Ramy Zohdy — African Affairs Expert
The visit of the Israeli president to Addis Ababa cannot be dismissed as a routine diplomatic engagement framed by conventional bilateral cooperation. Rather, it represents a critical intersection between two political projects operating within a fragile and highly complex regional environment—one shaped by intricate ethnic balances, contested borders, natural resources, maritime corridors, and vital trade routes.
When examined against the backdrop of Ethiopia’s recent hosting of the African Union summit—where clear reaffirmations were made regarding the unity of states and the rejection of any infringement upon sovereignty—the visit invites legitimate scrutiny. Does Ethiopia’s current trajectory align with the spirit of African consensus forged through decades of struggle, sacrifice, and institutional consolidation?
Africa did not arrive at the principle of respecting inherited colonial borders lightly. This doctrine, first embedded in the Charter of the Organization of African Unity and later reaffirmed by the African Union, served as a safety valve that prevented the eruption of countless latent conflicts. With more than 2,000 ethnic groups across the continent, reopening border questions along identity lines would have plunged Africa into perpetual fragmentation.
Therefore, any move that could be interpreted—explicitly or implicitly—as recognition of separatist entities outside the framework of recognized sovereign states constitutes a departure from this hard-earned continental understanding.
Ethiopia’s declared pursuit of permanent maritime access, culminating in understandings with Somaliland—an entity enjoying relative stability but lacking international recognition—has placed Addis Ababa in direct tension with the Federal Government of Somalia. This step has generated widespread regional concern. When such developments coincide with a high-level Israeli visit, fears intensify regarding the formation of a convergence of interests where power politics may outweigh regional consensus.
Israel’s presence in the Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa is not new. Since the 1960s, Tel Aviv pursued what was once known as the “periphery doctrine,” cultivating relationships with non-Arab states surrounding the Middle East to break geopolitical isolation. Over time, this engagement expanded from agricultural cooperation and water management to advanced technology, cybersecurity, and defense sectors.
Economic estimates suggest that trade between Israel and Sub-Saharan Africa exceeds $2 billion annually, with growing exports in high-tech systems and surveillance technologies. Research institutions have also documented cooperation in drone technology and cyber systems in parts of Eastern Africa.
Yet the issue transcends numbers. The Horn of Africa is a geostrategic crossroads overlooking the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—through which approximately 10–12% of global trade passes, including a significant share of energy supplies bound for Europe. Any advanced technological or security presence in this corridor carries implications far beyond local dynamics, entering the realm of complex international power calculations involving regional and global actors.
At the same time, Ethiopia is redefining its regional role. With a population exceeding 120 million, it is Africa’s second most populous nation. Over the past decade, it recorded impressive growth rates—approaching 8–10% in certain years. However, since 2020, internal conflict in Tigray, tensions in Oromia, fiscal pressures, and structural economic vulnerabilities have altered the equation. External debt has surpassed $28 billion, inflation has at times exceeded 30%, and the national currency has faced mounting strain.
In this context, Addis Ababa is actively seeking technological, security, and financial partners capable of delivering investment and advanced expertise.
The convergence between Israeli and Ethiopian strategies appears rooted in a shared impulse to reshape their respective strategic environments. Israel has been widely criticized for attempting to impose new realities on the ground in its immediate neighborhood, contributing to persistent instability cycles. Ethiopia, through its determined pursuit of sea access and its unilateral phases in managing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam file, signals that it views itself as a central power entitled to redefine regional balances.
Ambition in itself is not illegitimate. The core question, however, concerns the degree to which such ambitions respect the existential concerns of neighboring states and adhere to international legal norms.
The implications for Somalia are immediate. Still rebuilding its state institutions after decades of collapse and battling Al-Shabaab, Somalia relies heavily on regional and international support. Any action that bypasses its federal authority undermines its fragile state-building process and sends destabilizing signals to other vulnerable regions across Africa.
Sudan, meanwhile, has been engulfed in a devastating war since 2023. In its weakened condition, any recalibration of regional power dynamics—especially involving border, water, or security files—further increases its vulnerability.
Questions also arise as to whether Ethiopia’s expanding cooperation with Israel is intended to strengthen its negotiating leverage regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam or to send indirect strategic messages to Cairo. From Egypt’s perspective, over 95% of its water needs depend on the Nile River, rendering any disruption to its flow an existential matter. Egypt has engaged in multiple negotiation tracks and called for a legally binding agreement governing the filling and operation of the dam to safeguard the interests of all three countries. However, the absence of a final agreement and the persistence of unilateral measures have deepened mistrust.
Cairo views stability in the Horn of Africa as inseparable from its national security. The Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and global energy and trade flows are directly linked to the stability of the opposite shore. Consequently, any alliances perceived as encouraging fragmentation or coercive redrawing of geopolitical realities will be closely assessed. Egypt is likely to respond not through escalation, but by strengthening its diplomatic engagement, expanding economic partnerships, and reinforcing its developmental footprint across Africa to mitigate polarization risks.
The deeper concern lies in symbolism. When two states facing sustained international criticism regarding aspects of international legitimacy draw closer, a perception emerges—whether fully accurate or not—that actors outside consensus reinforce one another. Interests may intersect; however, when such intersections appear to come at the expense of foundational principles like sovereignty and territorial integrity, long-term political costs may outweigh short-term tactical gains.
Today, the Horn of Africa requires the construction of durable stability architectures based on economic integration. Intra-African trade remains between 15% and 18% of total continental trade—compared to over 60% within the European Union. The region needs cross-border infrastructure, logistics corridors, ports, railways, renewable energy investments, agricultural modernization, and industrial value chains. Transforming it into an arena of competing axes and geopolitical signaling risks reproducing the very conflict cycles that have burdened its societies for decades.
The issue is not Ethiopia’s right to diversify partnerships, nor Israel’s right to expand diplomatic ties. The core concern is whether such engagements sufficiently account for delicate regional balances and recognize that stability is a supreme value in fragile regions.
Africa, aspiring to implement Agenda 2063 and build a unified continental market, cannot afford miscalculations that reintroduce polarization. Between interests and principles lies the true test of leadership: the ability to privilege responsible statecraft over short-term maneuvering, to understand that power is not measured solely by technology or alliances, but by respect for neighbors and preservation of continental consensus.
History teaches that alliances formed at the margins of legitimacy may provide immediate leverage, but they often plant the seeds of prolonged tension. Stability is not a rhetorical luxury—it is the indispensable foundation for prosperity and the survival of states.
