In a recent letter to the UN Secretary-General and several member states, the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Eritrea of “continued provocations” and alleged attempts to invade its territory. These claims are unsubstantiated and sharply contradicted by Ethiopia’s own conduct over the past two years.
Under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia has pursued an increasingly aggressive and revisionist regional agenda. This includes direct challenges to Eritrea’s sovereignty, the signing of a controversial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Somaliland (a territory internationally recognised as part of Somalia), and repeated statements undermining the legitimacy of colonial-era borders that underpin the African state system.
A Pattern of Escalation and Revisionism
Top Ethiopian officials, including Prime Minister Abiy, have argued that Ethiopia was “unfairly deprived” of a seaport. These assertions, steeped in vague historical grievances, imply that Eritrea’s control over its ports, particularly Assab, is somehow illegitimate. In one of the most alarming statements, Abiy declared that Ethiopia would pursue Red Sea access “peacefully if possible, but by any means necessary if not.”
This rhetoric, cloaked in grievance but suggestive of coercion, has been widely interpreted as a threat not only to Eritrea but to the stability of the entire region. It signals a willingness to abandon diplomacy in favor of force.
The MoU with Somaliland, signed in January 2024, marked a particularly provocative step. By attempting to secure naval access through a region that remains unrecognised as sovereign by the international community, Ethiopia directly challenged AU principles and inflamed one of Africa’s most sensitive sovereignty disputes. The AU, UN, and most member states continue to uphold Somalia’s territorial integrity and have condemned the move as a breach of international norms.
Disregard for Colonial Borders
Ethiopia’s current trajectory reflects a consistent refusal to respect the sanctity of colonial borders, a foundational principle of post-independence African statehood. The AU’s adoption of uti possidetis juris was designed precisely to preserve stability by affirming colonial borders as the legal basis for modern states.
Eritrea’s internationally recognised boundaries were established during Italian colonisation and reaffirmed by a UN-supervised referendum in 1993. Undermining these borders risks eroding the legal framework that has supported continental peace since decolonisation.
Regional Tensions and Diplomatic Fallout
Ethiopia’s assertive stance has provoked a regional backlash. Djibouti’s President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh responded forcefully, declaring, “Djibouti is not Crimea,” a pointed reference to Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. Somalia reacted with equal vigour, recalling its ambassador and rallying international support to counter Ethiopia’s Somaliland MoU.
Ethiopia’s increasingly unilateral behaviour has left it diplomatically isolated at a time when regional cooperation is urgently needed. Rather than acting as a stabilising force, Ethiopia now finds itself viewed with growing caution by its neighbours and traditional allies alike.
Eritrea’s Measured Response
Despite repeated provocations, Eritrea has responded with restraint. It has defended its sovereignty without issuing threats or resorting to inflammatory rhetoric. Ethiopia’s portrayal of Eritrea as the aggressor in this context is a distortion of the facts.
If any states in the Horn of Africa have grounds to petition the UN Secretary-General, it is Eritrea and its coastal neighbours. These are the nations whose sovereignty is under rhetorical and strategic threat, not Ethiopia.
Legal and Historical Clarity
Ethiopia’s campaign hinges on a misreading of history. Its former access to the sea was via federation with Eritrea (1952–1962) and annexation (1962–1991), not lawful entitlement. Eritrea’s independence, won through decades of armed struggle and affirmed by a nearly unanimous referendum, resolved the question of sovereignty.
To redraw borders based on perceived historical injustices would unravel the fragile post-colonial consensus that has sustained African unity. That consensus, anchored in the AU’s foundational principles, seeks to avoid the proliferation of territorial disputes that would arise from reopening old claims.
A Contradictory Government Message
Adding to the confusion is the inconsistency within the Ethiopian government’s own statements. Just recently, the very same Minister of Foreign Affairs who sent the letter to the UN appeared before the Ethiopian Parliament and declared that Ethiopia is not in a “war of words” with Eritrea. He further suggested that the views expressed by certain current and former officials, including senior military leaders, do not reflect the government’s official stance.
This claim is difficult to reconcile with the repeated statements by the Prime Minister, the Chief of Staff, and the Defence Minister. These are not marginal figures but the central architects of Ethiopian policy. The contradiction reflects not only a breakdown in messaging but a broader strategic confusion.
A Question for the Global Community
The international community must now decide: will it allow one country to challenge the integrity of Africa’s state system under the guise of economic necessity? Ethiopia’s rhetoric and behaviour demand scrutiny. If global norms around sovereignty and peaceful coexistence are to mean anything, Ethiopia must be held to account.
Conclusion
Ethiopia’s accusations against Eritrea—vague claims of border incidents and military provocations—lack credibility when set against its own pattern of destabilising behaviour. From the Somaliland MoU to threats of force, from challenging colonial borders to regional isolation, the trend is unmistakable.
The Horn of Africa deserves stability built on lawful conduct, not revisionist ambition. The rules of sovereignty cannot be rewritten through coercion, no matter how powerful the claimant or how deep its historical grievances.
