jasdooit

Introduction

Maps can be deadly. In the Horn of Africa, the boundaries drawn—or intentionally removed—have never been mere academic discussions; they have served as preludes to conflict, displacement, and mass graves. On the first days of 2026, Ethiopia’s ruling Prosperity Party—more accurately characterized as a Potemkin Party built on appearances and deception—has once again manipulated those lines. What we are seeing is not wise governance or cautious communication, but a dangerous intensification of performance-driven politics: threats wrapped in nationalism, provocations disguised as loyalty, and propaganda presented as policy.

This is a recurring trend. At home, fake maps and dramatic presentations are spread to stir emotions and showcase strength. Internationally, the same goals are disguised using the language of fear and complaint. This contradiction is not unintentional; it is deliberate. It represents a leadership philosophy based on appearances, showmanship, deceit, and false information—an approach that sees perception as power and provocation as a tool. However, in a region already marked by unresolved conflicts and tenuous peace, symbolic hostility is never harmless. When military officials use expansionist symbols, history tells us to pay close attention. The Horn has suffered too much from overlooking these signs.

The Science of Strategy: When Propaganda Transforms into Policy

In the initial phase of 2026, the Potemkin Party and parts of Ethiopia’s top military officials intensified a dangerous campaign of bluster. This is not the measured communication of a wise nation, but the bold display of a political system that flourishes on show, trickery, and drama. The trend is clear: both local and global spectators are intentionally influenced to further strategic goals, frequently at the cost of international law and regional peace.

The party’s propaganda functions like a pendulum, alternating between attention-grabbing domestic tactics and externally acceptable stories. Domestically, this has manifested in the distribution of manipulated maps that assert Eritrea’s sovereign coastal territories—clearly violating recognized international boundaries. These images are not mere oddities or simple mistakes. They are crafted to stir up nationalistic sentiments, display power, and uphold the party’s image as a protector of supposed historical claims. By repeating these messages, they foster a fabricated feeling of right to land that lacks legal or diplomatic support.

For outside observers, the same goals are softened. Expansionist assertions are rephrased as issues of self-defense, wrapped in the rhetoric of hardship and being wronged, and portrayed as valid security issues. This two-faced communication is not a mistake; it is a deliberate strategy. It enables the government to energize its local supporters while aiming for understanding, vagueness, or quiet from other countries. When high-ranking military officials openly show maps that claim significant areas of Eritrean land, this action passes a crucial point. Symbolism supported by generals is never just for show—it is a statement. It conveys purpose, challenges limits, and examines how much the global community will accept.

At first glance, this kind of imagery could be seen as just another provocation in a digital world filled with altered images and political performances. However, that would be a risky error. The image spreading online—depicting senior Ethiopian military leaders holding a map that allocates almost half of Eritrea to Ethiopia—is genuine. It is intentional and holds significant political and security consequences. This is not a small inaccuracy or a harmless visual tool; it represents a direct threat to Eritrea’s sovereignty and poses a serious national and regional security issue.

To understand why this symbolism poses such a threat, one needs to go beyond the surface display and face the historical mentality that provides it with significance.

The Prolonged Impact of Expansion and Its Human Toll

The current borders of the Horn of Africa have emerged from a long history of conflict, negotiation, and defiance. Eritrea’s borders are officially acknowledged, and any effort to challenge them—whether by speech, legislation, or symbolic acts—endangers the stability of the region. Grasping the seriousness of Ethiopia’s present actions necessitates examining the historical origins of its territorial aspirations.

In the end, the Potemkin Party’s image-focused approach and Ethiopia’s symbolic military actions result in a dangerous situation. Hasty propaganda, unresolved past conflicts, and uncontrolled symbolism provide an environment where tensions can grow. The Horn of Africa has already experienced periods of war, displacement, and economic decline. It is not capable of handling provocations that reopen old wounds. Peace and stability—along with the lives of millions—rely on active diplomacy, strict accountability, and a clear refusal of actions, whether they are visual, verbal, or operational, that endanger national sovereignty. A map shown by those in power is never insignificant. It is a statement. And if that statement remains unaddressed, the outcomes could be disastrous.

Conclusion

The lesson from the Horn of Africa is harshly clear: when propaganda takes the place of policy and symbolism replaces diplomacy, conflict is inevitable. Ethiopia’s recent actions—combining historical resentment, created images, and military support—do not occur in isolation. They stem from a long history of territorial desire, with results evident in bloodshed, displacement, and economic devastation over many years.

The boundaries of Eritrea are not just theoretical assertions or topics for discussion; they are established facts acknowledged by the global community, shaped through years of conflict and formalized by legal means. Any effort to challenge these borders—whether via maps, speeches, or staged events—goes beyond mere words. It represents a trial of international determination and a risk to regional peace. The quiet response from organizations responsible for protecting sovereignty only increases this threat. Remaining neutral when faced with aggression is not considered restraint; it is an endorsement.

The Potemkin Party’s dependence on show might bring temporary domestic approval, yet history is harsh on governments that mix illusion with real power. The Horn of Africa cannot tolerate another round of rising tensions fueled by propaganda and arrogance. Peace goes beyond agreements; it needs responsibility, transparency, and a clear rejection of symbolic hostility. A map in the hands of a general is never merely an image. It conveys a message—and if that message remains unchallenged, the outcomes will not be theoretical. They will be experienced, suffered, and grieved.

Copyright 2026 Shabait.com. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media ().

Tagged: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Conflict, Peace and Security, East Africa

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.Syndigate.info).