Abiy Ahmed’s Shifting Rhetoric and the Dangerous Rewriting of the Tigray War

by Ibrahim A. Ibrahim

Words spoken by leaders in moments of crisis are not easily erased. They become part of history. When those same leaders later contradict their own record to suit changing political agendas, the result is not clarification but distortion—one that carries serious consequences for national credibility and regional stability.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s recent accusations against Eritrea, labeling its actions during the Tigray war as “irresponsible” and “inhumane,” stand in direct conflict with his own earlier statements. At the height of Ethiopia’s existential crisis, Abiy openly and unequivocally thanked the Government and people of Eritrea for standing shoulder to shoulder with Ethiopia. He acknowledged that without Eritrea’s support, the country risked disintegration and collapse under the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). These were not casual remarks; they were official acknowledgments of strategic reality.

To now reverse this position is not merely inconsistent—it is a dangerous act of historical revisionism.

The True Origins of the Tigray War
The Tigray war did not begin with Eritrea, nor was it imposed upon Ethiopia by external forces. It began when the TPLF launched coordinated attacks on the Northern Command of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces in November 2020. Federal military bases were overrun, soldiers were killed, and heavy weapons were seized. This act was universally recognized by the Ethiopian government itself as treasonous and as an open rebellion against the constitutional order of the state.
Any serious discussion of responsibility must begin here.

The TPLF was not a marginalized regional actor defending itself. It was a heavily armed organization that had dominated Ethiopia’s political, military, and economic institutions for nearly three decades. When it lost federal power, it chose confrontation over dialogue, violence over accountability.

TPLF Aggression Beyond Ethiopia’s Borders
What is often omitted—conveniently so—is that the TPLF did not confine its aggression to Ethiopian territory. In the early days of the war, it deliberately fired missiles into Eritrea, including at the capital, Asmara. These were not accidental spillovers of conflict; they were calculated acts intended to regionalize the war and provoke broader instability in the Horn of Africa.

This missile attack alone fundamentally invalidates any claim that Eritrea was a passive or arbitrary participant. No sovereign state would tolerate ballistic missiles launched into its cities without responding. Eritrea’s involvement was rooted in clear and immediate self-defense concerns.

Equally critical is the issue of occupied territory. For nearly two decades, the TPLF refused to implement the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling, a final and binding decision under international law. Territories such as Badme—legally awarded to Eritrea—remained under illegal occupation by TPLF-controlled forces. This unresolved injustice was not a technical oversight; it was a deliberate policy of defiance against international law.

Eritrea’s Role: Context, Not Convenience
Eritrea’s cooperation with the Ethiopian federal government during the war must be understood in this historical and security context. The TPLF had repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward Eritrea—through occupation, sanctions lobbying, proxy destabilization, and direct missile attacks. Eritrea’s position was neither opportunistic nor expansionist; it was defensive and strategic.

Prime Minister Abiy himself recognized this reality at the time. He publicly affirmed that Eritrea’s role was decisive in preventing Ethiopia’s collapse. To now accuse Eritrea of criminality without acknowledging the TPLF’s long record of aggression is not accountability—it is selective amnesia.

The Political Cost of Rewriting History
No war is without suffering, and civilians across Tigray, Amhara, Afar, and beyond paid a terrible price. Accountability and justice are essential. But justice cannot be built on shifting narratives and politically convenient scapegoating. Blame cannot be reassigned simply because alliances have become inconvenient.
By weaponizing rhetoric against Eritrea today, Abiy Ahmed risks undermining the very peace he once championed—the 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia peace agreement that ended decades of hostility and raised hopes for regional transformation. He also risks legitimizing the very forces that ignited the war and destabilized the region in the first place.

Leadership requires consistency, especially when history is painful. Eritrea did not ignite the Tigray war. The TPLF did. Eritrea did not occupy Ethiopian territory; it was Eritrean land that remained illegally occupied for years in defiance of international rulings. Eritrea did not fire missiles into foreign capitals; it was on the receiving end of such attacks.

The Horn of Africa cannot afford narratives built on political convenience. Truth matters—not only for history, but for peace. And leaders must be held accountable not only for the wars they fight, but for the words they choose when rewriting their causes.