Ethiopian authorities have reported a significant seizure of arms that they allege were being sent by Eritrea to the Fano rebel group operating in the northern Amhara region, raising fresh fears of a potential escalation in tensions between the two Horn of Africa neighbors. On Wednesday, Ethiopian police said they had confiscated more than 56,000 rounds of ammunition and arrested two suspects in connection with the shipment. In a statement posted on Facebook, the police said the preliminary investigation “confirmed that the ammunition was sent by the Shabiya government,” referring to Eritrea’s ruling party, and that the arms were intended to equip the Fano insurgents, who have been engaged in an ongoing campaign against the Ethiopian government. The announcement was accompanied by images of the seized ammunition and a brief account of the arrests, emphasizing the authorities’ claim that the operation had intercepted a serious threat to national security.
Eritrea has vehemently denied the allegations, with Information Minister Yemane Gebremeskel dismissing Ethiopia’s claims as unfounded. He accused the Ethiopian government, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party, of attempting to fabricate a pretext for renewed military action against Eritrea. “These accusations are nothing but floating false flags designed to justify the war that Ethiopia has been itching to unleash for two long years,” Yemane said, highlighting the long-standing mistrust that has characterized relations between the two nations. The Eritrean government reiterated its stance that it does not interfere in Ethiopia’s internal affairs and insisted that it remains committed to defending its sovereignty in the event of any external threat.
The latest allegations come amid a volatile historical backdrop between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Eritrea formally seceded from Ethiopia in 1993 after a decades-long struggle for independence, leaving Ethiopia landlocked and sparking disputes over access to the Red Sea. Just five years later, the two countries engaged in a brutal border war from 1998 to 2000, resulting in more than 100,000 deaths and leaving lingering tensions over contested territories. After years of hostility, the 2018 peace agreement appeared to mark a turning point, with both countries pledging to normalize diplomatic and economic relations. Eritrean troops even fought alongside Ethiopian government forces during the Tigray civil war, which erupted in 2020. However, Eritrea’s exclusion from the peace deal that ended the Tigray conflict in November 2022 and Ethiopia’s renewed insistence on guaranteed access to the Red Sea have created new flashpoints, fueling suspicions and mutual accusations.
Ethiopia’s Fano rebel movement has been a central concern in the Amhara region, where the group has established control over significant areas, challenging federal authority. Ethiopian authorities maintain that the alleged Eritrean arms shipment was meant to bolster Fano’s operations, potentially destabilizing the region further. The Fano insurgency has been marked by sporadic violence and clashes with government forces, adding to the country’s already complex security landscape. For its part, Eritrea rejects any connection to the Fano rebels and insists that Ethiopia’s claims are politically motivated, portraying the accusations as a way for the Ethiopian government to justify a military agenda that could reignite cross-border hostilities.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed addressed the situation in remarks to state media, emphasizing that Ethiopia seeks dialogue and peaceful resolution rather than armed confrontation. “Ethiopia does not seek war with Eritrea. Our objective is to find a lasting solution to issues such as Red Sea access through diplomatic and peaceful means,” Abiy said, signaling a desire to avoid a full-scale escalation despite the heightened rhetoric. Meanwhile, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, speaking in a state-run media interview, stated that Eritrea did not wish for conflict but stressed that the country “knows how to defend our nation” in case of aggression, further underscoring the fragility of the relationship and the high stakes for regional security.
Observers note that the latest allegations could inflame an already delicate situation in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Eritrea’s shared history of wars, border disputes, and civil conflicts has created a persistent environment of mistrust, with both nations sensitive to perceived provocations. Any miscalculation or miscommunication could quickly escalate tensions, particularly given Eritrea’s strategic location along the Red Sea and Ethiopia’s landlocked status. Analysts warn that renewed hostilities could disrupt trade, humanitarian efforts, and regional stability, with wider implications for neighboring countries and the African Union’s efforts to mediate conflicts in the region.
The timing of the seizure also coincides with heightened scrutiny over Ethiopia’s internal security situation, where the federal government continues to battle insurgencies and armed resistance in multiple regions. The Fano rebellion in Amhara remains one of the most persistent challenges, with the group leveraging local grievances and controlling key areas. If Eritrean involvement were verified, it could internationalize the conflict, drawing in neighboring states and complicating Ethiopia’s counterinsurgency strategies.
For Eritrea, the accusations risk undermining its diplomatic positioning and threaten to disrupt the fragile normalization process that began in 2018. While Eritrea has consistently denied involvement in Ethiopian domestic conflicts, the Ethiopian government’s claims have the potential to attract international attention, especially from organizations monitoring arms trafficking, human rights violations, and regional security threats. Eritrea’s statements highlight a defensive posture and a desire to assert sovereignty, framing any alleged intervention as Ethiopia’s pretext rather than a genuine act of aggression.
The Red Sea access dispute remains a central and sensitive issue in bilateral relations. Ethiopia’s declaration in 2023 that access to the sea is an existential matter has clashed with Eritrea’s insistence on controlling its coastline and maintaining sovereignty over maritime corridors. This disagreement has fueled nationalistic rhetoric on both sides, with each government seeking to assert control over strategic resources while avoiding a direct war. In this context, the alleged arms shipment has become emblematic of broader tensions, reflecting historical mistrust and ongoing disputes over resources, security, and influence.
Regional analysts caution that the Horn of Africa is at a critical juncture, where missteps could lead to renewed cycles of violence. While both governments have expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war, the presence of armed non-state actors like the Fano militia complicates matters. The Ethiopian authorities’ claim of Eritrean involvement raises questions about how prepared both countries are to manage conflicts that straddle domestic and international lines. Failure to resolve the dispute diplomatically could have serious humanitarian, economic, and political consequences.
The United Nations and international observers have consistently expressed concern over potential escalations in the region, particularly after the Tigray war and its aftermath. Any verified transfer of arms across borders would likely draw condemnation from global actors and could prompt interventions aimed at de-escalating tensions. The situation remains fluid, with little independent verification of the alleged shipment at this stage, leaving much of the narrative reliant on statements from Ethiopian and Eritrean officials.
Local communities in northern Ethiopia, especially in Amhara, face heightened insecurity amid the growing tension. Reports of armed clashes, checkpoints, and restricted movement have exacerbated humanitarian challenges, limiting access to basic services and increasing the vulnerability of civilians caught in the crossfire. The alleged Eritrean connection adds another layer of anxiety for residents, who have already experienced years of instability due to insurgencies, internal displacement, and economic disruption.
Ethiopian authorities insist that the seizure of ammunition represents a preventive measure designed to thwart potential attacks and maintain national security. They argue that intercepting arms shipments before they reach rebel groups is essential to reducing civilian harm and preserving government authority in contested regions. The arrests of the two suspects are being presented as evidence of the government’s active engagement in countering illegal arms flows and criminal networks operating within the country.
Eritrean officials, conversely, frame Ethiopia’s actions as politically motivated, portraying the claims as part of a campaign to delegitimize Eritrea and justify military action. By accusing Ethiopia of using “false flags,” the Eritrean government seeks to reinforce its position as a victim of provocative narratives while maintaining a posture of defensive readiness. The conflicting narratives underscore the broader challenge of discerning objective facts amid deeply entrenched political tensions.
International observers highlight the need for verification, transparency, and dialogue to prevent escalation. With both Ethiopia and Eritrea having histories of intense military engagement, any misstep could trigger a rapid deterioration of regional stability. Analysts emphasize that understanding the claims, the historical grievances, and the strategic interests at play is essential for forecasting possible outcomes and for mediating potential conflicts.
The Ethiopian government continues to grapple with balancing internal security and international relations, particularly in relation to its neighbors. The alleged arms shipment has the potential to influence diplomatic engagement, foreign aid, and regional partnerships, while also shaping the domestic perception of the government’s effectiveness in maintaining order.
Human rights organizations have expressed concern over the impact of ongoing tensions on civilians, particularly regarding displacement, restricted access to resources, and potential human rights violations by both state and non-state actors. The escalation of rhetoric alone, even without a direct conflict, increases fear among populations that have already endured prolonged instability.
The seizure of ammunition and the subsequent accusations have reignited discussions about the Horn of Africa’s historical conflicts, emphasizing how unresolved grievances and border disputes continue to influence contemporary politics. Analysts note that the situation exemplifies the fragile equilibrium in which Ethiopia and Eritrea operate, where miscommunication or perceived provocation could spark a wider confrontation.
The international community remains attentive, urging both governments to exercise restraint and seek diplomatic solutions to prevent a repeat of past tragedies. The precarious nature of the region, the history of wars, and the economic and human stakes involved underscore the importance of careful negotiation and confidence-building measures.
As the situation develops, the Ethiopian-Eritrean dynamic will be closely monitored by regional bodies, including the African Union, which has historically played a mediating role in conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa. The potential for escalation highlights the need for structured dialogue and mechanisms to address disputes over arms, borders, and strategic access to resources.
The alleged ammunition seizure also underscores the complexities of internal Ethiopian security. The Fano militia’s activities intersect with broader geopolitical concerns, including Eritrea’s posture and historical enmity. These layers of conflict reflect the challenges governments face in protecting civilians, maintaining state authority, and managing relations with neighboring countries that share long, contentious histories.
Eritrea’s denials and accusations against Ethiopia further demonstrate the persistent distrust that has long characterized bilateral relations. Each side frames events to reinforce its narrative, complicating efforts by third parties to mediate or verify claims. This mistrust has historically led to military escalation, and the current episode highlights how quickly tensions can re-emerge despite formal agreements or ceasefires.
The Red Sea dispute remains central to the narrative, illustrating how economic and strategic interests can intertwine with historical grievances. Ethiopia’s insistence on guaranteed access clashes with Eritrea’s sovereignty concerns, making the issue a potential flashpoint for renewed confrontation. Any resolution will require sustained dialogue, compromise, and international support to prevent further destabilization.