The Habesha Axis and the Horn's Tipping Point The Case for Empowering the Oromo for Regional Stability

Excerpt:

The emerging Habesha Axis—an uneasy alignment of Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrean elites—reveals a deeper truth: historic rivals will unite to suppress Oromo political empowerment. Despite decades of hostility, these actors find common cause in opposing self-determination for Oromia. This convergence is not about unity, but about preserving an old imperial center. Naming it for what it is, the editorial argues that it is crucial to understanding why Ethiopia’s future hinges on justice for the Oromo and Oromia.

Introduction

In the turbulent landscape of the Horn of Africa, one fact is becoming increasingly clear: stability hinges on justice and empowerment for the Oromo—the region’s largest and most marginalized people.

As Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group and the backbone of its geography and economy, the Oromo have been historically marginalized by successive imperial and modern regimes. Now, in the shadow of intensifying regional alignments, a new and worrying pattern is emerging—the reconstitution of what some analysts are calling a “Habesha Axis“.

The Habesha Axis: A Tactical Realignment

Despite longstanding enmities—Tigray vs. Amhara, Tigray vs. Eritrea, and intermittent tensions between Eritrea and Amhara—these traditional power centers are coalescing around a shared strategic aim: suppressing Oromo political ascendancy. This emerging alignment, dubbed here the “Habesha Axis,” is less about shared ideology and more about preserving an imperial center that has historically marginalized the Oromo people [1].

The Oromummaa diatribe by President Isayias Afewerki of Eritrea on the recent 34th anniversary of Eritrea’s independence [2] confirms this very point. It was that speech which catalyzed the reflections that shaped this editorial.

Oromos see ‘Oromummaa‘ as nothing more than a self-defining identity—akin to how Americans or the British express national character—but in the context of historical subjugation, its proud assertion has become unsettling to those clinging to outdated imperial paradigms. That this identity should be vilified and politicized by regional leaders reveals the tragic twist: a nation’s self-expression is being tarnished and weaponized in a political game it never sought to play.

The TPLF, despite suffering a devastating war and claiming to represent federalist ideals, continues to operate within a legacy of centralism when Oromo self-determination comes into view. Amhara elites have revived expansionist rhetoric, often cloaked in the language of “historical claims,” while Eritrea, nominally independent, continues to entangle itself in Ethiopia’s internal power matrix—never neutral when Oromia rises.

So What Binds the Habesha Axis?

It is not love for unity, democracy, or federalism. It is a shared discomfort—if not fear—of a politically awakened Oromo nation. This is the ultimate litmus test: if unity among historical enemies occurs only to counter Oromo empowerment, then the struggle is not merely national—it is civilizational.

In the volatile Horn of Africa, the geopolitical landscape is undergoing a subtle yet consequential shift. While internal conflicts and historical rivalries among Tigray, Amhara, and Eritrea continue to shape the region, an emerging pattern reveals a more unified strategic alignment when it comes to one issue: the political containment of Oromia. Amid this realignment, one truth becomes increasingly apparent: lasting stability in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa hinges on the empowerment of the Oromo nation.

To understand the stakes in Oromia, one must first recognize a defining political litmus test playing out in real time. The emerging alignments in Ethiopia and the broader Horn are not accidental—they are revealing. The pattern of behavior among Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea—despite their hostilities—forms a conspicuous unity when Oromia enters the frame.

A spade must be called a spade:

• Enemies unite when Oromia rises: Tigray vs. Amhara and Tigray vs. Eritrea are well-known rivalries, yet these groups find common cause in suppressing Oromo assertion.
• Independence is performative for some: Tigray operates as a de facto independent state, and Eritrea is officially sovereign. But neither acts like a state content to govern within its borders. Their political identities seem incomplete without controlling or influencing Ethiopia’s imperial center—Oromia included.
• The TPLF’s federalist rhetoric is hollow: After 27 years of central rule of the Ethiopian empire under the TPLF, its continued use of the liberation label rings disingenuous. In practice, it was not merely independent—it ruled over the very empire it once claimed to secede from. Its federalism and independence stops at Oromia’s door.
• Selective self-determination reveals intent: If independence were genuinely on the table, would Tigray and Amhara accept it and govern within their own bounded territories? Unlikely. Their political calculus revolves not around sovereignty, but around sustained access to and influence over Oromia—geographically central and resource-rich. The unwillingness to let go of Oromia underscores that the contest is not over national freedom, but over dominion.
• Eritrea’s independence is strategic, not ideological: Despite its separation, Eritrea behaves as an internal stakeholder in Ethiopian politics—especially where Oromia is concerned. It interferes no less than Amhara or Tigray in Ethiopia’s power configuration.

Access to the Sea: A Shiny Object to Murky the Waters?

It is worth commenting on a parallel agenda often cited in connection with regional tensions—Ethiopia’s aspiration, as a landlocked country, to gain access to the sea. The issue has resurfaced with a rhetorical crescendo from the Ethiopian regime, which frames access to the Red Sea as a “legitimate right”—a position that, while resonating domestically, has raised alarms regionally. Eritrea, as a sovereign state, is within its full rights to challenge Ethiopia’s assertive posturing, especially when the approach appears more coercive than diplomatic.

No political agency representing the Oromo people has endorsed any strategy for sea access that is inconsistent with mutual agreement and regional diplomacy. In fact, Oromo perspectives have consistently emphasized peaceful coexistence and principled negotiation with neighbors—not belligerent adventurism. This makes it clear that the Habesha Axis rhetoric around sea access is an internal diversion, not a unifying vision.

The idea that Amhara and Tigray—two factions with their own historical and strategic ambitions—would simply shelve such a consequential issue in order to present a unified front as Habesha Axis reveals the hollowness of the alliance. The fact that they are able to do so only underscores that access to the sea is not the real adhesive of the Habesha Axis. It is a shiny object, strategically useful to murky the waters and distract from the deeper contest over Oromia’s political ascendancy.

A Crisis of Representation

While international observers often focus on the federal-peripheral dynamic, the real crisis lies within Oromia itself. The Oromo people remain trapped between a state apparatus that claims to represent them and a resistance movement that many view as their authentic voice. This schism is not merely military—it is existential.

The Prosperity Party’s failure to establish moral and political legitimacy in Oromia has opened the door for alternative visions of governance. Yet rather than engage with these demands, the federal regime and its regional allies continue to militarize the region, criminalize dissent, and stage symbolic defections in the name of peace [3].

The Strategic Importance of Oromia

Oromia is not a peripheral entity; it is Ethiopia’s geographic and economic core. The region’s capital Finfinnee (Addis Ababa), controls major logistical arteries, and houses vast natural resources. Its demographic weight alone makes it central to any national consensus. For this reason, attempts to rule Oromia without its consent have always ended in instability—and will continue to do so.

Moreover, the Oromo question is not Ethiopia’s alone. Instability in Oromia reverberates across borders, affecting Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan. The Horn of Africa’s peace and prosperity are directly tied to whether Oromo demands for justice and self-rule are acknowledged or suppressed.

Economic Significance of Oromia

Accurate and up-to-date census data for Ethiopia is limited; however, estimates suggest that Oromia’s population is approximately 55 million, constituting around 40% of the nation’s total population. Often referred to as Ethiopia’s “breadbasket,” Oromia plays a pivotal role in the country’s economy—not only as a major producer of staple crops like xaafii, wheat, barley, and maize, and cash crops such as coffee and khat, but also as a key region rich in precious metals and mineral resources. Notably, Oromia accounts for over 50% of Ethiopia’s coffee production, a key export commodity.

The GDP Significance of Oromia

While specific GDP figures for Oromia are not readily available—possibly due to political sensitivities—the region’s substantial agricultural output and resource base imply a significant contribution to Ethiopia’s overall GDP. Independent analyses and economic models suggest that Oromia’s share could be substantial, estimated to at least 60% reflecting its central role in the nation’s economy.

It is this centrality—demographic, geographic, and economic—that explains why various power centers continue to vie for influence over Oromia, rather than focus on governing within their own defined regions. The Habesha Axis, in particular, sees control over Oromia as essential to preserving its dominance within Ethiopia’s political architecture.

The OLA vs. PP Regime: A Manufactured Stalemate

The conflict between Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and the ruling PP regime is simply a power struggle masquerading as policy. The so-called ideological conflict between the OLA and PP is a contest for legitimacy over Oromia’s future [4]. From PP regime perspective it is a struggle for control of political power base in Oromia. At the last election, the PP contested in Oromia as a sole competitor by jailing the OLF and OFC members, closing their offices, with countless killed or imprisoned and others fled the country to escape the atrocities.

The PP, though fronted by ethnic Oromos like Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and President Shimelis Abdisa, has failed to reflect the aspirations of the Oromo people. Its loyalty lies not with grassroots Oromo politics but with maintaining a unitary federal architecture that sidelines real autonomy. The OLA, meanwhile, represents a current of Oromo resistance that predates the PP by over four decades—a movement rooted in historical grievances and ongoing dispossession. Their goals are not born of secessionism but of justice, dignity, and regional sovereignty within a federated or confederated framework. In essence, the OLA seeks to make PP politically irrelevant in Oromia, a prospect the ruling party fears more than armed confrontation.

The Case for a Constructive Settlement Between OLA and PP Regime

It is increasingly prudent for the Prosperity Party regime to consider a political accommodation with the OLA. An inclusive settlement that brings the OLA into the Oromia administration could create a new foundation for regional justice, democratic governance, and long-term peace.

Both the OLA and the PP regime must see the forest for the trees and come to some arrangement. A reconciliatory posture from both sides would not only stabilize Oromia but also weaken the very basis upon which the Habesha Axis justifies its interference.

The Habesha Axis then will back off and be forced to pursue their legitimate dreams without entangling themselves with the illegitimate aspirations. The world should take note of this fact. An Oromia administered through consensus and mutual legitimacy will leave little room for expansionist or reactionary provocations from neighboring actors. In such a scenario, stability becomes not an illusion but a process grounded in justice.

It has to be noted that past peace efforts failed not because negotiation was impossible, but because legitimacy was lacking. On both occasions when negotiations were held in Tanzania, no genuine commitment to peacemaking was observed from the PP regime. It was glaringly obvious that the regime used the peace talks as a smokescreen—launching intensified military campaigns and attempting to rounding up OLA freedom fighters even while negotiations were underway. Such actions not only undermined the trust needed for dialogue but also exposed the regime’s use of diplomacy as a tactical distraction rather than a path to resolution [5].

The Role of the International Community

The international community must not be lulled by cosmetic gestures of peace or unity photo-ops. The U.S. Embassy’s recent call [6] for inclusive negotiations involving OLA and other regional forces  reflects a recognition of the political reality on the ground. But statements are not enough.

What is needed is:

• Acknowledgment of the Oromo people as essential stakeholders in Ethiopian statecraft.
• Engagement with legitimate political actors, not just regime proxies.
• A new federal arrangement that respects self-rule, not centralized control disguised as unity.

Neglecting Oromo voices risks pushing the region deeper into protracted instability, as evidenced by the formation of the Habesha Axis—an alliance that has triggered new tensions rather than offering solutions. Rather than strengthening the federation, this exclusionary alignment has only intensified resistance and underscored the urgency for a stronger and more formidable Oromia rooted in justice and self-determination.

Conclusion: Oromia as Ethiopia’s Moral Center

The question of Oromia is not just a regional issue—it is a national litmus test for justice, inclusion, and the end of imperial politics. Those who attempt to sustain Ethiopia by bypassing or subduing Oromia are only postponing the inevitable reckoning.

Empowering the Oromo people is not about breaking Ethiopia—it is about saving it. Only by reimagining the Ethiopian state with Oromia as an equal and respected partner can the Horn of Africa move toward sustainable peace.

In a region teetering at a tipping point, the Habesha Axis must give way to a new moral center—Oromia.

---

Selected References

1. Oli Boran, A New Abyssinian Alliance in the Making and What it Means for Oromia, 19 March 2025, OROMIA TODAY.
2. Keynote Address by President Isaias Afwerki on the Occasion of the 34th Independence Anniversary, 24 May 2025, Asmara, Eritrea.
3. Editorial, Oromia PP-Speak Decoded: Peace as Surrender in Oromia, Plus One Defector, One Photo Op, 1 December 2024, OROMIA TODAY.
4. Fred Harter, As violence subsides in Tigray, Ethiopia’s Oromia conflict flares, 12 January 2023, The New Humanitarian.
5. Roobaa Hawwaas, A Missed Opportunity for Peace in Oromia, 22 November 2023, OROMIA TODAY.
6. U.S. Embassy in Finfinnee’s (Addis Ababa’s) Call for Negotiation – #MessagefromtheAmbassador, 23 May 2025, Finfinnee, Oromia, Ethiopia.
7. Center for Preventive Action, Conflict in Ethiopia, 20 March 2025, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, USA.
8. Managing Ethiopia’s Unsettled Transition, 21 February 2023, International Crisis Group (ICG).
9. Alex de Waal, PhD, Ethnic Federalism and Authoritarian Survival in Ethiopia, 15 July 2021, Chatham House – The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

---