Ethiopia-Sudan border tensions must be de-escalated

The document examines the escalating border dispute between Ethiopia and Sudan over the al-Fashaga area, noting its intersection with tensions over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). It highlights how internal political instability in both countries and conflicting claims over land sovereignty hinder negotiations, warning that failure to de-escalate could lead to proxy wars and further regional destabilisation.

• The border dispute centers on the al-Fashaga area, located between Sudan's Al Qadarif province and Ethiopia's Amhara and Tigray regional states. Sudan claims the area is historically its territory and that the border is already demarcated, while Ethiopia asserts the boundary is not yet demarcated and accuses Sudan of invading its territory during a security vacuum caused by Ethiopia's conflict with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.
• The border conflict is increasingly linked to the stalled negotiations regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Ethiopia has accused Sudan of using 'bellicose propaganda' concerning the dam and the Benishangul-Gumuz region, while Egypt and Sudan have signed a military cooperation agreement that reportedly includes a common defence pact.
• Domestic pressures in both countries complicate a resolution. In Sudan, the dispute serves as a 'rallying cry for national unity' among political parties and the military. In Ethiopia, the Amhara regional state government faces pressure from locals to maintain sovereignty over the fertile land of al-Fashaga, which could create fissures within the ruling party.
• Both nations are currently facing severe internal challenges that increase the risk of instability. Sudan is dealing with protests over fuel and bread shortages and a weakening transitional government alliance, while Ethiopia is experiencing significant internal political instability.
• Sustainable resolution requires a political accord and local buy-in before technical negotiations can begin. While bilateral talks, third-party mediators, and international arbitration are possible mechanisms, previous offers of facilitation from Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and South Sudan have lacked sufficient support.

APA

Woldemichael, S. (n.d.). Ethiopia-Sudan border tensions must be de-escalated. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.org/iss-today/ethiopia-sudan-border-tensions-must-be-de-escalated

Chicago

Woldemichael, Shewit. Ethiopia-Sudan border tensions must be de-escalated. Institute for Security Studies, n.d. https://issafrica.org/iss-today/ethiopia-sudan-border-tensions-must-be-de-escalated.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Woldemichael |first1=Shewit |title=Ethiopia-Sudan border tensions must be de-escalated |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |url=https://issafrica.org/iss-today/ethiopia-sudan-border-tensions-must-be-de-escalated |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{woldemichaelndethiopiasudan, author = {Woldemichael, Shewit}, title = {{Ethiopia-Sudan border tensions must be de-escalated}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, url = {https://issafrica.org/iss-today/ethiopia-sudan-border-tensions-must-be-de-escalated}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }