The AU Assembly, Abiy’s Ambitions, and the Shadow of War: A Fragile Peace in Ethiopia

The recent African Union Assembly brought Ethiopia’s fragile peace process into sharper focus, not because it resolved anything, but because it exposed the underlying political maneuvering shaping its trajectory. What appeared on the surface as diplomatic engagement was, in reality, a complex interplay of competing strategies. While the Tigray People’s Liberation Front sought to elevate the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement as an international issue, the administration of Abiy Ahmed worked quietly but effectively to control the narrative in its favor. This contrast reflects a broader reality, the peace process is not static, it is a contested political space that requires constant strategic awareness.

In the lead-up to the assembly, Tigray’s leadership made a deliberate effort to ensure that COHA remained visible on the international agenda. Engagements with European diplomats, including visits by ambassadors to Tigray, were not symbolic gestures. They were part of a calculated effort to prevent the agreement from being reduced to a domestic matter controlled solely by the federal government. Securing a dedicated session on COHA at the AU level was therefore not a concession from Abiy, but the result of sustained diplomatic pressure. This distinction is important, because it highlights that Tigray’s position at the assembly was not passive. It was actively constructed.

At the same time, despite internal political differences, the presence of Tigrayan leadership at the assembly carried a message of unity. Debretsion and Getachew, while representing different positions internally, conveyed a shared dissatisfaction with the slow and selective implementation of COHA. Their coordinated engagement with AU officials demonstrated that, at least at this level, Tigray’s leadership understands the necessity of presenting a common position when dealing with external actors. In a context where external pressure is constant, fragmentation would only weaken Tigray’s ability to defend its interests.

However, the role of the African Union itself must be examined with caution. While formally positioned as a neutral mediator, its handling of COHA has, in practice, provided Abiy with significant room to shape perceptions. The AU Commission’s report presented an overwhelmingly positive assessment, emphasizing the “silencing of the guns” while downplaying or ignoring key unresolved issues such as the continued occupation of Western and Southern Tigray, the presence of illegal settlers, and the ongoing economic pressure on the region. This selective framing does not simply reflect oversight. It reflects political calculation.

The absence of independent monitoring mechanisms further compounds this problem. By allowing implementation to remain largely at the discretion of the Ethiopian government, the agreement loses its enforceability. The AU’s media approach also plays a role in this dynamic, reinforcing a narrative that portrays Abiy as a stabilizing figure while limiting the visibility of violations on the ground. Even the AU’s claims of institutional independence are complicated by its reliance on external logistical and political support, particularly from actors aligned with Abiy’s administration. This creates structural limitations in its ability to act as a genuinely neutral arbiter.

Within this environment, Abiy’s strategy becomes clearer. His administration has not only shaped the narrative around COHA but has also used it to redirect international attention away from unresolved issues. By presenting the agreement as a success, he strengthens his diplomatic position while buying time to pursue parallel strategies. These include internal fragmentation of Tigray, continued delay in implementing key provisions, and the consolidation of political control at the federal level. This is not contradiction. It is a dual-track approach, where public commitment to peace coexists with actions that undermine it.

At the same time, recent developments in Abiy’s rhetoric, particularly his increasingly critical stance toward Eritrea, introduce another layer of complexity. On the surface, this may appear as a shift in regional alignment. But it also raises important questions about intent. Such rhetoric can serve multiple purposes, it can mobilize domestic support by appealing to nationalist sentiment, it can create justification for future military actions, and it can divert attention from internal failures in implementing COHA. In this sense, it functions not only as foreign policy signaling, but as part of a broader internal strategy.

These dynamics have direct implications for Tigray. The situation is not only about diplomatic positioning, it is about navigating a rapidly shifting political landscape where narratives, alliances, and pressures are constantly evolving. Relying on static assumptions or expecting linear progress in the implementation of COHA would be a misreading of the environment. What is required instead is continuous strategic adaptation, both in diplomacy and in communication.

For Tigray’s leadership, this means maintaining internal cohesion while simultaneously strengthening its external engagement. The core demands remain unchanged, the restoration of territorial integrity, the withdrawal of occupying forces, and the safe return of displaced populations. But achieving these outcomes requires more than repetition. It requires sustained and coordinated effort across diplomatic and media channels, ensuring that the realities on the ground are consistently brought into international focus.

The AU Assembly, therefore, should not be seen as a turning point, but as a moment of clarity. It revealed both the possibilities and the limitations of the current process. It showed that Tigray can still shape the agenda when it acts strategically, but it also exposed how easily narratives can be controlled when structural power imbalances are left unchallenged.

In the end, the question is not whether peace is possible, but under what conditions it can be made meaningful. A peace process that ignores occupation, displacement, and delayed implementation is not a stable foundation. It is a temporary arrangement that carries the risk of future conflict. For Tigray, the path forward lies in recognizing this reality clearly, engaging with it strategically, and ensuring that its voice is not only heard, but understood in its full context.