Abiy Ahmed’s Blame Game: Eritrea Was Never the Problem, He Was

By David yeh

The first crack in a political myth rarely comes from an enemy. It comes from an insider—someone who knows where the bodies are buried and who helped build the house in the first place. That moment has now arrived for Abiy Ahmed. His most damning contradiction does not come from foreign critics or opposition figures, but from his own former foreign minister, Gedu Andargachew—one of the key architects of the coalition that brought Abiy to power in 2018. Gedu’s message to Abiy is blunt, public, and devastating: you lied.

Abiy’s rise was made possible by an extraordinary moment of Oromo–Amhara cooperation, forged to pull Ethiopia back from the brink as protests and repression threatened to tear the state apart under the Tigray People’s Liberation Front–dominated order. Gedu was central to that effort—a stabilizer, a bridge-builder, and a statesman who worked alongside Lemma Megersa to prevent national collapse. That collaboration did not merely elevate Abiy; it saved the country from chaos. And like Lemma before him, Gedu was later discarded once his independence became inconvenient.

This is the pattern that now defines Abiy’s rule: allies are useful until they are not; truth is embraced until it becomes a liability. The same leader once hailed as a reformer, peacemaker, and unifier—celebrated at home and abroad, crowned with a Nobel Prize—now presides over a hollowed-out state where institutions bend to narrative, not accountability. The optimism of 2018 has curdled into fragmentation, war, and exhaustion, while responsibility is endlessly deflected.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Abiy’s shifting posture toward Eritrea. Peace and partnership were once paraded as historic achievements and used to legitimize his leadership. Today, those same facts are disowned. Eritrea, once praised as a stabilizing ally, is recast as a villain of convenience—blamed for Ethiopia’s internal failures as Abiy’s political fortunes falter. The facts did not change. The storyteller did.

Gedu’s rebuke matters precisely because it punctures the illusion. It confirms what many Ethiopians already sense: this is not a leadership anchored in principle, but one addicted to expedient reinvention. Those who helped Abiy ascend—who took risks to steady the nation—are sidelined, silenced, or vilified when they insist on truth over loyalty.

Abiy Ahmed is no longer merely a leader who disappoints. He is a leader exposed—by his own former partners—as someone who reshapes reality to survive politically. When insiders start calling lies by their name, the problem is no longer opposition propaganda. It is a crisis of credibility at the very center of power.

The Evolution of Abiy Ahmed Ali on Eritrea

◼️ Abiy Ahmed on Eritrea in 2022:
“Imagine what would have happened if we had not made peace with Eritrea.”
“The Eritrean people gave them (ENDF) water, fed them food, and armed them. This is something the Ethiopian people need to know and appreciate.”
“The Eritrean people have not only shown us that they are our brothers but have shown us through action that they are there for us in trying times.”
“For this operation, I want to thank the Eritrean people and their government.”

◼️ Abiy Ahmed on Eritrea in 2026:
“Some people think, speculate, and analyze that the problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea started when the Ethiopian government raised the issue of the Red Sea. But that’s not the case. There has been a problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea since the creation of the Eritrean state.”
“The tension escalated after we captured Axum and moved on, but they went into Axum and massacred the youth.”
“This issue has no value for today but what I want to mention for the history books is that when youth were massacred in Axum, when Adwa and Adigrat were looted, I have sent several envoys to Eritrea.”
“I sent him there to tell them that the Tigray people are my people, and to not abuse them or steal from them. And how our fight is with the TPLF, not the people of Tigray.”
“So when we entered Mekelle we knew they (Eritrean forces) would go in and destroy the big city so we said to them, ‘if you try to pass Wukro, we will leave Weyane (TPLF) and start fighting you’.”

The contrast is stark. In 2022, Eritrea was celebrated as a selfless and indispensable ally; by 2026, the same partner is portrayed as a historical problem and moral threat. This sudden revision is not justified by evidence or new strategic imperatives; it is a politically convenient shift to deflect accountability for domestic failures and the catastrophic consequences of the Tigray war.

Gedu Andargachew’s Rebuttal

The attempt to rewrite history was immediately challenged by Ethiopia’s former Foreign Minister, Gedu Andargachew, in an open letter dated February 4, 2026. Gedu, a veteran political leader with decades of experience in Ethiopia’s government, addressed Abiy directly, rebuking his parliamentary narrative. Gedu clarified that, contrary to Abiy’s claims, Ethiopian and Eritrean forces operated in close alignment throughout the Tigray conflict until the Pretoria Agreement formally ended hostilities. He emphasized that Eritrean troops were never acting independently against Ethiopia or against the interests of the Ethiopian state; rather, they were a coordinated partner in the military campaign.

Gedu also condemned the Prime Minister’s attempt to assign selective blame while claiming personal innocence. He argued that this narrative distorts reality, ignores the suffering of the Tigrayan people, and absolves the government of both political and moral responsibility. According to Gedu, the massive devastation, displacement, and social disintegration caused by the war were the result of all parties involved, including Tigrayan forces, and not the consequence of Eritrea acting against Ethiopia. Gedu’s intervention underscores that Abiy’s public statements are not merely misleading, they are a deliberate evasion of accountability.

Gedu’s intervention matters because it exposes the deeper problem: Abiy’s attempt to rewrite history in order to evade responsibility. Rather than acknowledging leadership failure, strategic miscalculation, and the catastrophic human cost of the war, Abiy seeks refuge in selective memory. By repositioning Eritrea as the source of discord, he reframes himself as a restrained, moral actor who was forced to tolerate excesses he supposedly opposed despite commanding the political and military apparatus throughout the conflict.

This tactic is not isolated. Across Tigray, Somali, Oromia, Amhara, and Benshangul- Gumuz similar patterns persist: unrest is blamed on unnamed spoilers, dissent is criminalized, and structural grievances are reduced to security threats. Institutions that once mediated power have been hollowed out, while decisions of national consequence are concentrated in the executive. Allies are discarded, critics silenced, and history edited in real time.

The Eritrea question is therefore not about foreign policy alone, it is a mirror reflecting Abiy Ahmed’s governing philosophy. Praise when convenient. Disown when costly. Blame outward. Control the record.

Leadership and Governance Under Abiy Ahmed

Abiy’s tenure illustrates a broader trend in his approach to governance: centralization of power, unpredictability, and a reliance on narrative over accountability. Decisions that once required debate and consensus within Ethiopia’s coalition-style leadership are now made unilaterally. Long standing allies have been sidelined, opposition voices silenced, and institutional checks weakened. Military operations in the Tigray, Amhara, and Oromo regions, coupled with repeated states of emergency, have amplified mistrust between the federal government and regional communities. Civilians, displaced and disenfranchised, face ongoing insecurity, rising prices, and widespread disruption of daily life.

Ethiopia’s political institutions have been systematically undermined. The Ethiopian National Defense Forces, once regarded as a pillar of national unity, have become instruments of both enforcement and intimidation. While initially praised for restoring order, the EDF’s involvement in domestic conflicts now carries allegations of heavy handedness and partiality. Combined with the centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s office, this has eroded public confidence in both governance and justice, leaving Ethiopia vulnerable to further unrest.

The Broader Political and Social Fallout

The consequences of Abiy Ahmed’s leadership extend beyond the battlefield. Internally, his centralization of authority has created fractures within the ruling Potemkin Party and sidelined experienced political actors. Internationally, Ethiopia’s reputation has suffered as human rights reports and credible investigations document the heavy toll of conflict, forced displacement, and social disruption. Several high profile Ethiopian figures have sought asylum abroad, citing fear of persecution a stark illustration of the political climate under the current administration.

Public disillusionment is compounded by Abiy’s shifting narratives. By blaming Eritrea and recasting historical events to suit political needs, he has diverted attention from the core failures of governance, strategic miscalculations, and the mismanagement of wartime operations. The narrative has become a tool not for understanding history but for evading responsibility, reinforcing a political culture in which accountability is optional, truth is flexible, and leadership is synonymous with self-preservation.

To conclude: Eritrea was never the problem. The problem lies in a leadership that consistently substitutes accountability with storytelling, governance with theatrics, and historical fact with political expedience. Abiy’s evolving narrative on Eritrea from indispensable ally to historical adversary demonstrates a broader pattern of obfuscation and blame-shifting that has come to define his tenure.

As Gedu Andargachew’s rebuttal makes clear, rewriting history does not absolve responsibility; it deepens the damage. Ethiopia’s current instability is not the result of foreign interference or historical inevitability, it is the consequence of a leadership unwilling to confront its own decisions, mistakes, and failures. Until this culture of narrative over governance is challenged, Ethiopia’s promise of unity, stability, and democratic reform will remain an elusive ideal rather than a realized reality.

Abiy Ahmed’s legacy will be measured not by the peace he brokered or the reforms he promised, but by the truth he refuses to face, the accountability he evades, and the destruction that continues in the shadow of his leadership.