Abel🇪🇹

SUDAN'S HOSTILITY TOWARDS ETHIOPIA: HOW LONG MUST ETHIOPIA TOLERATE A POLICY OF DESTABILIZATION? Ethiopia's patience must never be mistaken for weakness. Its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security are non-negotiable. Since gaining independence, Sudan has repeatedly pursued policies that have undermined Ethiopia's security interests, often acting in alignment with Egypt's longstanding strategic hostility towards Ethiopia. Rather than building a relationship founded on mutual respect, good-neighbourliness, and regional cooperation, successive Sudanese authorities have allowed their territory to become a strategic platform for forces hostile to Ethiopia. For decades, Ethiopia has faced the challenge of hostile armed groups operating against its national interests, with persistent allegations of recruitment, training, arming, and logistical support facilitated through Sudanese and Egyptian networks. The recurring involvement of these two countries in the affairs of Ethiopian opposition movements cannot simply be dismissed as coincidence. It represents a serious security concern that Ethiopia can no longer afford to overlook. What makes this situation particularly troubling is Sudan's apparent willingness to sacrifice the principles of African solidarity and good-neighbourly relations in pursuit of Egypt's regional strategic ambitions. Egypt's opposition to Ethiopia's legitimate rights over the Nile waters, particularly the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), has increasingly taken on a broader geopolitical dimension. Sudan's alignment with Egyptian interests at Ethiopia's expense has further complicated an already fragile regional environment. Ethiopia, for its part, has demonstrated extraordinary restraint. Successive Ethiopian governments have repeatedly opted for dialogue, diplomatic engagement, and peaceful coexistence, even when confronted with actions that threatened the country's security and territorial integrity. However, restraint is not an obligation to tolerate endless provocation. Diplomacy is not an instrument of national surrender, and patience should never be interpreted as an absence of resolve. The reported expulsion of six Sudanese diplomats from Asosa is therefore a significant diplomatic development. If their activities violated the obligations and standards of conduct governing diplomatic missions, Ethiopia was fully entitled to take appropriate measures in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomatic immunity is a safeguard for the performance of legitimate diplomatic functions, not a licence to engage in activities that threaten the security of the host country. Sudan must understand that Ethiopia is neither politically intimidated nor strategically helpless. Ethiopia has the sovereign right to protect its territory, expose hostile activities, and take proportionate measures against any state or institution that facilitates threats to its national security. The fundamental question is no longer how much Ethiopia can tolerate, but how long Sudan intends to pursue a policy that undermines the interests of its own neighbour. Sudan should reconsider the dangerous consequences of allowing its national territory and diplomatic institutions to become instruments of another country's geopolitical confrontation with Ethiopia. Egypt and Sudan must also recognize a fundamental reality: Ethiopia is an indispensable regional power whose security cannot be compromised, whose sovereignty cannot be negotiated away, and whose legitimate national interests cannot be subordinated to the strategic calculations of other states. The Horn of Africa has suffered enough from proxy conflicts, external interference, political manipulation, and destructive rivalries. Ethiopia does not seek confrontation with Sudan or Egypt. It seeks reciprocal respect, peaceful coexistence, and a regional order based on sovereign equality and mutual interests.