commercial vessels moving between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. If both were seriously disrupted, shipping companies could face a difficult choice between navigating insecure waters and taking dramatically longer alternative routes. Freight rates and insurance premiums could rise sharply. European manufacturers could experience delays in receiving Asian components and finished products, while Asian exporters could face higher costs in reaching European and North African markets. African economies would also be exposed because many depend heavily on imported fuel, fertilizers, machinery, food and manufactured goods. Governments could require more foreign currency to purchase the same volume of imports, while businesses could pass higher transportation, insurance and energy costs on to consumers. Recent shipping data further illustrates the sensitivity of the two corridors to regional insecurity. Reuters reported that only nine commodity vessels passed through the Strait of Hormuz on both August 18 and 19, 2026, while traffic through Bab el Mandeb fell from 32 to 27 vessels over the same period. By August 21, Reuters reported that Hormuz traffic had fallen further to seven commodity vessels, while Bab el Mandeb recorded 23 vessels. These figures do not establish that either waterway has been permanently closed. They do, however, demonstrate how quickly geopolitical uncertainty can change commercial shipping behaviour. Even without a formal blockade, heightened security risks can discourage operators, increase insurance costs and force vessels onto longer routes. A prolonged disruption at both chokepoints would therefore be more than a regional maritime crisis. It could become a major shock to global energy markets, international trade and supply chains.   Egypt’s Spoiler Role in Both Horn Africa and Red Sea Region Evidently, Egypt’s destabilizing activities in the Horn of Africa can be examined historically through its security and political engagement with countries surrounding Ethiopia. Its growing military cooperation with Somalia has particular strategic significance because Somalia lies close to the Bab el Mandeb, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints. The deployment or potential deployment of Egyptian military forces in Somalia could intensify strategic rivalry with Ethiopia and contribute to the militarization of an already fragile security environment. Egypt’s close political and security alignment with Sudan’s military establishment is another source of regional concern. The continuing war in Sudan has weakened state institutions, expanded armed networks and generated displacement and instability across the region. External military and political involvement risks prolonging the conflict and creating additional security pressures along Ethiopia’s western frontier and the Red Sea. A prolonged crisis in Sudan, where Egypt is behind this ongoing catastrophic civil war, could also create wider instability across the Horn, disrupting trade routes and increasing the movement of armed groups and illicit networks. Egypt has also supported Eritrea’s regime, whose strategic position on the Red Sea gives a leverage its proxy ambition. Closer Egyptian engagement with Eritrea, combined with its military cooperation with Somalia and its relationship with Sudan, could contribute to competing security alignments around Ethiopia and increase tensions across the Horn. The most serious concern is the strategic importance of the Bab el Mandeb. Egypt has a vital interest in the waterway because it provides access to the Suez Canal and is central to Egypt’s maritime trade. Egypt has an operational plan to physically close the Bab el Mandeb, the expansion of Egyptian military and political influence around the Horn raises concerns that the waterway could become an instrument of strategic pressure. Any attempt by Egypt or forces aligned with its interests to obstruct navigation through the Bab el Mandeb would have consequences far beyond the Horn of Africa. Such a disruption could create chaos in world trade. The Bab el Mandeb is a critical link between the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean trade system. Its disruption could force ships to take longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope, sharply increasing transportation costs, insurance premiums, delivery times and fuel consumption. It could also disrupt energy supplies and the movement of food, manufactured goods and essential commodities between Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Coming on top of instability around other major maritime chokepoints, a serious disruption at Bab el Mandeb could place additional pressure on already vulnerable global supply chains. Taken together, Egypt’s expanding military partnerships, political alliances and strategic positioning in Somalia, Sudan and Eritrea risk intensifying polarization in the Horn of Africa. If these relationships are used as instruments of confrontation with Ethiopia, they could contribute to greater militarization around the Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb. The consequence would not be limited to Ethiopia or the Horn. A crisis affecting Bab el Mandeb could escalate into a wider maritime emergency, threatening regional stability and creating severe disruption to international commerce and global trade. Why Ethiopia’s Maritime Return Matters? This is where Ethiopia’s maritime question takes on significance beyond national economic interests. Ethiopia’s dependence on external maritime gateways leaves its international trade vulnerable to disruption along regional transport corridors. More than 90 percent of Ethiopia’s import and export trade has historically moved through the Addis Djibouti corridor. Heavy dependence on a single principal gateway creates economic exposure when congestion, conflict, political disputes or maritime insecurity affect that route. A reliable and legally negotiated Ethiopian maritime presence could provide an additional option. It could diversify transport corridors, reduce dependence on a single gateway and strengthen Ethiopia’s ability to withstand regional disruptions. The objective should not be Ethiopian control of the Red Sea. Rather, it should be predictable and mutually agreed access established through arrangements that respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of coastal states. Such an arrangement could provide benefits extending well beyond Ethiopia’s immediate maritime interests. It could strengthen the resilience of global trade by creating additional options for the movement of goods and reducing the risks associated with excessive dependence on a limited number of vulnerable maritime corridors. It could also contribute to stronger maritime security by encouraging greater cooperation among Red Sea and Horn of Africa countries in protecting shipping routes and responding to emerging security threats. At the same time, improved access to the Red Sea could reduce pressure on existing trade corridors, particularly those facing congestion, insecurity or rising transportation costs, while providing Ethiopia and neighbouring countries with more efficient routes to international markets.   Ethiopia’s maritime engagement could also deepen regional economic integration by linking its large domestic market with the economies and ports of the Horn of Africa and the wider Red Sea region. Greater connectivity could support cross border trade, logistics, manufacturing and infrastructure development, creating opportunities for countries to benefit from Ethiopia’s expanding economy while strengthening regional supply chains. Improved access to maritime trade would further enhance food and energy security by giving Ethiopia more reliable and diversified channels for importing essential commodities, fuel and industrial inputs. Such connectivity could also make the region more attractive to investors by improving access to markets, lowering logistics costs and encouraging investment in ports, transport networks, industrial parks and related infrastructure. Ethiopia’s maritime agenda should therefore be approached as part of a wider regional economic and security framework rather than as a contest for control over strategic territory. A negotiated arrangement could bring together Ethiopia’s need for reliable maritime access with the legitimate interests of coastal states. Ethiopia could secure predictable commercial access, while coastal states could benefit from transit revenues, infrastructure investment, employment, expanded markets and stronger economic links with one of Africa’s largest domestic markets. Such a framework could also help separate economic connectivity from military confrontation. Commercial maritime access does not necessarily require territorial control. A carefully negotiated arrangement can provide access while preserving the sovereignty of the coastal state and supporting the security interests of neighbouring countries. This distinction is critical. Ethiopia’s maritime return will be sustainable only if it is based on mutual interest, international law, transparency and respect for sovereignty. The wider strategic objective should be a Red Sea in which economic interdependence becomes a source of stability rather than a trigger for confrontation. Greater trade, infrastructure connectivity and shared maritime security could create incentives for countries to protect the same commercial system from which they benefit. In this sense, Ethiopia’s return to the Red Sea could become part of a broader effort to build a more resilient regional economy. The country’s large population, expanding domestic market and growing industrial and agricultural potential could generate substantial demand for maritime services, while improved access could help connect neighbouring economies to Ethiopian markets.   In a nutshell, the significance of Ethiopia’s return to the Red Sea extends far beyond the question of ports, trade routes or national economic interests. In an era when disruptions at Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb can reverberate through energy markets and global supply chains, the Horn of Africa needs a more resilient and balanced maritime system. Reliable Ethiopian access to the Red Sea, achieved through a peaceful, legally negotiated and mutually beneficial arrangement, could provide such an opportunity. It could diversify regional trade routes, reduce dependence on a single corridor, strengthen maritime security, attract investment, improve access to essential commodities and deepen economic integration across the Horn of Africa. For Ethiopia, maritime access would reduce a fundamental vulnerability associated with being landlocked. For coastal states, it could generate investment, transit revenues and expanded markets. For international shipping, it could contribute to a stronger regional security environment. For global markets, it could add another layer of resilience at a time when maritime chokepoints are increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical disruption. The strategic objective, therefore, should not be domination of the Red Sea by any single state. It should be the creation of a stable maritime order in which Ethiopia has legitimate and predictable access, coastal states retain their sovereignty, and international shipping enjoys greater security. In this sense, Ethiopia’s return to the Red Sea should be understood not merely as a national aspiration but as a potential contribution to regional stability and global trade resilience. A peaceful maritime settlement could turn Ethiopia from a vulnerable landlocked economy into a more active economic and security stakeholder in one of the world’s most consequential maritime regions.

Aug 17, 2026 By Girma Mirgisa What comes to your mind when you think about Russia? For many first-time visitors, Russia may seem distant and mysterious. It’s a vast nation known through powerful images of history, politics, literature, architecture, and global events. Before my trip, I primarily knew Russia through books, news, from people and other platforms. I had heard of Moscow, Red Square, and the country’s rich history, but understanding a place through media is quite different from experiencing it personally. From July 19 to 26, 2026, I had the opportunity to travel to Moscow as one of 31 journalists from 22 African countries for an intensive journalism and cultural programme organized by RT Academy under Rossotrudnichestvo’s “New Generation” initiative. I arrived in Moscow expecting a week focused mainly on professional training. But the experience turned out to be much bigger than I expected. I returned home with new experiences, meaningful friendships, different perspectives, and a deeper understanding of Russia beyond what I had seen or heard in the media. The journey turned into much more than a journalism program. It became an opportunity to experience Russia through its culture, history, technology, people, and everyday life. One thing became clear to me: you cannot truly discover Russia in just one day, but you can certainly be impressed by it from the moment you arrive. Starting With Journalism The journey began with the profession that brought all 31 of us together: journalism. It was our shared passion and profession that created the opportunity to meet, learn from one another, and explore new ideas together. Throughout the program, we took part in masterclasses, practical exercises, newsroom discussions, and exchanges with RT correspondents and media professionals. We explored various aspects of international journalism and learned how RT International and RT en français organize their news operations and correspondent networks. The practical focus of the program was especially beneficial. We didn’t just listen to lectures; we had direct chances to practice, ask questions, share experiences, and create media content. We explored mobile journalism, advanced filming techniques, and new ways to produce digital content. One topic that particularly intrigued me was artificial intelligence. AI is quickly changing journalism. It assists with research, transcription, translation, editing, data processing, and multi-platform media production, allowing journalists to work more efficiently. However, the technology also raises important questions. How do we maintain strict factual accuracy? How do we verify information in an automated world? How do we protect editorial independence? And how do we ensure technology supports journalism instead of undermining a journalist’s responsibilities? In my view, AI should be treated strictly as a tool, not a replacement for professional judgment. A machine can process information quickly, but journalism still requires human curiosity, ethics, context, and an unwavering commitment to truth. For African journalists, understanding emerging technologies is becoming increasingly essential as the continent's media landscape evolves. The training in Moscow provided not only technical knowledge, but also a space to critically reflect on where our profession is heading. For me, practical learning is the cornerstone of journalism. A journalist may understand the theory of reporting, but real skill develops through observation, practice, questioning, and lived experience. The Moscow programme was a powerful reminder that journalism is a profession that requires continuous learning. Learning From 31 African Journalists Perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the programme was not inside the classroom at all—it was the people. Thirty-one journalists from 22 African countries came together, each bringing different professional backgrounds, languages, cultures, and experiences. Some were reporters, while others were presenters, editors, and foreign correspondents. Yet, despite coming from different corners of the continent, we quickly discovered that many of the challenges facing African journalists are remarkably similar. We discussed changing audience habits, digital platforms, newsroom pressures, artificial intelligence, mobile journalism, and the shared challenge of telling African stories to both continental and global audiences. Our conversations often continued long after the formal sessions had ended. Over meals, during site visits, and while traveling across the city, we shared stories about our countries, our work, and our lives. That camaraderie made the programme feel less like a formal training course and more like a dynamic summit of African journalists learning from one another. For me, these human connections were among the greatest achievements of the journey. From the Training Room to the Streets of Moscow As the week progressed, the programme moved beyond the newsroom. This was when I began to discover Moscow as a visitor. My first impression was the sheer scale of the city. Moscow is massive, yet it retains a distinct identity. Everywhere I looked, modern urban life existed alongside reminders of centuries of history. Sleek skyscrapers, advanced transportation systems, and modern technology stood side by side with historic monuments, ancient churches, grand public squares, and classical architecture. The city seemed to tell two stories at the same time: one about its deep past, and another about its future. Moscow appeared uniquely determined to preserve both. Walking through Moscow gave me a deep appreciation for urban design. The city masterfully combines historic architecture with sprawling, green public spaces. Parks and tree-lined avenues offer a sense of openness within a massive metropolis. Moscow has not chosen between preserving its heritage and modernizing—it is actively mastering both. Our tour guide added an invaluable layer to this experience. With deep historical knowledge and an evident connection to the city, the guide brought Moscow’s transformation to life. The storytelling went far beyond a dry list of dates and figures; it was filled with personal understanding, emotion, and genuine pride. Listening to the guide while navigating the city helped me see Moscow not just as a collection of structures, but as a living landscape shaped by generations of people. It was a clear reminder that to truly understand a country, you must listen to how its people remember their past. Red Square: Seeing History With My Own Eyes One of the places I had most wanted to see was Red Square. I had seen it countless times in photographs and news broadcasts, but standing there in person was completely different. The static images suddenly came to life. The historic buildings surrounding the square, the majestic architecture, and the movement of people created an atmosphere that no television screen can capture. For me, Red Square represented more than a famous landmark; it was a vivid reminder that history isn't just something we read about in books—sometimes, we can stand in the very places where it unfolded. Another memorable experience was our visit to the National Centre Russia. The centre offered an extraordinary experience: a journey across one of the world's largest countries without leaving the capital. Through interactive exhibitions and modern technology, we were introduced to Russia's diverse regions, geography, history, traditions, and cultural identities. What impressed me most was how technology was used to bring history to life, proving that preserving heritage doesn't mean keeping it locked away in dusty archives. Technology can make history accessible, interactive, and engaging for younger generations. Russia's vast geography and cultural diversity became much easier to grasp, reinforcing my core impression of the city: Russia is deeply rooted in its past, but actively leveraging technology to tell its story to future generations. Later, we travelled to Sparrow Hills, where we enjoyed a panoramic view of the city from the viewing point. From high above Moscow, the scale of the city became even more striking. The view brought together the city’s buildings, roads, green spaces, and landmarks, offering a different perspective from what we had seen while walking through its streets. Remembering the Great Patriotic War Another deeply moving experience was our visit to the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow. The visit gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Soviet Union's experience during the Second World War and to witness how the Russian people remember one of the most difficult and defining periods in their modern history. Walking through the museum, I encountered historical stories, photographs, military objects , and memorial spaces that presented the scale of the suffering, sacrifice, and courage associated with the war. For me, this was more than simply visiting a museum. It was a journey through memory. The guide helped me understand how deeply the Great Patriotic War remains connected to Russian historical consciousness and national identity. The atmosphere was solemn and reflective. It was a place where history felt close. What I found particularly meaningful was the sense of remembrance and patriotism expressed throughout the museum. The stories of soldiers, families, and civilians brought a human dimension to an enormous historical event. An Evening at the Theatre: Experiencing Russian Ballet The cultural experience took another memorable turn when we attended a ballet performance at the theatre. We watched “Bakhchisarai Fountain.” For me, it was a completely different way of experiencing Russian culture. After spending the day learning about the country’s history and visiting its landmarks, sitting in the theatre and watching the dancers tell a story through movement, music, and expression offered another window into Russia’s artistic heritage. The performance showed me that culture does not always need words to communicate. It was one of those moments when I simply sat back and enjoyed the experience, allowing the performance to speak for itself. The cultural experience extended far beyond famous buildings and historical sites. It was alive in everyday interactions—in public parks, street conversations, theatres, and around the dinner table. Culture is not only preserved in museums; it is also tasted and shared. During the programme, sharing meals and experiences with fellow African journalists became an important part of our cultural exchange. Russian cuisine reflects the country’s climate and history, featuring hearty soups, fresh bread, potatoes, meats, and traditional dishes that were entirely new to me. Trying unfamiliar foods was a pleasant reminder of what travel is all about: stepping outside your comfort zone. You do not simply observe a country; you taste it, listen to it, walk through it, and absorb it. Sometimes, a simple meal shared with new friends becomes the memory that lingers longest. Beyond the landmarks, the people were the true highlight of the experience. Travel challenges assumptions. Before visiting a place, we construct mental images based on news reports, films, and social media. Meeting people directly can challenge those preconceived notions. Conversations with Russian media professionals and the organizers behind our programme revealed another side of the country. Their hospitality and enthusiasm made the experience deeply personal. The visit reaffirmed that international understanding is not forged solely through official diplomacy—it also happens when people meet, talk, share experiences, and learn from one another. Ethiopia and Russia: Beyond Headlines As an Ethiopian journalist, my visit also prompted me to reflect on the relationship between Ethiopia and Russia. The two nations share long-standing political, educational, cultural, and people-to-people ties. Being in Moscow allowed me to view this relationship through a direct lens rather than through official statements or secondhand reports. This is exactly where responsible journalism plays a vital role. Journalists are uniquely positioned to help audiences see foreign societies beyond basic stereotypes, bringing to light stories of human connection, culture, and innovation. The deeper our mutual understanding, the stronger our connections become. During the city tour, an unforgettable moment occurred when the guide paused and asked the group if anyone knew about Alexander Pushkin and his connection to Africa. For an Ethiopian journalist, this question hit home immediately. Widely celebrated as the founder of modern Russian literature, Pushkin holds a central place in the nation’s cultural heart. Yet, Pushkin is more than just Russia’s national poet—he represents a tangible historical bridge between Russia and Ethiopia. Pushkin proudly traced his ancestry back to his maternal great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, an African nobleman brought to the court of Peter the Great, whom historical tradition and research strongly tie to Ethiopian origin. Responding to the guide's question was a moment of pride to explain how Pushkin's legacy is celebrated back home. In Addis Ababa, his memory is honored with a dedicated square and a bronze monument—a symbol of the long-standing cultural link between Ethiopia and Russia. Standing in Moscow and encountering Pushkin’s presence across monuments, squares, and literary institutions created a profound feeling of shared history. It was a clear reminder to everyone in the group that the bonds connecting Ethiopia and Russia were woven centuries ago through literature, royalty, and shared heritage. A Meeting Point for Africa and Russia The programme served as a vital platform for Global South media cooperation. African journalists were able to engage meaningfully with Russian counterparts while fostering stronger intra-African networks. This kind of exchange is increasingly critical. Africa is producing rich stories, building powerful media platforms, and asserting its own perspectives on global affairs. African journalists need opportunities to engage with international colleagues not merely as passive observers but as equal professionals who bring vital expertise and distinct viewpoints to the table. The Moscow program demonstrated how professional exchanges can build enduring networks that far outlast the event itself. Looking Back on the Journey When I first boarded my flight to Moscow, I thought I was traveling primarily for media training. I returned home with far more. I gained valuable technical knowledge on emerging media tools, exchanged insights with brilliant journalists from across Africa, and experienced Russian culture, cuisine, and warmth firsthand. I walked through iconic historical sites, stood in awe within the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War, and listened to local stories that breathed life into the streets. On my final day, I looked at Moscow through a new lens. The streets that once felt unfamiliar had become recognizable. The buildings were no longer just architecture, the museums were no longer just tourist stops, and the stories I heard throughout the week had woven themselves into a clear picture. You cannot discover Russia in a day, or even in a week. But one week is more than enough to ignite a lifelong desire to explore more. Sometimes, the best way to truly understand a place is simply to go there. I left Russia with rich memories—and with the feeling that I had only opened the first page of a much larger story.

With analysis from Pulse of Africa (POA)   Aug 20, 2026 By Mathias Bule Ethiopia sits at a crossroads of history, geography, and geopolitics, serving as a vital link between Africa, the Arab world, and the Red Sea corridor. Its strategic location near the Middle East and its role as the gateway to sub-Saharan Africa make it a critical player in regional stability, economic development, and cultural exchange. Recognizing Ethiopia’s historical roots, geopolitical significance, and current strategic needs offers an opportunity for Africa and the Arab world to forge a more integrated, mutually beneficial partnership—one rooted in respect, cooperation, and shared interests. Ethiopia’s enduring relationship with the Arab world stretches back over 3,000 years. Long before modern borders and nation-states, ancient trade networks crisscrossed the Red Sea, connecting the Ethiopian highlands and the Arabian Peninsula. The Kingdom of Da’mat, which emerged around the 10th century BCE, reflects a blend of African and South Arabian influences. Its stone architecture and writing scripts point to a shared cultural heritage that predates colonial borders. The Axumite Empire, one of Africa’s greatest ancient civilizations, dominated trade routes linking Africa, India, and the Roman Empire. Its merchants traded gold, ivory, and spices, establishing Ethiopia as a vital node in ancient global commerce. The military campaigns of Axumite rulers into southern Arabia in the 6th century CE, notably Emperor Kaleb’s intervention in Yemen, exemplify Ethiopia’s historical influence and strategic engagement with the Arab world. These interactions laid the groundwork for a relationship that would endure through centuries, rooted in trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. There is also linguistic evidence that points to the deep human contact that has existed for millennia. Religious ties have also played a pivotal role. When followers of Prophet Muhammad faced persecution in Mecca, some found refuge in Ethiopia’s Christian kingdom—an act of compassion that earned Ethiopia a revered place in Islamic history. The story of the First Hijra in 615 CE, when the Prophet’s followers sought sanctuary in the Horn of Africa, symbolizes Ethiopia’s long-standing tradition of hospitality and justice. Ethiopia’s Current Geopolitical Role: A Pillar of Regional Stability Today, Ethiopia’s significance extends beyond its rich history. With over 135 million people, Ethiopia is Africa’s second-most populous country and a key anchor in the Horn of Africa. Its leadership role is exemplified by hosting the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, positioning Ethiopia as a political and diplomatic hub for the continent. Ethiopia’s diverse religious landscape, with large Christian and Muslim populations, embodies a cultural blend that resonates across both African and Middle Eastern societies. Its economic ties are equally vital: millions of Ethiopian workers travel to Gulf countries for employment, supporting family income through remittances. Gulf nations have invested heavily in Ethiopian agriculture, infrastructure, and energy projects, recognizing Ethiopia’s potential as a growth market and strategic partner. However, Ethiopia’s strategic importance is not solely rooted in history or demographics. Its economic development, particularly through projects like the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), underscores its ambition to harness regional water and energy resources. The GERD, in particular, symbolizes Ethiopia’s pursuit of sovereignty over its Abay waters, while opening up a whole new opportunity for cooperation between and among riparian countries. The Strategic Imperative for Regional Cooperation Ethiopia’s geopolitical importance is intertwined with its need for sea access and regional integration. As a nation rendered landlocked in 1993 through shady deals, Ethiopia sees 95% of its trade passing through Djibouti—a single port that, while vital, presents logistical and strategic vulnerabilities. The heavy reliance on Djibouti imposes multi-billion-dollar costs on Ethiopian trade, constrains growth, and highlights the urgent need for Ethiopia to reclaim its right for access to the sea. For the Arab world and Africa, Ethiopia’s stability and economic growth are essential. A fractured, isolated Ethiopia could destabilize the entire Horn of Africa, fueling insurgencies, refugee flows, and cross-border conflicts. Conversely, a stable, economically integrated Ethiopia acts as a bulwark against extremism and regional insecurity. It also offers opportunities for joint economic development, infrastructure projects, and resource sharing. One of the most pressing issues is Ethiopia’s pursuit of maritime access. Whether through port leases, joint port ownership, or regional corridors, Ethiopia’s efforts aim to secure its trade routes and reduce dependency on Djibouti. These initiatives require a cooperative framework involving neighboring countries, Gulf states, and African regional bodies like the African Union. Such collaboration can transform potential geopolitical flashpoints—such as water disputes or port access—into opportunities for shared prosperity and regional stability. Such a large nation cannot be held a geographical prisoner, while sitting at a stone-throwing distance from the Red Sea coast – whose shores were once patrolled by Ethiopia’s naval fleets as sovereign territory. Why the Arab World and Africa Must Collaborate with Ethiopia The case for an integrated approach to Ethiopia’s strategic needs is compelling. First, Ethiopia’s economic potential can serve as a catalyst for regional development. Its large agricultural sector, burgeoning manufacturing industry, and energy projects like the GERD can supply food, energy, and industrial goods not only to its own population but also to neighboring countries and Gulf markets. Second, regional security depends on stability in Ethiopia. The Horn of Africa faces threats from insurgent groups, border conflicts, and transnational crime. Ethiopia’s stability is directly linked to the security of the Arab world’s southern gateway—especially the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden—through which a significant portion of global trade passes. Ensuring Ethiopia’s sovereignty and economic resilience will, in turn, bolster maritime security and counter-terrorism efforts. Finally, geopolitics in the Red Sea corridor must recognize Ethiopia’s legitimate maritime and economic interests. Its pursuit of port access and regional corridors is not a threat but a necessity for its development. Treating Ethiopia as a partner rather than an adversary will prevent conflicts, promote economic integration, and ensure long-term regional stability. Ethiopia’s strategic, historical, and cultural significance makes it a central pillar for regional stability and prosperity in Africa and the Arab world. Embracing Ethiopia’s needs for sea access, respecting its sovereignty, and fostering inclusive cooperation can convert potential geopolitical flashpoints into opportunities for shared growth. For Africa and the Middle East, the path forward lies in partnership, recognizing Ethiopia as a vital bridge—an ancient civilization with a future rooted in regional integration, economic development, and mutual respect. Only through such collective effort can we secure a stable, prosperous future for all peoples of the Red Sea corridor and beyond.

Why Ethiopia Belongs in the Arab League? By Jibril Lamo August 19, 2026 The trajectory of global diplomacy is shifting toward historic truth and economic pragmatism, exposing the futility of outdated geopolitical vetoes. For decades, Egypt has extensively leveraged the Arab League to serve its own narrow interests and geopolitical agenda. Yet, this transactional dynamic begs a fundamental question: what has the Arab world received from Egypt in return? Let us confront the uncomfortable truth. The answer is virtually nothing. Rather than consistently advancing collective strength, Cairo’s policies and decades of authoritarian rule have, critics argue, contributed to instability across the region—weakening Sudan’s sovereignty while pursuing policies that have fueled tensions in East Africa and the Red Sea. These regions are not peripheral to Arab interests; they are strategically indispensable to the Arab world’s security, maritime trade, energy supplies and food security. One of the most consequential examples of Egypt’s divisive regional approach is its historical involvement in the Eritrean question and the broader struggle over Ethiopia’s territorial integrity. Cairo was overtly supporting separatist forces and political projects intended to weaken Ethiopia and constrain its regional influence. The eventual separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia remains a defining episode in the Horn of Africa’s turbulent history and a powerful reminder of how external geopolitical calculations can reshape the destiny of nations. Historical diplomacy reveals that Egyptian politician Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who served as acting Foreign Minister before becoming UN Secretary-General, played a pivotal role in advancing the Eritrean secession project to permanently weaken Ethiopia. Furthermore, Cairo’s active destabilization of the southern Red Sea basin presents a direct threat to global maritime trade and regional security. By stoking tensions around the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and proxying armed factions, Cairo has transformed vital maritime passages into arenas of geopolitical confrontation, jeopardizing the broader security architecture essential for the energy and food logistics of the entire Arab world. While Egypt’s self-serving maneuvers generate regional friction, Ethiopia’s accession to the Arab League presents a transformative opportunity from which the Arab world stands to gain immensely. Under the visionary framework of the Medemer philosophy, Ethiopia possesses the diplomatic posture and inclusive vision needed to unite and integrate the Arab world far more effectively than Cairo ever could. As the undisputed diplomatic capital of Africa and the permanent headquarters of the African Union, Ethiopia brings unparalleled experience in multilateral consensus-building. Far from being a geopolitical gamble, Ethiopia’s aspiration to join the Arab League is a natural homecoming. As a Red Sea nation with a population exceeding 135 million, a booming economy, and deep civilizational ties, Ethiopia’s membership would establish an indispensable bridge between Africa and the Middle East. Ethiopia’s connection to the Middle East is built upon millennia of shared heritage, culture, and bloodlines. In academic institutions such as Harvard University, Ethiopian studies have historically resided within Oriental and Near Eastern departments, reflecting the deep historic entanglement between Habesha civilization and the Near East. The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait was never a barrier; it served as a vibrant corridor connecting commerce, culture, and communities across the Red Sea. From the reign of King Abraha to modern genetic studies confirming shared ancestry between Ethiopian and Middle Eastern populations, these foundational bonds remain undeniable. Linguistically and culturally, the structural bedrock of the Ethiopian state is Semitic. Ge'ez, the sacred classical language of Ethiopia, alongside its modern descendants Amharic and Tigrinya, belongs directly to the South Semitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family. This linguistic heritage inextricably links Habesha syntax, vocabulary, and literary traditions to classical Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. The shared linguistic infrastructure between the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula offers continuous, tangible proof of a bi-directional civilizational flow. Beyond linguistics, Ethiopia holds a sacred and irreplaceable standing in the foundational history of Islam. When the companions of the Prophet Muhammad faced severe persecution in Mecca, it was to the Aksumite Kingdom that they fled for survival. The First Hijrah to Habesha, where the righteous Emperor Najashi extended royal dignity and sanctuary to the early Muslim community, saved the Islamic faith at its inception. This deep spiritual intertwining makes Ethiopia’s cultural identity inseparable from the broader Near East. Despite these undeniable facts, Cairo has systematically weaponized the Arab League as an instrument of institutional containment against Addis Ababa. For generations, Egyptian foreign policy has operated on an obsolete zero-sum doctrine that views any Ethiopian sovereign progress—whether the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam or the reclamation of direct maritime access—as a threat. By projecting its own hydropolitics onto the entire Arab bloc, Egypt has forced the League into a posture of artificial hostility toward its most powerful neighbor. In contrast to Cairo's policy of exclusion, contemporary realities demand total integration. Under the guiding principle of Medemer, Ethiopia offers the Arab world structural advantages that far surpass outdated rivalries. With an expanding industrial base and immense green energy capacity, Ethiopia serves as the primary stability anchor for the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea basin. While much of the Middle East faces severe water scarcity, desertification, and vulnerable food supply chains, Ethiopia’s highland ecology and abundant freshwater resources position it to become a vital agro-industrial partner for the entire Arabian Peninsula. Integrating Ethiopia into the Arab League transforms the Red Sea into a prosperous economic zone driven by Arab capital paired with Ethiopian land, energy, and labor scale. The League of Arab States must transcend twentieth-century nationalisms and embrace the civilizational reality of the Red Sea basin. Existing member states like Djibouti, Somalia, the Comoros, and Mauritania demonstrate the bloc's capacity to accommodate diverse regional realities. Full membership for Ethiopia does not diminish its proud African identity; rather, it elevates Ethiopia to its rightful role as the primary bridge connecting the African continent to the Middle East. It is time for the Arab League to move past Egyptian gatekeeping, leverage Ethiopia’s unifying synergy, and grant Addis Ababa its full and rightful seat.

By Staff Writer August 17, 2026 (ENA) The Horn of Africa is entering another consequential phase in its long-running struggle over security, sovereignty, economic development and access to strategic waterways. At the center of these tensions is Ethiopia’s increasingly assertive pursuit of national development, regional integration and reliable sovereign access to the sea. Unfortunately, there have been mounting efforts by neighboring actors to contain, undermine and ultimately frustrate that trajectory. Predominantly, Egyptian officials have been at the forefront of reinforcing a destabilizing regional agenda driven by their ambition to prevent Ethiopia, a giant African nation, from rising and asserting its rightful place in the region. Recent provocations against Ethiopia, involving forces aligned with the banned TPLF and Eritrean-backed elements, have added a dangerous new dimension to an already volatile regional environment. Emerging reports indicate that the now-defunct TPLF opened a new military front in northwestern Ethiopia, only to face a decisive setback. The episode has exposed the fragility of what has been portrayed as the so-called “Tsemdo” alliance, an alignment spearheaded by the Eritrean regime alongside local anti-peace forces, including TPLF elements. Its setback represents more than a battlefield reversal. It strikes at a broader strategy aimed at exploiting Ethiopia’s internal divisions, exporting conflict across its borders and obstructing the country’s development and regional ambitions. For the regime in Asmara, the setback is particularly consequential. Eritrea has repeatedly positioned itself at the center of political and security calculations directed against Ethiopia. The latest developments therefore raise a fundamental question: Is the Horn of Africa witnessing yet another attempt to use proxy forces and cross-border alliances to keep Ethiopia politically divided, economically constrained and strategically isolated? If so, the implications extend far beyond a single battlefield. They touch the very foundations of sovereignty, regional stability, economic integration and Ethiopia’s legitimate pursuit of sovereign access to the sea. To understand why Shabia, Eritrean regime, consistently positions itself at the forefront of internal subversion against Ethiopia, one must examine its historical underpinnings. From its inception, the modern Eritrean architecture was fostered by Cairo not as an isolated geopolitical entity, but as a strategic proxy designed to exert leverage against Ethiopia, the source of Abay (Nile). For millennia, the adage that "Egypt is the gift of the Nile" has shaped Cairo's strategic doctrine. However, this narrow conception of exclusive entitlement, which entirely disregards upper riparian nations, most notably Ethiopia, which contributes 86 percent of the river’s total flow has generated persistent friction across the basin. Rather than embracing equitable utilization and collaborative resource management, successive Egyptian administrations have sought to undermine the rights of upper riparian states and maintain regional hegemony. The political, geostrategic, and geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa has taken on critical dimensions that bear directly on regional security and equilibrium. Cairo’s current posture, which acts as a catalyst for containment and strategic destabilization against Ethiopia, carries far-reaching consequences. Much of this dynamic stem from the institutional legacies of the colonial era. British administrative structures in Sudan and Egypt prioritized the development of powerful military and security apparatuses at the expense of resilient civilian political institutions. Following independence, both nations inherited centralized state frameworks lacking deep-rooted democratic traditions. In Sudan, civilian administrations faced political fragmentation and economic instability, leading to eight military coups since 1956. In Egypt, the 1952 Free Officers Revolution established the armed forces as the dominant political authority and the self-proclaimed custodian of national continuity. This institutional dominance expanded over time into the economic realm. In Egypt, the military apparatus maintains substantial holdings across critical sectors, including manufacturing, infrastructure, construction, and agriculture. Similarly, in Sudan, military and security networks historically exercised control over key commercial domains, such as gold mining and agricultural trade. These commercial interests have solidified institutional autonomy, making transitions to civilian oversight exceedingly complex. These domestic military structures have significantly influenced regional dynamics in the Horn of Africa through several interconnected mechanisms. First, protracted internal conflicts in Sudan have precipitated massive population displacements, driving millions of refugees into neighboring states, including Ethiopia, South Sudan, Chad, and Egypt. These flows place acute strains on host communities, public infrastructure, and border security management. Second, Egyptian military-led administrations have consistently framed Nile water allocation strictly through a national security lens, particularly regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. This rigid approach has frequently complicated diplomatic negotiations over shared water resources and impeded efforts toward equitable basin-wide governance. Third, regional political volatility discourages direct foreign investment, disrupts critical trade corridors, and delays cross-border infrastructure initiatives intended to link the Red Sea trade routes to the broader African hinterland. At present, Egyptian strategic maneuvers involve coordinating diplomatic and logistical alignments with the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Eritrean administration, and local insurgent factions active in the Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray regions—collectively referred to as Tsimdo. This coordinated effort aims to constrain Ethiopia's economic trajectory, impede its national development programs, and restrict its legitimate access to Red Sea maritime commerce. The primary objective of this coalition is to export armed conflict into Ethiopian territory and regionalize domestic friction. By providing logistical and operational backing to groups acting in opposition to the constitutional order, these external actors directly challenge established international norms regarding state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite repeated strain placed upon the Pretoria Permanent Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, the Ethiopian Government has exercised notable restraint. Rather than resorting to force, federal authorities allocated over 30 billion Birr toward rapid socio-economic rehabilitation, infrastructure reconstruction, and public service restoration in affected areas. Nevertheless, sub-regional actors and hostile elements have sought to exploit this measured approach, misrepresenting developments on the ground to the international community. Furthermore, recent maritime initiatives—such as the Red Sea council framework involving Egypt, Eritrea, and Sudan, appear deliberately structured to bypass Ethiopia, seeking to reinforce its landlocked status and impede its integration into regional maritime trade. Unless these coercive postures are set aside in favor of genuine regional cooperation, the Horn of Africa risks being drawn into broader geopolitical instability.

By Staff Writer August 16, 2026 (ENA) The week ending August 16 highlighted a widening gap between diplomatic efforts and realities on the ground. Wars and strategic confrontations in the Middle East and Ukraine continued to dominate international attention, while Sudan, Somalia and South Sudan faced worsening humanitarian pressures. At the same time, tensions among major powers over trade, technology, energy security and strategic influence continued to reshape the international system. The emerging global picture is increasingly defined not by one dominant crisis, but by several interconnected crises. Energy disruptions in the Middle East affect inflation and shipping worldwide. The Russia Ukraine war continues to threaten food and energy security. Conflicts in Sudan and the Sahel are generating displacement and creating new spaces for armed groups. Climate change is intensifying food insecurity, while competition over AI, critical minerals, digital infrastructure, supply chains and financial systems is becoming part of the broader contest for geopolitical influence. Middle East The Middle East remained the principal source of immediate geopolitical risk. The confrontation between the United States and Iran increasingly centered on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, energy security and the wider balance of power in the Gulf. A major development over the week was the escalation in rhetoric over the strait. U.S. President Donald Trump said he would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz U.S. territory after saying Washington would finish defeating Iran. Iran responded that the waterway would remain under Iranian control. Iranian officials have also indicated that discussions with Oman concerning maritime navigation are continuing, although Tehran has linked the reopening of the strait to broader understandings with Washington. The significance extends far beyond Iran and the United States. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy corridors, meaning prolonged disruption could affect oil prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums and inflation across Asia, Europe and Africa. For major Asian economies such as India and China, which depend heavily on energy imports and maritime trade through the Gulf, instability around the strait carries direct economic and strategic consequences. Gaza remained another major source of tension. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a 15-point Gaza proposal backed by Trump, arguing that Israel would not withdraw its forces until Hamas is fully disarmed. The rejection exposed a significant difference between Washington's diplomatic effort and the Israeli government's preferred military approach. The wider implication is that the Middle East is increasingly functioning as a single strategic theatre. Gaza, Iran, the Gulf and Red Sea cannot easily be treated as separate crises because developments in one arena influence military deployments, shipping routes, energy markets and regional alliances elsewhere. Indian media have consequently continued to examine the Middle East through the lens of India's energy security, trade routes and relations with Gulf states. Developments involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are particularly significant for New Delhi because prolonged disruption could affect energy supplies, shipping costs and India's wider economic interests. Ukraine The Russia-Ukraine war also showed few signs of a decisive breakthrough. Russia continued offensive operations while Ukraine maintained attacks against Russian military and economic infrastructure. The war also continues to have implications for global food security. Any sustained disruption to Black Sea shipping can affect grain exports and maritime insurance costs, particularly for countries in Africa and the Middle East that depend heavily on imported cereals. Africa Africa continued to face a complex mix of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, political fragmentation and climate related pressures during the week. From Sudan's widening war and the Sahel's deteriorating security environment to Somalia's deepening food crisis and fragile peace efforts in the Great Lakes, the continent's crises increasingly extend beyond national borders. These developments highlight the growing link between conflict, displacement, food insecurity, climate shocks and weakening regional security mechanisms. Global Economy and Trade The global economy continued to operate under several overlapping pressures, particularly energy insecurity, tariffs, geopolitical uncertainty and supply chain disruption. The Middle East remains central to the energy outlook. Any prolonged disruption around the Strait of Hormuz could increase transportation and energy costs, with consequences for inflation and economic growth. Trade policy also remained increasingly strategic. The Trump administration continued to employ tariffs as an instrument of economic and geopolitical pressure, while Washington intensified scrutiny of countries suspected of helping China circumvent U.S. duties through third country supply chains. At the same time, India and China continued to face the challenge of managing their own economic relationship. Indian media have highlighted market access, trade imbalances and efforts to stabilize economic ties with Beijing, while concerns over the Himalayan border continue to influence the broader relationship. This indicates a deeper transformation in the global trading system. Economic efficiency is no longer the only consideration in determining where goods are produced and transported. Governments are increasingly weighing national security, strategic autonomy, access to critical minerals, semiconductor supply, energy security and technological dependence. BRICS has also emerged as an important element of this economic transformation. Indian coverage has focused on efforts to strengthen financial cooperation among BRICS members, including discussions on linking payment systems and increasing the use of national currencies. Such initiatives form part of a wider effort among emerging economies to increase their influence over global financial governance and reduce dependence on traditional Western dominated financial structures. The consequence could be more resilient supply chains in some sectors, but also higher production costs, greater trade fragmentation and persistent inflationary pressures. For developing economies, especially African countries, this transformation presents both risks and opportunities. Countries able to attract investment into manufacturing, logistics, energy and mineral processing could benefit from supply chain diversification. Those dependent on imported fuel, food and manufactured goods remain vulnerable to external shocks. Technology and Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence continued to move beyond the technology sector and into the centre of geopolitical competition. China's rapid development of open weight AI models has strengthened competition with American technology companies and demonstrated that the AI contest is no longer simply about individual commercial products. Chinese media have increasingly linked technological development to national competitiveness, strategic autonomy and China's broader role in the international system. Indian media have likewise focused on AI, semiconductors and emerging digital technologies as elements of national economic and strategic power. India's efforts to expand its technological capabilities are taking place alongside growing competition between the United States and China over advanced computing and semiconductor technologies. The larger strategic competition extends across semiconductors, data centres, electricity generation, cloud infrastructure, research talent and digital standards. The countries that control these foundations will have greater influence over the future digital economy. AI infrastructure is also creating new resource pressures. Data centres require enormous quantities of electricity and, in many locations, significant amounts of water. Governments are therefore increasingly confronted with questions about how much energy should be allocated to AI infrastructure, how its benefits should be distributed and how to manage its impact on labour markets and public services. The geopolitical AI competition is consequently becoming a competition over infrastructure and resources as much as algorithms. For Africa, this creates an opportunity to move beyond being primarily a consumer of digital technologies. Countries that invest in reliable electricity, digital infrastructure, data governance, technical education and local AI capacity could position themselves to benefit from the next stage of digital transformation. Asia and the Changing Security Order The strategic competition in Asia continued to develop alongside the conflicts and economic pressures elsewhere in the world. India China relations remain shaped by the disputed Himalayan border, military deployments and efforts to stabilize bilateral ties. While both countries have sought to improve economic engagement, security concerns continue to influence the relationship. These developments reinforce a broader shift in the international system in which maritime routes, technology, military alliances and economic networks are increasingly interconnected. Competition in the Indo Pacific is therefore no longer separate from developments in the Middle East, Europe or Africa. Climate Climate remained an increasingly important component of the global security picture. The World Meteorological Organization has warned that a strengthening El Niño will influence global temperature and rainfall patterns during the August to October period. Above normal temperatures are expected across many parts of the world, while some regions face increased drought risk and others face heavier rainfall. The significance of these developments goes beyond environmental concerns. Extreme heat reduces agricultural productivity, drought affects water availability, floods damage infrastructure, and changing weather patterns increase pressure on already fragile food systems. Governments must consequently spend more resources responding to disasters at a time when many are already facing debt, conflict and humanitarian funding shortages. Climate change is therefore becoming a multiplier of existing economic and security vulnerabilities. Conclusion The most important trend of the week was the convergence of geopolitical, economic, humanitarian and climate pressures, with developments in one arena increasingly affecting stability in others. The conflict in the Middle East continues to affect energy markets and maritime security, while the war in Ukraine threatens grain and energy infrastructure. Sudan is driving regional displacement, while South Sudan faces the combined pressures of hunger, conflict and refugee flows. Somalia continues to struggle with drought and declining humanitarian support, and militant groups in the Sahel are strengthening their financial and operational networks. At the same time, artificial intelligence is emerging as a major arena of strategic competition, while climate change is intensifying pressure on food systems, water resources and public finances. This week's developments further demonstrated how quickly regional crises can acquire global consequences. The sharp exchange between Washington and Tehran over the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the vulnerability of global economic security to geopolitical tensions, while intensified drone attacks between Russia and Ukraine showed how modern warfare is increasingly reaching deep into territory, infrastructure and economic assets far from the traditional front lines. The international system is therefore moving toward a period of prolonged strategic competition rather than a straightforward return to stability. Competition between the United States and China, India's expanding strategic calculations, the growing role of BRICS, the contest over artificial intelligence and semiconductors, and disputes over maritime routes all point to a broader struggle in which economic, technological and financial instruments are becoming as important as military power. For Africa, the implications are particularly significant. The continent is increasingly situated at the intersection of competing interests involving the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, India and the United States. Ports, critical minerals, energy corridors, telecommunications networks, agricultural resources, digital infrastructure and military partnerships are becoming increasingly important elements of geopolitical competition. The strategic challenge for African states is therefore not simply to respond to individual crises, but to preserve strategic autonomy while attracting investment, safeguarding food and energy security, strengthening regional institutions and avoiding excessive dependence on any single external power. The central question for the international system is no longer whether individual crises can be contained in isolation. It is whether governments and multilateral institutions can prevent these interconnected pressures from reinforcing one another and creating a broader cycle of instability. The developments of the week suggest that managing this interconnectedness will be one of the defining challenges of the period ahead. NB: The analysis draws on reporting disseminated by international and regional media outlets including Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, China Daily, Indian media outlets, RFI, Actualité.cd, KT Press, and CNBC.

By Staff Writer August 16, 2026 (ENA) Ethiopia’s week unfolded around two questions that go to the heart of the country’s future. It revolved how to build consensus at home and how to secure the strategic foundations needed to sustain that future. As the National Dialogue entered a new and consequential phase, participants reached consensus across all eight thematic agenda pillars, before a harmonization team began integrating the recommendations emerging from the deliberations. At the same time, renewed discussion over Ethiopia’s quest for sovereign access to the sea brought the country’s historical, economic and strategic interests firmly back into the national conversation. Beyond these defining issues, the week also brought developments in economic reform, regional security, renewable energy, health, climate action, skills development and diplomacy—reflecting an Ethiopia seeking to strengthen its domestic foundations while expanding its role in regional and continental affairs. National Dialogue Moves From Deliberation Toward Consensus The National Dialogue remained the most significant domestic development of the week as the process moved from deliberation toward the consolidation of recommendations. Participants reached consensus across all eight thematic agenda pillars, marking an important milestone in a process intended to address major national questions through dialogue, collective deliberation and the search for common ground. The achievement ushered in a new phase. A harmonization team began integrating recommendations generated across the different thematic pillars, moving the process from individual discussions toward a more unified set of proposals. That progression is significant. The National Dialogue is no longer simply a forum for identifying differences and airing competing perspectives. Its latest phase is increasingly focused on bringing together ideas, identifying areas of convergence and preparing recommendations for the next stage. Earlier in the week, one participant described the conference as laying the foundation for a generation grounded in the supremacy of ideas. The observation captured a broader aspiration of the dialogue to strengthen a political culture in which competing views can be debated through ideas and discussion rather than confrontation. The movement from deliberation to harmonization therefore gives the National Dialogue a new character. What began as a national effort to bring Ethiopians together around difficult and long-standing questions is becoming an exercise in translating diverse perspectives into areas of common ground. For a country whose political history has often been marked by deep disagreement, consensus across all eight thematic areas carries significance beyond the conference hall. It places greater emphasis on the ability of Ethiopians to debate differences, identify shared interests and work toward common solutions. The process has also faced misinformation and negative narratives in some media spaces. The National Dialogue Commission has urged the public to approach such reports with caution and rely on verified information about the process. The next challenge will be equally important: ensuring that the consensus reached through dialogue can be translated into credible recommendations and, ultimately, meaningful outcomes. The Sea Access Question: A Strategic Interest With Historical Weight Alongside the National Dialogue, Ethiopia’s quest for sovereign access to the sea again emerged as a major strategic issue. In an exclusive interview with ENA, Gashaw Ayferam, Senior Researcher on the Horn of Africa and Water Geopolitics at the Institute of Foreign Affairs, described sovereign maritime access as a matter of profound national importance, linking it to Ethiopia’s historical trajectory, economic development and long-term strategic interests. Gashaw recalled that Ethiopia had direct access to the sea until several decades ago and highlighted the historical importance of maritime connectivity to the country’s trade and external relations, particularly during the Axumite civilization and subsequent periods. He argued that the absence of sovereign seaport access has created significant challenges for Ethiopia’s economic development, trade, investment and import-export operations, while the country’s landlocked status has also contributed to higher logistical and port-related costs. The researcher further connected maritime access to the wider security environment of the Horn of Africa, arguing that the issue extends beyond commerce to encompass broader strategic considerations. For Gashaw, Ethiopia’s pursuit of sovereign maritime access should therefore be understood as a major national interest rather than a luxury. He called for intensified diplomatic engagement based on mutual benefit, arguing that greater maritime connectivity could also support regional economic integration, continental cohesion, peace and shared prosperity. The argument places the sea-access question within a much broader strategic context. For Ethiopia, the issue intersects with history, trade, economic competitiveness, security, regional integration and the country’s long-term position in the Horn of Africa. Economic Reform Seeks Greater Inclusion and Stability The economy also featured prominently during the week as Ethiopia continued implementing reforms aimed at strengthening the financial sector, expanding economic participation and improving resilience. ENA reported that financial-sector reforms are accelerating digital banking inclusion and contributing to economic stability, highlighting the growing role of technology in widening access to financial services. The development comes alongside efforts to strengthen Ethiopia’s technical capacity in renewable energy and regional power-grid interconnection, linking financial and technological transformation with the country’s wider development ambitions. The week’s economic coverage also highlighted efforts to expand skills training in response to changing domestic and global labour-market demands. Minister of Labour and Skills Muferihat Kamil said Ethiopia is expanding skills training to respond to evolving employment requirements, underscoring the importance of preparing citizens for opportunities in an increasingly competitive and technology-driven global economy. Taken together, these developments point to an economic transformation that depends not only on capital and infrastructure, but increasingly on skills, digital inclusion, technological capacity and human capital. Regional Security Takes Center Stage in Addis Ababa Regional security was another major theme of the week. Military leaders of the Eastern Africa Standby Force was held to review regional peace and security protocols, while the 36th EASF Policy Organs Meeting opened with an emphasis on partnership, preparedness and security innovation. The meeting concluded with renewed security commitments, reinforcing the importance of collective regional mechanisms in responding to shared security challenges. The gathering came against a backdrop of conflicts, geopolitical rivalries and economic pressures contributing to an increasingly complex international and regional environment. For Eastern Africa, the discussions carry particular weight as security challenges increasingly transcend national borders. The emphasis on partnership and institutional preparedness reflects a growing recognition that regional security cannot be addressed effectively through isolated national responses. The strengthening of regional security institutions therefore remains closely connected to the wider ambitions of stability, economic integration and development across the Horn and Eastern Africa. Ethiopia Strengthens Energy and Climate Agenda Energy and environmental issues also remained central to the week’s developments. Ethiopia continued efforts to strengthen technical capacity for renewable-energy development and regional power-grid interconnection, reinforcing its broader ambition to expand clean-energy generation and deepen electricity cooperation across borders. The Green Legacy Initiative likewise remained an important component of the country’s development agenda, with a regional state administration outlining its next priorities for green development and urban renewal. International recognition of Ethiopia’s climate and urban-development efforts also featured during the week, as renowned international economists commended aspects of the country’s urban transformation and climate-resilience efforts. Diplomatic missions further reaffirmed support for Ethiopia’s sustainable-development initiatives, underscoring the growing international interest in the country’s environmental, climate and development programs. These developments reflect an increasingly interconnected agenda in which energy security, climate resilience, urban development and economic growth are being pursued as complementary rather than separate priorities. Health Cooperation Expands as Addis Ababa Prepares for Continental Forum Health was another area in which Ethiopia’s regional role continued to grow. Addis Ababa is set to host the 13th East Africa Health Federations Conference and Exhibition, bringing renewed attention to regional cooperation and private-sector engagement in the health sector. At the same time, the groundbreaking of a Fetal Diagnostic Center at St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College marked another step in expanding specialized healthcare infrastructure. Together, the developments placed both domestic healthcare capacity and regional health cooperation on the week’s agenda, linking improvements in specialized medical services with Ethiopia’s broader role in continental health affairs. A Week Defined by Consensus, Capacity and Strategic Ambition From the National Dialogue to the question of maritime access, Ethiopia’s major stories this week revolved around long-term national interests. At home, the National Dialogue moved from broad deliberations toward the difficult work of harmonizing recommendations after participants reached consensus across all eight thematic pillars. In the strategic arena, the debate over sovereign access to the sea continued to frame questions of history, economic competitiveness, security and regional integration. Meanwhile, financial-sector reform, digital inclusion, skills development, renewable energy, regional security, healthcare and climate action demonstrated the breadth of Ethiopia’s development agenda. The common thread is building national capacity—to strengthen dialogue, expand opportunity, advance technology and security, and pursue Ethiopia’s strategic interests through diplomacy and regional cooperation. As the National Dialogue enters its next phase, the central test will be whether consensus reached around the table can be translated into recommendations and outcomes capable of resonating far beyond it. And as Ethiopia continues to pursue its broader strategic interests, the week’s developments suggest that the country’s next chapter will not be shaped by a single issue. It will be shaped by how effectively Ethiopia can bring together national consensus, economic strength, institutional capacity and strategic sovereignty and turn them into a coherent foundation for a more stable, competitive and influential role in the Horn of Africa and beyond.

With analysis from Pulse of Africa (POA) Aug 16, 2026 (ENA)   By Mathias Bule Ethiopia’s alienation to its once-sovereign territory of the port of Assab has been fraught with shady deals, and complicated by the presence and involvement of colonial forces in the Horn of Africa region. Ethiopia’s quest to regain access to the sea is not merely a territorial ambition; it is a fundamental claim rooted in centuries of colonial subjugation, legal deceit, and political betrayal. The history of Ethiopia’s lost port of Assab is a stark testament to how imperial powers, through clandestine deals and manipulative treaties, deliberately and systematically deprived a sovereign nation of its maritime rights. This injustice must be recognized, rectified, and finally corrected. The modern story of it begins in 1869, when local Afar sultans sold a strip of land in Assab to Giuseppe Sapeto, representing Italy’s Società Rubattino. The deal was struck in secret, for a paltry sum of just 6,000 Italian lire—conducted entirely outside Ethiopian knowledge or approval. At the time, Ethiopia’s central government, under Emperor Menelik II, was unaware of this transaction. The sale was a clandestine act by local authorities seeking economic advantage, but it was exploited by colonial powers to establish Italy’s foothold in the Horn of Africa. Italy’s subsequent annexation of Assab in 1882 marked the beginning of a colonial empire that would dominate the region for decades. This early act of territorial theft was a clear violation of Ethiopia’s sovereignty, yet it laid the foundation for future injustices. The most infamous chapter in Ethiopia’s loss of access to the sea is the 1889 Wuchale Treaty. Drafted amidst Italy’s expansion into the region, this treaty contained a deceptive mistranslation. The Italian version declared Ethiopia a protectorate, effectively stripping it of sovereignty, while the Amharic version purportedly maintained Ethiopia’s independence. This language trickery was designed to facilitate Italian colonization. Although Ethiopia later nullified the treaty following its victory at the Battle of Adwa, Italy had already cemented control over Assab and surrounding territories through subsequent treaties in 1900, 1902, and 1908. These agreements formalized Italy’s colonial borders and made Assab a vital part of Italian Eritrea, cutting Ethiopia off from its historical coast. Post-World War II, the international community attempted to rectify colonial wrongs by dissolving Italian rule and federating Eritrea with Ethiopia under UN Resolution 390A. However, this process was, according to some political scientists and historians, marred by negligence and political expediency. During the 1950s negotiations, Ethiopian leaders failed to assert Assab’s status as an independent Ethiopian port. Instead, they treated Eritrea as a whole—along with Assab—merely as a territory to be integrated, ignoring the port’s strategic importance and its distinct ethnic and historical identity. This omission was a grave oversight, one that left Assab vulnerable to future loss. The latest blow came with the overthrow of Ethiopia’s military regime in 1991. The rebel groups that seized power—the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF/EPRDF) and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF)—fought as allies against colonial and imperial forces. Yet, their hasty, unlegislated decision to cede Assab to Eritrea in 1993 was a betrayal of Ethiopia’s sovereignty. The transition government, led by Meles Zenawi, acted without parliamentary ratification or public consultation. Consequently, Ethiopia was left landlocked, stripped of its sovereign access to the sea and its vital port infrastructure. This was not just a territorial loss; it was a blow to Ethiopia’s economic independence, national pride, and strategic security. Ethiopia’s historical narrative is one of resilience and sovereignty. The loss of Assab was not an inevitable fate but the result of colonial greed, diplomatic deception, and political negligence. It is time for Ethiopia to reclaim its rightful access to the sea—an essential element of its sovereignty and future prosperity. Restoring Ethiopia’s maritime rights is not only a matter of rectifying historical injustices but also a crucial step toward national dignity and economic independence. Ethiopia’s seas are its birthright, and the time has come to fight for that legacy—justice demands no less.

Op-ed by Brian Lammo August 16, 2026 (ENA) Geopolitical tensions in the Horn of Africa are driven by a complex combination of water politics, competition for regional influence, access to the Red Sea, military alliances and domestic political conflicts. At the center of these tensions is Egypt’s persistent sabotage against Ethiopia’s pursuit of reliable access to the Red Sea and its overall development projects along the Abay River, including the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). However, these two strategic priorities are central to Ethiopia’s economic development, energy security and long-term regional stability as well as economic integration. Yet Egypt has continued to pursue policies that Ethiopia views as jeopardizing its development interests and contributing to regional instability. Regional observers have also portrayed Egypt’s approach as part of a broader strategy aimed not only at challenging Ethiopia’s development projects but also at containing its growing regional influence and limiting its development options. Diplomatic pressure is one among different tactics that Egypt has been doing for years in obstructing developments in Ethiopia. It has internationalized the dispute, mobilize diplomatic support, influence the positions of regional and international partners, and press for binding arrangements to jeopardize the construction and operation of any dam along the Abay River. Against this backdrop, Egypt has strengthened strategic partnerships with countries including Eritrea, seeking to capitalize on Eritrea’s longstanding tensions with Ethiopia, which added another layer to the region’s security dynamics, particularly through military cooperation, strategic alliances and political engagement. This relationship has contributed to potential use of proxy dynamics to influence developments in Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa. As a result, the region has become an increasingly contested environment in which diplomatic competition, military posturing, strategic partnerships, proxy relationships and economic interests overlap. These dynamics have complicated efforts to establish a stable and cooperative regional security framework. Egypt, together with countries with which it has strengthened strategic relations, has employed a range of diplomatic, political and security measures that Ethiopia regards as constraints on its development. Egypt’s dispute over developments remains one of the most visible sources of tension in the region. Although Ethiopia constructed the dam on the Abay River with the stated objectives of expanding electricity generation, promoting industrial development and improving access to reliable power, Egypt has persistently sabotaged Ethiopia’s plans for major projects on the Abay (Nile) River and has sought diplomatic mechanisms to influence the construction and operation of the GERD. It has also internationalized the dispute through diplomatic engagement with organizations and international partners, including the United Nations, the Arab League and the European Union, in an effort to strengthen international attention to its concerns over the Abay and the GERD. The central disagreement is not simply about the operation of one dam. It concerns fundamentally different interpretations of development, sovereignty and the use of shared water resources. Ethiopia argues that an upstream country should have the right to develop its water resources for electricity generation and economic transformation while avoiding significant harm to downstream states. Another sabotage by Egypt against Ethiopia is protecting financers not to support Ethiopia. Ethiopia has long argued that political pressure surrounding the Nile dispute can make it more difficult for the country to attract international financing for major water, energy and infrastructure projects. These efforts are viewed in Ethiopia as part of a broader attempt to restrict its development options and prevent the country from fully exploiting its water and energy resources. Egypt has also attempted to further complicate the situation through military rhetoric. Egyptian officials have periodically referred to the possibility of military options in relation to Abay dispute. Although Egypt has no direct border with Ethiopia, it has conducted military exercises and strengthened security cooperation with countries in Ethiopia’s neighborhood. Diplomacy, military exercises and strategic partnerships can reinforce one another, creating a wider environment in which Ethiopia faces pressure from several directions simultaneously. Egypt’s efforts to strengthen its position in the Horn of Africa have increasingly involved partnerships with countries surrounding Ethiopia. These relationships have acquired particular significance as Ethiopia seeks reliable access to the Red Sea and expands its diplomatic and economic engagement across the region. Egypt has strengthened its military and political relations with Somalia, including military assistance and security cooperation. The emergence of a closer Egyptian Somali security relationship is particularly sensitive for Ethiopia because Somalia shares a long border with the country. The presence of an increasingly active Egyptian security partnership in Somalia has raised concerns in Ethiopia over the possibility of additional strategic pressure on its eastern flank. Egypt has also maintained strong relations with Sudanese state institutions and the Sudanese Armed Forces, while the war in Sudan has increased the strategic importance of the country because of its geographic position between Egypt and Ethiopia and its proximity to the Red Sea. These relationships should not automatically be characterized as a coordinated military encirclement of Ethiopia, as each country has its own national interests and security calculations. However, they demonstrate the growing competition for strategic influence around Ethiopia. The broader pattern is nevertheless significant. Egypt’s expanding diplomatic and security network provides Cairo with additional avenues for building coalitions and increasing its leverage in regional discussions involving the Nile, security and Red Sea affairs. As Egypt strengthens its relationships with countries around Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa is consequently becoming a space where local conflicts and wider geopolitical competition increasingly reinforce one another. Eritrea also exerted a sabotage against Ethiopian development. Since its independence from Ethiopia in 1993, relations between the two countries have been characterized by conflict, military confrontation and deep political mistrust. The most significant confrontation was the 1998 to 2000 Eritrea Ethiopia War, which erupted over the disputed border around Badme and other areas. The conflict caused tens of thousands of deaths and displaced large numbers of people. Although the Algiers Agreement brought the war to an end, relations between the two countries remained frozen for nearly two decades in what became known as a "no war, no peace" situation. During this period, Eritrea developed relationships with Ethiopian opposition and armed movements. Asmara was accused of providing sanctuary, training, logistical support and other forms of assistance to groups opposed to the government in Addis Ababa. Among the organizations historically associated with Eritrea were TPLF, the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). Eritrea has also played a wider negative regional role. Its relations with Sudan, Djibouti and Somalia have repeatedly generated international concern. Eritrea fought Yemen over the Hanish Islands in 1995 and clashed with Djibouti in 2008. In Somalia, Eritrea was accused by international monitoring mechanisms of supporting armed groups during the country's prolonged conflict between 2006 and 2018. The United Nations Security Council subsequently imposed sanctions on Eritrea in 2009, although the sanctions were lifted in 2018. Eritrea’s regional policy has therefore extended well beyond its bilateral dispute with Ethiopia. Its use of military force, strategic alliances and relationships with armed movements has contributed to the destabilization of the wider Horn of Africa. The strategic competition involving Egypt and Eritrea has increasingly intersected with Ethiopia’s internal political and security challenges. Ethiopian has repeatedly accused neighboring states, particularly Eritrea of cultivating relationships with armed groups and political movements inside the country. Such allegations demonstrate how domestic conflicts can become intertwined with wider regional rivalries and geopolitical competition. Egypt, despite having no direct border with Ethiopia, has been also blamed for supporting or maintaining contacts with armed groups inside the country. Particular attention has been directed toward areas surrounding the GERD, including the Benishangul Gumuz region, as well as armed groups operating in other parts of Ethiopia. These activities have contributed to political divisions, ethnic tensions and armed insurgencies that create opportunities for external actors seeking to weaken the country. External support for domestic actors can also prolong conflicts, complicate political dialogue and make national reconciliation more difficult. Ethiopia has simultaneously sought to diversify its trade and transport connections. The Addis Ababa Djibouti railway remains a major commercial corridor, while the country has explored alternative transport routes through Kenya and other regional partners. Ethiopian Airlines has also developed an extensive international network, strengthening Ethiopia’s connectivity with global markets and contributing significantly to foreign exchange earnings. Agriculture represents another important pillar of Ethiopia’s economic resilience. The expansion of irrigated wheat production has helped reduce dependence on imports and created opportunities for Ethiopia to supply grain to neighboring markets. At the same time, the Green Legacy Initiative has developed into a major environmental and agricultural program, with large scale tree planting aimed at restoring degraded land, improving watershed management and strengthening long term climate resilience. These initiatives demonstrate Ethiopia’s effort to respond to geopolitical pressure through economic transformation and national resilience. Rather than relying exclusively on military or diplomatic countermeasures, Addis Ababa has increasingly emphasized infrastructure, energy, agriculture, trade, environmental protection and regional connectivity as instruments of national strength. Ethiopia’s experience illustrates how economic development can also serve as a strategic response to geopolitical pressure. By expanding its productive capacity, strengthening infrastructure and diversifying economic and diplomatic partnerships, the country seeks to reduce its vulnerability to external pressure while consolidating its position as a major political and economic actor in the Horn of Africa. Instability in the Horn of Africa cannot be attributed solely to external actors. Domestic political grievances, unresolved territorial disputes, institutional weaknesses, economic pressures and competition among local political and armed groups remain important drivers of conflict. External intervention has deepened these vulnerabilities, but sustainable stability ultimately depends on addressing the domestic and regional causes of insecurity. Ethiopia, has increasingly centered on economic resilience, energy development, infrastructure expansion, agricultural transformation, regional connectivity and the diversification of international partnerships. For Ethiopia, expanding electricity generation, strengthening infrastructure, diversifying trade routes and securing access to maritime markets are not merely economic objectives. They are also intended to reduce the country’s vulnerability to external pressure and strengthen its ability to make independent strategic decisions.

Eritrea’s Stagnation by Design: Proxy Legacies, Anti-Ethiopian Policies and the Cost of Isolation August 12, 2026 (ENA) By Jibril Lammo In an era defined by dynamic continental transformation, fast-tracked socio-economic shifts, and modern infrastructural revolutions across East Africa, the realities visible just across Ethiopia’s northern border present a stark and sober study in contrasts. Guided by the overarching vision of Medemer, Ethiopia continues to execute expansive development projects, redefine urban spaces, and build enduring national institutions. Yet, directly adjacent to this rising economic engine, Eritrea remains trapped in a self-inflicted cycle of economic decay, institutional isolation, and historical stagnation. Recent visual documentation produced by independent international content creators and global travel vloggers has brought this divide back into sharp clarity. Public dispatches published by creators such as Davud Akhundzada alongside British and Russian travel vloggers Matt and Julia present an unvarnished window into a society frozen in time. Observers continuously describe an environment that appears to have retrogressed by over half a century, completely disconnected from the digital finance networks, modern telecommunications, and industrial infrastructure that now define the region. In one notably striking sequence broadcast to a global audience, a young Eritrean citizen in Asmara is captured on live camera directly soliciting a visitor for a single loaf of bread. This moment provides an undeniable reality check that completely dismantles the state-sponsored propaganda of self-sustained food security and agrarian self-reliance long promoted by the ruling establishment in Asmara. The Egyptian Proxy Roots and a Legacy of Hostility To understand why Eritrea continues to deteriorate while neighboring economies like Ethiopia, record unprecedented expansion, one must analyze its foundational political origins. Historically conceived and nurtured with Cairo’s backing during the mid-twentieth century, the Shabia movement—an outgrowth of the original Jebeha structure established in Egypt, was specifically engineered as an anti-Ethiopian proxy project. The primary strategic objective of its external sponsors was simple: sever Ethiopia’s direct access to the Red Sea, tie down its national resources, and permanently impede its capacity to utilize its natural water assets along Abay (Nile) basin. In the three decades following its formal separation from Ethiopia, the ruling clique in Asmara has consistently refused to transition from a belligerent rebel outfit into a constructive state apparatus focused on internal nation-building. Rather than devoting its national budget to domestic infrastructure, education, and health systems, the regime transformed the nation into a primary base for regional destabilization. Nearly every major security threat, internal subversion effort, and armed insurgency faced by Ethiopia over the past thirty years has been planned, financed, or sheltered within Eritrean territory. This singular obsession with undermining Ethiopia has devastated Eritrea’s internal capacity. Today, the country operates in near-total isolation, marked by an absolute absence of modern banking systems, automated teller machines, commercial internet connectivity, democratic elections, and basic civil liberties. The artificial pegging of its national currency offers a paper-thin facade that fails to mask runaway domestic inflation, severe supply shortages, and profound structural poverty. The Unholy Alliance: The "Tsimdo" Conspiracy and Subversion Nothing reveals the regime's singular focus on destabilizing Ethiopia more clearly than Asmara’s recent backing of the coalition known as Tsimdo. In a remarkable turn of geopolitical opportunism, the Eritrean leadership has forged an unholy alliance with hardline TPLF factions and associated armed groups—the very entities with which it previously engaged in devastating armed conflict. This alignment demonstrates that Asmara operates entirely without ideological consistency, guided solely by a destructive agenda against Ethiopian national unity. Assembled through clandestine meetings across Asmara, Mekelle, and regional border hubs, this Tsimdo alliance offers zero benefit to the ordinary citizens of Eritrea. Instead of directing scarce foreign currency reserves toward domestic food security, health services, or economic relief, the regime in Asmara channels its limited resources into funding, arming, and sheltering these insurgent elements. The strategic calculation behind Tsimdo is to keep Ethiopia perpetually distracted, bogged down in internal friction, and unable to fully project its economic and diplomatic strength. For the ruling circle in Asmara, any setback for Ethiopia is misconstrued as a victory, reflecting a narrow and zero-sum mindset that prioritizes regional hostility over the basic survival needs of its own populace. The High Price of Rejecting Regional Economic Integration Under standard economic logic, proximity to a rapidly expanding market of over 130 million people represents an extraordinary trade advantage. Ethiopia’s booming industrial footprint, expanding urban centers, and soaring demand for goods and services offered Eritrea a natural pathway toward sustained economic prosperity. By integrating into regional transport corridors, supplying complementary port logistics, and catering to Ethiopian consumer demand, Eritrea could have secured long-term economic stability for its population. Instead, the leadership in Asmara chose to remain a regional pawn for external interests, prioritizing geopolitical sabotage over the material welfare of its people. The structural consequence of this choice is an economy drastically poorer today than it was when unified with Ethiopia. The human toll of this policy is reflected in a devastating demographic drain. Today, nearly half a million Eritreans reside in Ethiopia, with the vibrant population of young Eritreans living and working in Addis Ababa now outnumbering the youthful population remaining in Asmara. As entire generations flee the country, the domestic human resource capacity of the nation continues to erode. This massive exodus underscores a basic truth: the regime in Asmara views its own citizenry as entirely expendable. For the ruling circle, domestic suffering is secondary to the pursuit of its foundational mandate—acting as an external wedge to contain Ethiopia's sovereign potential and disrupt its regional standing. Post-Pretoria Realities and Shifts in Asmara When the reform government under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed assumed office, Ethiopia extended an historic olive branch to Asmara, initiating a peaceful reconciliation process that earned international acclaim and a Nobel Peace Prize. This diplomatic effort was rooted in a genuine desire to build a peaceful, interconnected, and economically integrated Horn of Africa where neighboring populations could thrive together. However, the structural limits of Asmara’s political leadership became starkly apparent following the end of the conflict in Northern Ethiopia. The signing of the historic Pretoria Peace Agreement successfully ended active hostiles, preserved Ethiopia's constitutional order, and established a peaceful framework for dialogue and reconstruction—a comprehensive win-win outcome for national integrity and regional stability. Yet, this peaceful resolution was met with profound hostility by the Eritrean regime, which was intent on driving the conflict toward absolute regional destruction rather than a negotiated political settlement. Resentful of Ethiopia’s successful diplomatic resolution, Asmara promptly reversed its foreign policy alignments, forming tactical partnerships with the very political entities it previously fought. This blatant opportunism further proved that the regime's actions are governed solely by an unyielding desire to punish and fragment Ethiopia rather than any consistent geopolitical principle. An Unstoppable Trajectory and the Path Ahead The Ethiopia of the Medemer era is fundamentally different from the vulnerable state of past decades. Today, Ethiopia stands as one of the fastest-growing economies on the African continent, having successfully expanded its foreign exchange earnings, doubled its overall economic throughput, and consolidated its national defense capabilities. Guided by a clear long-term vision, Ethiopia is actively advancing its two-water strategy to correct historical injustices and secure its rightful economic and maritime standing. The state capacity built within Ethiopia—spanning large-scale civil engineering, digital economy integration, agricultural productivity, and poverty alleviation—remains a powerful resource that could benefit the broader region. Should the leadership in Asmara choose to abandon its obsolete proxy role and govern for the tangible well-being of its population, there is immense structural expertise available across the border to emulate and share. Ethiopia’s sovereign march toward national prosperity, regional integration, and economic leadership will not be delayed or deterred by external hostility. It is entirely up to the authorities in Asmara to correct their historical course and embrace constructive regional partnership, or remain trapped in self-imposed isolation while the rest of the Horn of Africa advances forward.

By Yordanos D. August 12, 2026 (ENA) Ethiopia is approaching one of the most defining moments in its modern political history. After decades marked by political polarization, recurring conflicts, constitutional disagreements and competing national narratives, the country is embarking on one of its most ambitious efforts to address fundamental political and social questions through dialogue rather than confrontation. The ongoing Ethiopian National Dialogue represents an attempt to create a nationally owned platform where citizens from diverse political, ethnic, religious and social backgrounds can openly discuss issues that have shaped the country’s political landscape and collectively seek solutions based on consensus, mutual understanding and peaceful engagement. Beyond being a political consultation process, the National Dialogue carries broader significance for Ethiopia’s future. It is expected to provide an opportunity to rebuild public trust, strengthen democratic institutions, promote reconciliation and establish a culture where disagreements are managed through dialogue, compromise and constitutional mechanisms rather than through conflict. The importance of the process lies not only in the issues it addresses but also in the approach it introduces. In a country where political disagreements have often resulted in instability and violence, the National Dialogue seeks to create a new framework for resolving differences through inclusive participation and shared responsibility.   Inception The Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission (ENDC) doesn’t emerge out of the blue. There was a long-lasting question among the entire public, many described it as “National Consensus”. However, attention was not given to it before the government change that took in the 2018. Being recognizant of such demands and other critical issues that have been leading Ethiopians to conflict, the government decided to let Ethiopians to come together round a table and discuss major national challenges and resolve them for good. As a result, the Ethiopian National Dialogue commission (ENDC) was established under Proclamation No. 1265/2021 as an independent and impartial federal institution accountable to the House of Peoples’ Representatives. The establishment of the Commission followed years of political uncertainty, armed conflicts, constitutional disputes and disagreements among political actors and communities over fundamental questions related to Ethiopia’s identity, governance system, federal arrangement, historical interpretation and state building process. For decades, these unresolved questions have influenced political competition and contributed to recurring tensions across the country. Different groups have developed competing perspectives on issues such as national identity, political representation, administrative structures and the relationship between the federal government and regional states. Recognizing that these complex issues could not be sustainably addressed through political competition, security measures or isolated reforms, the Ethiopian Parliament established the National Dialogue Commission to facilitate a comprehensive national conversation aimed at identifying common ground and building consensus. The Commission operates based on principles of inclusivity, transparency, impartiality, credibility, mutual respect, democracy, national interest, rule of law and recognition of Ethiopia’s indigenous traditions of conflict resolution. Its mandate includes identifying the root causes of national disagreements, collecting agenda items from citizens, organizing consultations at different administrative levels, facilitating discussions among stakeholders, documenting recommendations and supporting the implementation of agreed outcomes.   Consultation Process and Progress One of the defining characteristics of Ethiopia’s National Dialogue is its emphasis on broad public participation. Unlike political initiatives that have historically been limited to government institutions or political elites, the process has been designed to involve communities across the country and provide space for diverse voices. The agenda collection process has reached communities from the woreda level to regional and federal platforms, allowing citizens to identify issues they consider central to Ethiopia’s future. Ethiopians living abroad have also been included through diaspora consultations aimed at ensuring that perspectives from outside the country contribute to the national conversation. The process has sought participation from a wide range of social groups, including political parties, civil society organizations, religious institutions, women and youth associations, professional groups, universities, business communities, media organizations, traditional leaders, elders, persons with disabilities and internally displaced people. To support this extensive consultation process, the Commission has trained thousands of facilitators and collaborators responsible for organizing discussions, gathering public concerns and supporting participant selection. The emphasis on inclusion reflects the understanding that the credibility of the National Dialogue depends on whether citizens across different regions and social backgrounds believe their concerns are represented. Special attention has been given to communities that have historically experienced limited participation in national decision making, including rural populations, pastoralist communities, women, youth and conflict affected groups. Following extensive consultations across the country, the National Dialogue process is entering a decisive phase through the planned National Dialogue Conference. The conference represents the central stage where representatives from different sectors of Ethiopian society will engage in structured discussions on issues identified through previous consultations.   The conference has brought together thousands of participants representing regional states, federal institutions, political organizations, civil society groups, religious institutions, professional associations, youth, women, elders and members of the Ethiopian diaspora. The scale of participation reflects the ambition of the process. Rather than being a negotiation among political elites, the conference seeks to become a national platform where diverse groups can deliberate on issues affecting the country’s political future. Participants are now discussing major areas of national concern, including state building and national identity, constitutional and federal arrangements, rule of law and human rights, peacebuilding and reconciliation, socioeconomic development and good governance. The structure of the conference is designed to encourage meaningful discussion rather than simple political debate. Participants will engage through smaller discussion forums before moving into broader sessions where ideas and recommendations can be consolidated. This approach is intended to allow participants to examine complex issues carefully, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and develop recommendations based on collective deliberation. The Commission has indicated that recommendations emerging from the conference will undergo further review before being incorporated into its final report. These recommendations could provide guidance for future policy reforms, legislative measures and possible constitutional adjustments. An important feature of the process is the principle that all participants will engage as equals. Government officials, political representatives, academics, military officers, religious leaders, business figures, traditional elders and ordinary citizens are expected to participate without institutional privilege. This approach is intended to encourage open discussion and create an environment where different perspectives can be expressed freely. Addressing Criticval National Questions At the heart of the National Dialogue are some of Ethiopia’s most complex and long-standing questions. The country’s history, identity, political structure and governance system have been interpreted differently by various groups. These competing perspectives have shaped political movements and contributed to tensions over issues such as federalism, national identity, resource distribution and representation. The National Dialogue provides an opportunity to address these issues through peaceful discussion rather than through political confrontation. Participants are expected to explore questions related to constitutional reform, democratic governance, electoral systems, institutional accountability, protection of rights and mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully. The objective of the dialogue is not necessarily to eliminate all disagreements, as differences are natural in a diverse society. Instead, the goal is to establish a shared framework where disagreements can be managed through democratic institutions and peaceful processes. Peacebuilding Via National Reconciliation Peacebuilding remains one of the most important expectations surrounding the National Dialogue. Years of conflict have resulted in loss of life, displacement, economic disruption and deep social divisions in different parts of Ethiopia. These experiences have created a need for mechanisms that can address grievances, rebuild trust and promote reconciliation among communities. The National Dialogue could contribute to peace by creating opportunities for groups with different experiences and perspectives to engage directly and seek common understanding. The process is also expected to complement transitional justice efforts by supporting discussions around accountability, truth seeking, reconciliation, reparations, institutional reform and national healing. A successful dialogue could help reduce political polarization by encouraging competing groups to pursue solutions through negotiation and democratic engagement rather than violence. Strengthening Democracy Another major expectation of the National Dialogue is the strengthening of Ethiopia’s democratic institutions. Democracy depends not only on elections but also on the ability of institutions to manage disagreements, protect rights and ensure that citizens have confidence in the political system.   If the dialogue produces widely accepted recommendations, it could contribute to stronger institutions, improved accountability and greater public trust in government structures. The process could also support efforts to strengthen institutions such as the judiciary, electoral bodies and law enforcement agencies, which play essential roles in ensuring political stability and protecting citizens’ rights. Through inclusive participation and consensus building, the National Dialogue has the potential to create conditions for more peaceful political competition and stronger democratic governance. Economic Opportunities through Political Stability Political stability remains one of the most important foundations for Ethiopia’s economic transformation. If the National Dialogue succeeds in reducing uncertainty and strengthening peace, it could improve investor confidence, encourage economic activity and create better conditions for reconstruction and development in conflict affected areas. Resources previously directed toward managing conflicts could increasingly support national priorities such as education, healthcare, infrastructure development, agricultural modernization, industrial growth and employment creation. A more stable political environment would strengthen Ethiopia’s ability to attract investment, expand trade and improve its position as one of Africa’s major emerging economies. The experience demonstrates that peace and development are deeply connected. Sustainable economic progress requires political stability, strong institutions and public confidence. Regional, Continental Significance The importance of Ethiopia’s National Dialogue extends beyond the country’s borders. As the diplomatic center of Africa and the host of major continental institutions, Ethiopia plays a significant role in regional peace, security and economic cooperation. A more peaceful and stable Ethiopia would contribute to broader stability in the Horn of Africa by supporting regional trade, infrastructure connectivity, migration management and diplomatic cooperation. The process could also provide valuable lessons for other African countries facing political divisions, constitutional disputes and post conflict challenges. If successful, Ethiopia’s experience could demonstrate the potential of nationally owned dialogue processes as tools for resolving complex political challenges and strengthening democratic transitions.   A Defining Moment for Ethiopia In a nutshell, the Ethiopian National Dialogue represents one of the country’s most comprehensive efforts to address political, constitutional and social disagreements through peaceful consultation. Its success will depend not only on the discussions themselves but also on whether recommendations are translated into meaningful reforms and whether stakeholders remain committed to implementing agreed outcomes. If broad consensus is achieved and reforms are carried forward, the dialogue could become a historic turning point for Ethiopia, creating stronger institutions, deeper reconciliation and a more inclusive political environment. For Ethiopia, the process represents an opportunity to move beyond cycles of confrontation and establish a culture of dialogue, compromise and shared responsibility. For Africa, it could become an important example of how inclusive national consultation can contribute to peace, democratic renewal and sustainable development. Ultimately, the National Dialogue is not only about resolving today’s disagreements. It is about determining whether Ethiopia can transform its diversity and differences into a foundation for cooperation, stability and a shared national future.

Staff Writer   August 9, 2026 (ENA) Some weeks are measured by the events they produce. Others are remembered for the direction they reveal. For Ethiopia, the past week was marked by a series of developments that reached far beyond individual announcements. From millions of citizens gathering under heavy rains to plant the seeds of an ecological future, to the country crossing the 50-million mark in its national digital identity system, and from renewed efforts to forge political consensus to a broader campaign against economic crimes, the week offered a picture of a country steadily building the foundations of its next chapter. Across environment, technology, governance, security and infrastructure, a common thread emerged: the pursuit of greater national capacity, resilience and self-reliance. Planting Hope, One Seedling at a Time Perhaps nowhere was the scale of that national mobilization more visible than in Ethiopia’s Green Legacy Initiative. In a remarkable 12-hour campaign conducted under the theme “Let Us Plant Hope,” Ethiopia planted more than 805.3 million tree seedlings, setting a new environmental record. The operation covered some 291,400 hectares and brought together an extraordinary 26.2 million citizens across the country. The scale was impressive. But the deeper significance lay in what stood behind the numbers. Millions of Ethiopians turned out despite torrential seasonal rains, transforming what could have been an ordinary environmental campaign into a nationwide demonstration of civic participation and collective responsibility. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed captured the spirit of the day, saying: “Despite the formidable challenge of planting seedlings throughout the day in torrential rains, over 26.2 million Ethiopians stepped forward to plant hope for tomorrow. This extraordinary spirit proves that when we unite around a shared vision, no hurdle is insurmountable.” The achievement also placed the week within the broader trajectory of the Green Legacy Initiative. More than 6.5 billion seedlings have already been planted during the current Ethiopian year, leaving another 1.5 billion to reach the seasonal target of 8 billion seedlings. Yet the initiative is increasingly becoming about more than planting trees. Across regions, government officials and local communities have linked the campaign to soil conservation, watershed rehabilitation, food security and the protection of critical water infrastructure. Cabinet members and regional leaders also used the mobilization to strengthen anti-siltation efforts around dams. What began as a tree-planting campaign is increasingly taking the shape of a national climate-resilience strategy—one that seeks to connect environmental restoration with the country's long-term economic and ecological security. Strengthening Ethiopia’s Digital Frontiers As Ethiopia accelerates its digital transformation, the government is moving to secure the infrastructure underpinning it. This week, the Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Proclamation No. 1426/2026 was highlighted as a major step toward protecting strategic digital systems from growing cyber threats. INSA Director General Tigist Hamid said the law establishes a comprehensive framework for monitoring cyber risks and coordinating responses across 12 critical sectors, including finance, telecommunications, health, energy, water, transport and government services. The proclamation requires critical infrastructure operators to strengthen risk assessments, cyber audits and security governance, while establishing a dedicated cybersecurity fund to support resilience, innovation and skills development. As digital identity, electronic payments and online public services expand, the new framework seeks to ensure that Ethiopia’s digital transformation is matched by stronger protection of its national data, critical systems and digital sovereignty. The Search for Consensus Beyond technology and environmental restoration, Ethiopia's most consequential project remains political: finding a durable framework for national consensus. That effort moved another step forward this week as consultations under the National Dialogue framework brought more than 4,000 delegates representing different sections of society to the Addis International Convention Center. The significance of the gathering lies not merely in the number of participants, but in the difficult questions being placed on the table. Ethiopia's political history has been shaped by competing interpretations of power, identity, representation and economic opportunity. The National Dialogue seeks to move those disagreements from confrontation toward structured discussion—and ultimately toward a political culture capable of managing differences without repeatedly turning them into crises. In an extended broadcast interview, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reflected on the historical roots of popular struggles and the failures that helped produce them. He argued that understanding the past is essential not for perpetuating old divisions, but for addressing the structural problems that produced them. “The historic popular struggles of our past were fundamentally directed at rectifying system-level governance failures and economic marginalization—not at dismantling national unity. True state-building requires us to acknowledge these historical realities while constructively channeling our efforts into building a shared, equitable democratic future.” That distinction is central to the country's search for consensus: recognizing grievances without allowing them to become permanent political fault lines. The challenge now is to translate dialogue into institutions, agreements and a political culture capable of sustaining the country's unity while accommodating its diversity. Protecting the Economic Front Ethiopia’s economic transformation is also facing a battle against the networks seeking to exploit weaknesses in the system. This week, the government launched decisive measures against individuals, businesses and officials accused of corruption and illegal economic activities undermining the ongoing macroeconomic reform. Government Communication Service Minister Enatalem Melese said such networks had contributed to foreign-currency shortages, inflationary pressures, contraband trade and artificial shortages of essential goods. The crackdown has already seen more than 7,000 businesses and warehouses sealed, while 169 people accused of illegal money transfers, hawala activities and black-market currency transactions were brought before the law. Authorities also targeted illicit gold trading, fuel and fertilizer-related corruption, tax fraud, illegal financial flows and unauthorized electricity sales, with hundreds of suspects facing investigation or legal action. The breadth of the operation underscores a central message of the reform agenda: economic transformation requires not only new policies and investment, but also institutions capable of protecting the system from corruption, illicit markets and the misuse of national resources. Energy, Water and the Regional Horizon Ethiopia's infrastructure ambitions continued to intersect with its wider regional role, particularly in energy and water. Following the latest milestones associated with the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, water-resource engineers and energy analysts emphasized the importance of sustaining momentum through further hydropower development along the Abay River basin. The argument extends beyond domestic electricity generation. Additional generation capacity, combined with stronger transmission infrastructure, could reinforce Ethiopia's position as a major electricity supplier to neighboring countries and contribute to the gradual integration of East Africa's power markets. The strategic equation is increasingly clear: Ethiopia's water and energy resources are not only national development assets; they can also become instruments of regional economic integration. At the same time, progress in localized clean-water systems and disease-surveillance networks added another dimension to the country's resilience agenda. From public health to environmental protection, the common objective is increasingly one of preparedness—building systems capable of absorbing shocks before they become national crises. A Week That Revealed a Direction Taken separately, the week's developments might appear to belong to entirely different worlds. Tree planting belongs to the environment. Digital identity belongs to technology. National Dialogue belongs to politics. Economic enforcement belongs to security. Hydropower belongs to infrastructure. But viewed together, they tell a more coherent story. They point toward a country seeking to strengthen the foundations of its sovereignty—from the restoration of its land and protection of its water resources to the security of its digital systems, the integrity of its economy and the institutions through which political differences are managed. The most important achievement of such a week, therefore, may not be any single record, platform or consultation. It is the emerging recognition that national transformation requires capacity on every front at once. A greener landscape. A more connected citizenry. Stronger institutions. A more secure economy. Greater energy capacity. And, above all, a political culture capable of turning Ethiopia's diversity from a source of recurring confrontation into a foundation for common purpose. That is what made the week significant. It was not simply a week of milestones. It was a week that offered another glimpse of the Ethiopia being built for tomorrow.

By Staff Writer August 9, 2026 (ENA) The world experienced another turbulent week as armed conflicts, geopolitical rivalries, diplomatic maneuvering, economic pressures, climate stress and humanitarian emergencies continued to reinforce one another. From persistent wars and renewed security tensions to fragile ceasefire efforts and intensified diplomatic initiatives, governments and international organizations faced growing pressure to contain crises before they spread beyond their immediate theatres. At the same time, disruptions to energy supplies and maritime routes continued to expose the vulnerability of the global economy to geopolitical shocks, with uncertainty affecting oil prices, shipping costs, trade flows and inflationary pressures. The week also highlighted the increasingly interconnected nature of global crises. Conflict and insecurity continued to drive displacement and humanitarian needs, while extreme weather events, wildfires, floods and prolonged climate pressures placed additional strain on communities already facing economic hardship. Food security remained a concern in several vulnerable regions as conflict, disrupted supply chains and climate related shocks threatened agricultural production and access to essential commodities. Meanwhile, migration pressures continued to rise as people sought safety and economic opportunities across borders, creating additional challenges for governments and humanitarian agencies. Beyond immediate crises, major powers continued to compete for strategic influence, particularly over energy resources, critical trade corridors, emerging technologies and military capabilities. Diplomatic engagement remained active as states sought to prevent escalation, negotiate settlements and protect their economic and security interests. Yet the persistence of competing geopolitical agendas demonstrated the limits of diplomacy when trust between major actors remains weak. Taken together, the week's developments underscored a world facing multiple, interconnected risks rather than isolated crises. Conflict, economic uncertainty, climate emergencies and humanitarian pressures increasingly overlap, creating a fragile international environment in which a political or security shock in one region can rapidly produce consequences far beyond its borders. Peace and Security The confrontation involving Iran and the United States remained the week's most consequential international development. Sustained uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continued to threaten global energy and maritime shipping markets. By the end of the week, the dispute had increasingly shifted from the battlefield toward the question of who would control and regulate shipping through the strategic waterway. Media reports indicated that Tehran said an agreement with Oman had been reached on parameters for a proposed shipping route through Hormuz, but Iranian officials subsequently stressed that the arrangement alone would not be sufficient to fully reopen the waterway. Diplomatic efforts to forge a path toward negotiations proceeded alongside intensifying military and political pressure. Tehran maintained demands for specific guarantees before fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while Washington faced growing urgency to decide whether military action or diplomacy offers a sustainable solution. The prolonged disruption of Hormuz has already affected businesses, employment and migrant workers across the Gulf, demonstrating that the crisis is no longer simply an energy security problem. Some media outlets noted that disruption to shipping and economic activity has affected sectors ranging from events and tourism to employment and foreign currency earnings. The ramifications of this standoff extend far beyond the region. As one of the world's premier energy corridors, prolonged disruption in the Strait could spike crude oil prices, drive up global freight tariffs, and reignite domestic inflationary pressures worldwide. The Times of India reported that Brent crude rose above 83 USD per barrel on August 7 as uncertainty persisted over the reopening of Hormuz. Reuters similarly reported that Brent gained more than 1 USD on Friday amid uncertainty over the terms of a possible reopening agreement. The conflicting demands over shipping access, transit fees, sanctions and insurance restrictions mean that even a diplomatic agreement may not immediately restore normal commercial traffic. Simultaneously, the conflict in Gaza remained unresolved. Talks over a long-term framework continued, but major sticking points, including Hamas's disarmament, Israeli military withdrawals, and post war security arrangements, obstructed a durable settlement. Meanwhile, severe humanitarian distress across the territory remained a critical concern for the international community. Geopolitics and Shifting Alliances Beyond active conflicts, the week demonstrated a continuing transformation of the international security order as countries reassessed traditional alliances and sought new strategic partnerships. Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan moved forward with a trilateral defence arrangement linking major powers from the Middle East and South Asia. Ankara subsequently stressed that the agreement was not directed against Iran, reflecting the delicate balance being pursued by countries seeking stronger security cooperation without necessarily becoming parties to another regional confrontation. The Indo Pacific remained another major arena of strategic competition. Pacific island governments faced growing pressure to balance relations with China, the United States, Australia and New Zealand while protecting their own sovereignty and development interests. The dispute surrounding China's recent ballistic missile test exposed divisions within the Pacific Islands Forum. Some governments expressed concern about the strategic implications of the test, while Beijing maintained that the launch was part of routine military activity and sought to reassure Pacific partners. China simultaneously intensified diplomatic engagement with Pacific Island states. Beijing presented its cooperation as supportive of national sovereignty and development choices and sought to distinguish its approach from what it describes as conditional or bloc-based diplomacy. The episode illustrates that strategic competition in the Pacific is increasingly being pursued through diplomacy, development assistance and political influence as well as military capabilities. The broader contest between major powers is therefore no longer confined to traditional military alliances. Energy access, infrastructure, maritime routes, trade, technology, development financing and diplomatic influence have all become instruments of geopolitical competition. Economic Risks and Global Trade Economic vulnerability emerged as one of the clearest themes of the week. The disruption around Hormuz demonstrated how quickly a security crisis can become a global economic problem. Higher oil prices can increase transportation and production costs, while prolonged shipping disruption can raise freight rates and insurance premiums. For countries heavily dependent on imported energy, the consequences can include higher inflation, pressure on currencies and greater strain on household incomes. India has particular exposure because of its energy imports, extensive commercial links with the Gulf and large overseas workforce in the region. The Hormuz crisis therefore represents not only a foreign policy challenge for New Delhi but also a direct economic and human security concern. China, meanwhile, has continued to emphasize the broader consequences of geopolitical fragmentation for global production, maritime commerce and employment. Prolonged confrontation threatens the economic interdependence on which international trade has been built. The same vulnerabilities are visible in Europe, where disruptions to the Black Sea have affected agricultural and energy exports, and in the Red Sea, where insecurity has forced vessels to reconsider traditional routes. Canada offered a contrasting economic signal during the week, reporting stronger than expected labour conditions in July, with unemployment falling to a two year low despite continuing trade tensions and the effects of US tariffs. Taken together, these developments suggest that geopolitical fragmentation is becoming a structural economic risk rather than simply a temporary source of market volatility. Humanitarian and Public Health Emergencies Humanitarian concerns remained closely linked to armed conflict and economic instability during the week. The Democratic Republic of Congo continued confronting a serious Ebola outbreak, with the epidemic concentrated particularly in Ituri and North Kivu. The outbreak has placed additional pressure on health authorities operating in areas already affected by insecurity, displacement and limited infrastructure. Available epidemiological figures demonstrate the scale of the crisis. By late July, thousands of cases and more than a thousand deaths had been recorded, underscoring the continuing strain on health authorities and humanitarian agencies. The outbreak illustrates the difficulty of managing major health emergencies in areas already affected by insecurity and displacement. Public health responses must operate alongside humanitarian operations and conflict management, making containment considerably more difficult. The World Health Organization (WHO) also marked World Breastfeeding Week from August 1 to 7, drawing attention to the need to strengthen support for mothers and infants. The observance provided a reminder that global health priorities continue even as governments concentrate on wars, security crises and economic shocks. Climate and Environmental Pressures Climate related disruption added another layer of vulnerability to the international picture. Europe experienced severe heat and drought conditions, with unusually low water levels along the Danube exposing historical wartime shipwrecks. Beyond the striking historical discovery, the falling water levels highlighted the vulnerability of inland waterways that support trade, transport and industrial activity. Extreme weather increasingly threatens infrastructure and supply chains at a time when geopolitical tensions are already putting pressure on global commodity flows. Drought can affect agricultural production and river transport, while extreme heat can strain electricity systems and damage infrastructure. The combination of climate stress and geopolitical instability is particularly significant because both can produce food price increases, migration pressures and competition over resources. Conclusion Taken together, the week's developments reveal a world in which conflicts, economic shocks, geopolitical rivalry, climate pressures and humanitarian emergencies are increasingly interconnected. The Strait of Hormuz is not simply an Iranian American security dispute. Its disruption can affect oil prices, shipping costs, inflation and employment thousands of kilometres away. The war in Ukraine is not confined to Eastern Europe, as attacks on Black Sea infrastructure affect agricultural and energy exports. The week's developments offered another warning that military confrontation can rapidly become an economic crisis, while economic insecurity can deepen humanitarian pressures and political instability. The world remains deeply divided over security, sovereignty and the future international order. Yet the interconnected nature of today's crises also makes cooperation more necessary. Preventing escalation, protecting global trade routes, maintaining humanitarian access and strengthening multilateral diplomacy will remain essential to containing the risks of an increasingly volatile international system. NB: This weekly review draws on reporting and analysis from major international and regional media outlets, including Reuters, AP, AFP, CNN, ABC, The Times of India, China Daily, Global Times, and South China Morning Post.

By Staff Writer August 9, 2026 (ENA) The Horn of Africa is once again facing the danger of military and political escalation as renewed manoeuvring involving Eritrea, illegal TPLF-led political and military actors, and other regional and external forces threatens to undermine the fragile peace achieved after years of devastating conflict. At the centre of these concerns is Tigray, a region still struggling to recover from the destruction, displacement and human suffering caused by the 2020 to 2022 war. The conflict ended with the signing of the Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA), creating an opportunity for the region to pursue reconstruction, reconciliation and political dialogue. That opportunity remains fragile. Reports of renewed military contacts involving Eritrean officials and former TPLF military figures inside Tigray have raised concerns that political disagreements could once again be transformed into military calculations. Against the backdrop of tensions involving Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt and armed groups in the region, such developments risk turning Ethiopia’s internal political challenges into a wider regional confrontation. The central concern is not merely which political actors may gain from renewed alliances, but who will bear the consequences if those alliances lead to another conflict. For the people of Tigray, particularly its youth, the answer is painfully familiar. Foreign Military Involvement One of the most troubling issues is the reported engagement of Eritrean military officials with banned TPLF military figures inside Tigray. Reports of meetings involving Eritrean and TPLF faction leaders on Ethiopian territory have raised questions about the purpose, authorization and implications of such contacts. If confirmed, the presence of foreign military officials inside Ethiopian territory without the authorization of the federal government would raise serious questions concerning national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Tigray is an integral regional state of Ethiopia and should not become a platform for external military calculations or geopolitical competition. The timing is also significant. Northern Ethiopia needs reconstruction, economic recovery, reconciliation and political stability. Renewed military engagement risks diverting attention and resources away from these priorities while creating an atmosphere in which mistrust and mobilisation can once again flourish. Ethiopia’s federal government and people have repeatedly expressed a desire to avoid another war, including renewed confrontation with Eritrea. Preserving that restraint requires all actors to avoid steps that could create facts on the ground and gradually transform political tensions into military confrontation. Eritrea's Regime History of Regional Confrontation The current concerns are also being viewed against Eritrea’s broader regional history. Since its independence from Ethiopia in 1993, Asmara has been involved in a series of military disputes and diplomatic tensions with neighbouring countries. The Ethiopia Eritrea border war of 1998 to 2000 remains the clearest illustration of how political and territorial disputes can escalate into devastating conflict. Tens of thousands of people were killed before the Algiers Agreement brought the major hostilities to an end. The 2018 rapprochement between Addis Ababa and Asmara marked a dramatic improvement in relations and raised hopes for a lasting transformation in the relationship between the two countries. Yet unresolved security concerns and competing strategic interests have continued to shape the politics of the region. Eritrea has also experienced serious disputes and security tensions involving Yemen, Djibouti and Sudan. Critics of Asmara have consequently accused the Eritrean government of relying heavily on military pressure, strategic alliances and security calculations to advance its regional interests. Whatever the interpretation of these episodes, the history demonstrates the danger of allowing regional disputes to become militarised. The Horn of Africa has repeatedly paid a heavy price when political disagreements are settled through force rather than sustained diplomacy. Danger of Proxy Politics The wider geopolitical environment makes the current situation even more complicated. Egypt’s strategic rivalry with Ethiopia, particularly over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and competing interests in the Nile Basin and Red Sea, has added another dimension to regional calculations. Any alignment between external actors and domestic political forces around Ethiopia’s internal divisions could deepen instability. The possibility of competing regional interests converging around armed groups or political factions creates the risk of turning domestic disputes into a proxy confrontation. The reported network involving the TPLF, Eritrea, Fano aligned forces and external actors such as Egypt is therefore particularly concerning. The alliance sometimes referred to as “Tsimdo” could, if it develops into a coordinated political or military arrangement, turn Tigray region of Ethiopia and neighbouring areas into an arena for competing strategic interests. Such arrangements may provide short term tactical advantages to individual actors. But alliances formed around a common opponent can be inherently unstable. Once immediate interests change, former partners can become rivals, leaving civilians to bear the consequences of conflicts they did not create. For Eritrea, deeper involvement in Ethiopia’s internal affairs could expose its own population to another costly regional confrontation. For Fano aligned forces, cooperation with former adversaries could transform political grievances into a broader conflict with national and ethnic dimensions. For external actors, using Ethiopia’s internal divisions to advance strategic interests could further destabilise an already fragile region. The People of Tigray Must Not Pay The greatest danger is that young Tigrayans could once again become the human cost of decisions made by political and military elites. At the heart of this threat is Eritrea’s regime, whose long-established reliance on proxy actors and military adventurism has repeatedly undermined peace efforts and fueled instability across the Horn of Africa. The region’s youth have already endured violence, displacement, economic hardship and interrupted education. Thousands of families continue to face the consequences of a conflict that disrupted livelihoods. Reports of renewed recruitment and alleged coercive mobilisation in Tigray region have therefore intensified public concern. Such allegations require serious scrutiny, transparency and accountability. Any effort to rebuild armed structures or mobilise young people for another confrontation would threaten not only immediate security but also the future of an entire generation. Tigray does not need another mobilisation campaign. It needs functioning schools, hospitals, roads, businesses and institutions. Its young people need opportunities to study, work and build families rather than being placed once again in the path of war. The political future of Tigray region must consequently be pursued through dialogue and legitimate political processes. Attempts to regain influence through armed confrontation would risk repeating the very tragedy from which the region is still recovering. A renewed Ethiopia Eritrea confrontation would not remain confined to the border between the two countries. The Horn of Africa is interconnected through security, trade, migration, political alliances and strategic interests. Another war could draw in armed groups, neighbouring states and external powers, producing a crisis whose humanitarian and economic consequence would be difficult to contain. It could disrupt trade routes, increase displacement, deepen food insecurity and divert resources from development and reconstruction. For Ethiopia, renewed conflict would threaten economic progress and divert national attention from domestic development priorities. For Eritrea, another confrontation could impose further human and economic costs on a population that has already experienced prolonged militarisation. For Tigray, the consequences could be catastrophic, given the region’s unfinished recovery from the previous war. The wider lesson is clear: military confrontation rarely remains under the control of those who initiate it. Once violence begins, political calculations can quickly give way to humanitarian catastrophe. All the people of Tigray Should struggle to enhance peace and stability in their region through preserving the Pretoria peace agreement and denying the defunct TPLF leaders who made unholy marriage with internal and external enemies to engage the people in a devastating war. The Pretoria cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) demonstrated that even one of the Horn of Africa’s most destructive conflicts could be brought to an end through negotiation. Its significance extends beyond the cessation of hostilities. It created an opportunity for political dialogue and recovery after years of devastating violence. That opportunity should not be undermined by renewed military preparations. If Eritrean authorities are engaging with political or military actors inside Tigray, transparency is essential. Such engagement should respect Ethiopia’s sovereignty and contribute to peace rather than destabilisation. The TPLF belligerent political and military actors, for their part, must recognise that armed confrontation cannot provide a sustainable solution to political disagreements. The Ethiopian government also has a responsibility to maintain restraint while addressing security concerns through lawful and diplomatic channels. In this regard, the federal government has gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate maximum restraint despite mounting security concerns and repeated provocations. Preventing another war requires more than military preparedness; it requires sustained political engagement, confidence-building, and a genuine willingness by all sides to resolve disputes through dialogue rather than force. The same principle applies to external actors. Regional and international powers should support peace, reconstruction and dialogue rather than encourage political divisions that could produce another cycle of violence. The Horn of Africa has suffered enough from conflicts fueled by mistrust, rivalry and military adventurism. The region now faces a choice between protecting the fragile gains of peace and allowing political calculations to reopen one of its most destructive fault lines. Tigray must not become a battlefield for regional rivalries. Ethiopian territory must not become a stage for unauthorized foreign military manoeuvring. And the youth of Tigray must not once again be sacrificed for the ambitions of competing political and military elites. The responsibility rests with all actors. Eritrea must avoid actions that threaten Ethiopia’s sovereignty or regional stability. Political forces in Tigray region must pursue their objectives through peaceful political means. Ethiopia must continue to use restraint and diplomacy. Regional and external powers must resist the temptation to exploit internal divisions for strategic advantage. The consequences of failure would extend far beyond the immediate political actors. Families would once again lose loved ones, communities would face displacement, development would be disrupted, and another generation would inherit the burdens of war. Conclusion The Horn of Africa stands at a critical moment. The region has an opportunity to consolidate the peace achieved through negotiation or to repeat the destructive patterns of the past. For Tigray, the priority should be recovery, reconciliation and rebuilding. For Ethiopia and Eritrea, it should be preventing another confrontation that could inflict enormous costs on both populations. For regional and external actors, the responsibility should be to support stability rather than deepen existing divisions. The Pretoria agreement showed that dialogue can succeed where war cannot. Its promise must therefore be protected from renewed militarisation and political adventurism. The people of Tigray have already paid too high a price for war. Their future should not be determined by military alliances forged behind closed doors or by geopolitical calculations made far from the communities that would suffer their consequences. The choice before the region is ultimately simple: preserve peace and give a generation the opportunity to rebuild or allow military adventurism to reopen a conflict whose wounds have not yet healed. The Horn of Africa can ill afford to make the wrong choice.