Ethiopia has formally demanded that Eritrea withdraw troops it says are operating inside Ethiopian territory, marking a sharp escalation in already fragile relations between the two Horn of Africa neighbours.
The demand was delivered through an official letter sent by Ethiopia’s foreign minister to his Eritrean counterpart. In the letter, Addis Ababa accuses Eritrea of carrying out “acts of outright aggression,” including the alleged deployment of forces inside Ethiopia and joint military activities with armed rebel groups operating in northern border regions.
According to Ethiopian officials, Eritrean forces are accused of advancing deeper into Ethiopia’s north-eastern areas while simultaneously coordinating with rebel groups along the north-western frontier. The letter also claims Eritrea has supplied weapons and ammunition to these groups, accusations that Asmara has consistently rejected.
Eritrea has not issued a formal response to the latest claims, but it has repeatedly denied that its troops crossed the internationally recognized border. In previous statements, Eritrean authorities have accused Addis Ababa of manufacturing allegations to justify renewed confrontation.
The latest dispute revives long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, whose relationship has been defined by cycles of war, uneasy truces, and shifting alliances since Eritrea’s independence more than three decades ago.
The two countries fought a devastating border war between 1998 and 2000 that left over 100,000 people dead. Although a peace agreement was signed, key elements were never fully implemented, leaving the border dispute unresolved for years. Relations only began to thaw in 2018, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed visited Asmara, an initiative that later earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.
That rapprochement led to close military cooperation during Ethiopia’s 2020–2022 civil war, when Eritrea supported Ethiopian federal forces against Tigrayan fighters. However, that alliance has since collapsed, with both sides now accusing each other of destabilizing actions.
In his letter, Ethiopia’s foreign minister warned that recent developments suggest Eritrea has “chosen the path of further escalation.” He described the alleged troop movements and joint operations as more than provocations, framing them as direct violations of Ethiopia’s sovereignty.
A central issue behind the renewed friction is Ethiopia’s push for access to the Red Sea. As a landlocked country since Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia has increasingly framed sea access as a strategic and economic necessity. Prime Minister Abiy has previously described the loss of direct port access as a historic error and an “existential” challenge for the country.
In the letter, Ethiopia indicated that the withdrawal of Eritrean troops could open the door to broader negotiations, including discussions on potential access to the Red Sea through Eritrea’s Assab port. This proposal has long been sensitive, given Eritrea’s firm stance on sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Relations further deteriorated last week when Abiy publicly stated for the first time that Eritrean troops were responsible for massacres in the historic Ethiopian city of Aksum during the early months of the Tigray conflict. Those killings, reported in November 2020, were previously documented by human rights organizations but consistently denied by Eritrea.
Adding to the tension, Ethiopian authorities now accuse Eritrea of backing armed groups in Tigray that oppose the peace agreement which ended the civil war. Ethiopian police recently claimed to have intercepted thousands of rounds of ammunition allegedly sent from Eritrea to rebel forces.
Eritrea has dismissed these accusations, countering that Ethiopia is fabricating “false flags” in order to justify what it describes as a long-planned military confrontation.
As accusations and counter-accusations intensify, regional observers warn that the deterioration in relations risks destabilizing the wider Horn of Africa at a time when cooperation, trade, and security coordination are increasingly critical. Whether diplomacy can reverse the current trajectory now depends on whether both sides step back from confrontation and return to dialogue before tensions harden into open conflict.