A Persistent Existential Threat: Somalia’s Historical View of Ethiopia

The relationship between Somalia and Ethiopia is one of the most protracted and deeply rooted conflicts in the Horn of Africa. For Somalis, Ethiopia is not merely a neighboring state with competing interests but a historical and persistent existential threat. This perception stems from a long history of Ethiopian expansionism, which Somalis view as a deliberate campaign to subjugate them and absorb their territory.

Ethiopia’s modern identity is often traced to the ancient Christian kingdom of Axum, historically centered on the Abyssinian highlands. For centuries, these highlands provided a natural fortress. However, from the 16th century onward, successive empires began campaigns south and eastward. They moved into the fertile lowlands inhabited largely by Muslim populations of Cushitic origin. These included Somalis, Oromos, Afars, and Sahos.

Ethiopia uniquely positioned itself during the European “Scramble for Africa.” Presenting itself as a Christian bastion amidst “pagan” lands, it secured weapons and political support from European powers. Under Emperor Menelik II in the late 19th century, Ethiopia dramatically expanded, quadrupling its territory by forcibly integrating vast new lands and peoples. This expansion was not organic but a calculated imperial project that laid the foundation for future conflicts.

“Presenting itself as a Christian bastion, Ethiopia secured weapons and political support from European powers during the ‘Scramble for Africa.”

The first major historical confrontation came in the 16th century. The forces of Imam Ahmed Gurey united local kingdoms to repel Abyssinian incursions. This struggle involved Portuguese intervention on the Ethiopian side. After a period of stalemate, Ethiopian expansionism resurged with Menelik II. In 1887, his forces crossed the Awash River. They conquered the historic Muslim city of Harar. They then set their sights on the Somali-inhabited Ogaden.

The colonial powers, particularly Britain, became complicit in this process. They signed a series of secretive agreements. The most notable were in 1897, 1948, and 1955. Britain “retroceded” the Ogaden and later the Haud and Reserved Area to Ethiopia. These actions violated prior treaties with Somali clans. This betrayal ignited a fierce Somali nationalism. The formation of the Somali Republic in 1960 was immediately followed by a diplomatic campaign. The goal was to reclaim these “lost territories.”

“In secretive agreements, Britain ceded Somali territories to Ethiopia, a betrayal that ignited fierce Somali nationalism.”

Ethiopia’s response to Somali self-determination has been consistently aggressive. For instance, in 1964, it invaded Somalia to destabilize the young republic. Furthermore, it committed severe atrocities in the Ogaden to crush dissent. Consequently, this created a flood of refugees into Somalia. These refugees would later form the backbone of the Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF).

The major conflict, the Ogaden War of 1977-78, saw Somalia attempt to reconquer the region. Initial Somali successes were reversed when the Soviet Union switched its allegiance to Ethiopia, leading to a massive Communist-bloc military intervention that saved the Mengistu Haile Mariam regime. As a result, this defeat was catastrophic for Somalia, crippling its military and economy.

In the aftermath, Ethiopia pursued a strategy of intentional destabilization. This happened first under Mengistu and later under the Tigrayan-led (TPLF) government. In particular, Ethiopia hosted, armed, and directed various Somali rebel factions and clan militias. This policy continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It directly contributed to the collapse of the Somali state in 1991. It also perpetuated chaos that blocked national reunification.

“Ethiopia pursued a strategy of intentional destabilization, arming Somali factions to perpetuate chaos and block reunification.”

Ethiopia’s 2006 invasion to oust the popular Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which had briefly restored order, is seen as a pivotal moment of foreign imposition. This intervention, backed by the United States, galvanized the extremist al-Shabab insurgency and, consequently, entrenched Ethiopia as a direct military player. Despite its nominal role in the African Union peacekeeping mission (AMISOM), Ethiopian troops have remained a permanent fixture. They are stationed in parts of south-central Somalia. They often operate unilaterally to support proxy administrations.

For Somalis, this historical context frames Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s current ambitions. His Memorandum of Understanding with the breakaway region of Somaliland, seeking sea access, is not viewed as a novel diplomatic initiative but as the latest chapter in a centuries-old imperial drive to the coast. His threats to secure a port “by any means necessary” resonate as a modern echo of Menelik’s expansion.

“Abiy Ahmed’s port ambitions are seen as the latest chapter in a centuries-old imperial drive to the coast.”

From the campaigns of Lebna Dengel in the 1500s to the policies of Abiy Ahmed today, Somalia perceives a consistent thread in Ethiopian statecraft. That thread is the subjugation of Somali land and will. This perception is compounded by a history of colonial betrayal. It is also reinforced by direct military aggression, and it is sustained by a strategy of fostering internal fragmentation.

Today, Ethiopian troops remain stationed on Somali soil. For Somalia, the central challenge of national unity and liberation is inextricably linked to resisting Ethiopia’s perennial impetus to expand. Until this deep-seated historical grievance is addressed, the two nations will remain locked in a cycle of suspicion and conflict. Somalia will forever view its western neighbor as a natural and enduring enemy.

“The central challenge of Somali national unity is linked to resisting what as a perennial Ethiopian impetus to expand”.

Related