Preparing the Justification: How Ethiopia Is Manufacturing a Case Against Eritrea

28/11/2025

There are interviews that introduce a politician, and there are interviews that expose the environment that produced him. Getachew Reda’s appearance on Head to Head did the latter. It offered a window into a restless Ethiopian political system, spoken through the voice of a man who has learnedperha ps painfully that survival in Ethiopian politics requires constant reinvention.

The Getachew who appeared in London was not the wartime spokesman who once hurled accusations with the confidence of a man who believed the world was on his side. This version was softened, cautious, almost pastoral. His tone floated like incense pleasant, but used to mask something heavier underneath. What he tried to hide with gentleness revealed more than his words intended.

This is not a story about Getachew’s personal evolution. It is a story about what his evolution signals, although he stated that he has “just grown,” not evolved.

Reassurance as a Red Flag

When asked whether Ethiopia and Eritrea were drifting toward war, Getachew offered a sentence so vague it seemed designed to blur the very fear it sought to address: “I don’t expect that to lead to war, at least not in the foreseeable future.”

Such language is not assurance. It is the kind of phrasing politicians use when the horizon holds more uncertainty than they can safely admit, or in Getachew’s case, it seems he is deliberately attempting to mislead. He then appealed to sentiment: “I believe President Isaias and Prime Minister Abiy will find it in their hearts to… diffuse the crisis.”

Invoking “hearts” in a geopolitical crisis is an attempt to replace clarity with warmth. Nations do not defend their sovereignty with emotion. They defend it with truth, legitimacy, and preparedness.

And while Getachew comforted the audience with soft imagery, someone on the panel refused to indulge the theatre. The suddenly found uncomfortable honesty of Professor Tronvoll.

A known TPLF advocate, Professor Kjetil Tronvoll broke the polite atmosphere with a direct statement: “I think the war is coming, and it’s coming pretty soon.” His explanation was not rooted in speculation. It was rooted in Ethiopia’s own public record: PM Abiy Ahmed’s speeches, and state-run media programs. The professor stressed, with a warning tone:

“Ethiopia is ticking off every box of claiming a right to self-defense accusing Eritrea of destabilization… submitting a letter to the UN… saying: ‘We want peace, but not for too long.’”

Ethiopia always prepares its conflicts on paper long before it prepares them on the ground. Anyone who lived through the long arc of Eritrea’s struggle knows this pattern well. Documents precede mobilization. Narrative precedes action.

Getachew’s attempt to soften the outlook could not eclipse this reality. Ethiopia’s Elite: Not Misspeaking, but Signaling While he whispers diplomacy abroad, the Ethiopian political class is speaking with striking clarity at home. In case anyone asks for proof;-

Abiy Ahmed: “We will correct the historical error. Ethiopia will not remain landlocked.” Field Marshal Birhanu Jula: “We will make any sacrifice to secure Ethiopia’s access to the sea.” Ambassador Nebiyu Tedla: “Maritime access is an existential necessity.” and so on….

Each statement is a stone in the same structure. This is not spontaneous rhetoric. It is a carefully aligned posture. Getachew in London speaks like a man trying to keep a bridge from burning. His government speaks like a state preparing the ground for justification.

A Man Rewriting Himself

Throughout the interview, Getachew seemed engaged in the delicate task of reshaping his past positions to fit his new political context. He once accused Abiy Ahmed of authoritarian excess. He now says he supports “restoring Ethiopia’s greatness.” He once warned of Abiy’s dangerous posture toward Eritrea. He now insists he never predicted conflict. He once spoke clearly about genocide. Now he speaks as if the truth is a puzzle with missing pieces.

Such shifts are not ideological maturity. They are the survival mechanics of Ethiopian elite politics, where principles bend before ambition and memory becomes a tool rather than a guide.

Yet even within his evasions, truths slipped out: admissions of fallout with Eritrea, acknowledgment of instability in Ethiopia, recognition of political fracture. The unspoken tension was louder than anything he articulated.

Biserat Lemesa and the Fantasy of a “Lost Coast”

If Getachew avoided direct contradiction, Biserat Lemesa walked confidently into historical distortion. He declared that Ethiopia “lost its coastal territories” through a flawed process. This is not simply wrong it is the foundation of a dangerous narrative.

Ethiopia never possessed a coastline as a sovereign state. The only time Ethiopia had control over the Red Sea was during its illegal annexation of Eritrea, achieved by dismantling the UN-mandated federation. That control was occupation, not ownership.

You cannot lose a coastline that never belonged to you in the first place. (How many times should we say this?) Biserat’s comment was not an error. It was a rhetorical construction a seed planted to justify future claims. Ethiopia’s coastal amnesia has become the intellectual fuel of its renewed expansionist aspiration.

This is my reflection on the interview, and I guess like every Eritrean I am smart enough to recognize the pattern here. Eritrea does not need prophetic warnings to understand what is unfolding. This region has danced to these beats before.

Step by step, Ethiopia is rehearsing a familiar sequence: Create a grievance. Declare it existential. Mobilize legal arguments (so they think). Move forces under the language of “self-defense.” Frame ambition as necessity. Professor Tronvoll saw the pattern that Eritrea knows and lived.

Conclusion

Getachew’s gentleness cloaked a system that is preparing the intellectual ground for confrontation. Biserat’s revisionism attempted to turn annexation into inheritance. Abiy’s rhetoric frames expansion as correction. This is not about the sea. It is about narrative invention. And Eritrea must guard that front with the same vigilance it guards its borders.

Something that Ethiopian elites need to remember clearly is that Ethiopia did not “lose” a coastline. It lost an occupation. Eritrea did not “take” ports from Ethiopia. Eritrea defeated the occupying army and reclaimed what was always its own historically, legally, and morally.

Something else that needs to be clear to Ethiopian elites is that Eritrea’s sovereignty is not negotiable. Its coastline is not a colonial accident. Its borders are not a misprint. The Red Sea is Eritrea’s window to the world earned in struggle, affirmed in law, and protected with unbroken resolve. And that is the truth no amount of revisionism can erase.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions titled "Preparing the Justification: How Ethiopia Is Manufacturing a Case Against Eritrea", are those of Hannibal Negash and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Setit Media. ኣብዚ "Preparing the Justification: How Ethiopia Is Manufacturing a Case Against Eritrea", ዘርእስቱ ጽሑፍ ተገሊጹ ዘሎ ርእይቶን ሓሳብን ናይ Hannibal Negash እምበር መትከላትን መርገጽን ሰቲት ሚዲያ ዘንጸባርቕ ኣይኮነን።

Eritrean Green Card Holders Pulled Into U.S. Immigration Crackdown Despite No Link to DC Shooting

SETIT

27/11/2025

The Trump administration has ordered a full review of all green cards issued to immigrants from 19 “countries of concern,” including Eritrea, after an Afghan national was identified as the suspect in a Washington, DC shooting that left two National Guard members wounded.

Eritreans had no connection to the incident, yet thousands of lawful permanent residents now face new scrutiny. USCIS said it will apply “negative, country-specific factors” in its reexamination, but provided no Eritrea-specific explanation.

The move has caused anxiety among Eritrean families in the United States, many of whom already passed extensive vetting before receiving their status. Community advocates warn the decision appears driven by political pressure, not evidence.

Immigration lawyers say the scope and criteria of the review remain unclear, leaving affected residents waiting for guidance while the administration signals a broader immigration crackdown.

A Public Tribute to the Legend Abrar Osman

Suleiman A. Hussien

27/11/2025

Inspired by His Farewell Words to the Late Legendary Artist Berekhet Mengsteab

When I listened to the recent BBC Tigrinya interview with the legendary artist Abrar Osman, in which he offered a heartfelt tribute to his lifelong comrade and brother-in-struggle Berekhet Mengsteab, I was deeply moved. His words were not merely a farewell to a departed friend they were an opening into the soul of a generation that carried the weight of a nation on its shoulders.

In Abrar’s trembling voice, one could hear a love that time cannot erode:
love for Eritrea, love for its people, and love for comrades whose memories are forever etched into our national story.
Above all, one could feel the sincerity of a man who lived through hardship, sacrifice, exile, and unwavering loyalty the kind of sincerity Eritreans instinctively recognise as genuine and honourable.

Abrar’s tribute was more than an expression of grief; it was a reminder of the quiet burden carried by thousands who gave their youth, strength, and dreams to the liberation of their homeland. Many — like Abrar and Berekhet spent their most formative years in the trenches and mountains, sharing the hopes and dangers of the fighters they accompanied. They endured hunger, separation, and loss, yet their love for Eritrea never faltered.
Even those who later found themselves in exile never truly left; their hearts remained anchored in Eritrea.

As I listened to Abrar, I was transported back to the early 1990s. I had just completed my university studies and was preparing, with hope and longing, to return to the land I had been forced to leave as a child a land that never left me. Fate had other plans, and that return never happened. It remains a quiet ache within me.
But this tribute is not about my journey.

It is about the truth Abrar voiced a truth that felt like a sigh released after decades of silence.

Speaking directly to Berekhet, he said:

“You won. Those of us who remained behind achieved very little or nothing.”

In those words lay humility, sorrow, and the weight of a survivor’s heart.
But Abrar did not stop there. He added two lines that pierced the hearts of all who heard them:

“Whether in happiness or in difficult times, the best place one can be is among his own people.”
And then, with greater honesty still:
“Berekhet did not return home to seek comfort for himself he went to make things better for all of us.”

In these simple yet profound sentences, Abrar captured the essence of Berekhet’s life — and the story of an entire generation.
They did not chase wealth, comfort, or personal gain. They chased dignity.
They did not seek homes for themselves. They sought a homeland for their people.

And I would like to say to Abrar:

“You too have won. You have earned the love and respect of every Eritrean — including those of younger generations who came to know you through your timeless and inspiring songs.”

For the deeper truth remains: that entire generation achieved far more than they will ever acknowledge.

A Generation of Artists Formed by the Struggle

Berekhet and Abrar belonged to a generation of Eritrean artists who did not stand at a distance from the struggle — they lived it, breathed it, marched with it, and fought within it.

Alongside their peers from the haunting voice of Yemane Barya, to the steadfast Osman Abdurahim, the soulful Hussein Mohamed Ali, and many others they became the cultural backbone of the liberation era.

They fought on many fronts: with their songs, their courage, their art, their conviction, and their unwavering belief that justice was worth every sacrifice.

Their music lifted exhausted fighters, comforted grieving mothers, strengthened exiles scattered across continents, and preserved the dignity of a nation under siege.
Their art was never mere entertainment;
it was resistance, memory, healing, and hope.

Yet among all these giants, the bond between Abrar and Berekhet stands out — a bond forged in hardship, strengthened by shared purpose, and honoured with lifelong loyalty.

A Legacy That Will Never Fade

Today, Eritrea stands upon the foundations built by these extraordinary individuals.
Their generation in the trenches, in the cultural brigades, in refugee camps, and across the diaspora shaped the identity and spirit of our nation.

They transformed suffering into poetry, struggle into song, and sacrifice into a legacy that lives on.

This tribute is therefore, above all, to Abrar Osman — for his heartfelt and deeply human words; and to Berekhet Mengsteab, whose voice, spirit, and sacrifices will forever echo in the hearts of Eritreans.

May Berekhet rest in eternal peace.
May Abrar continue to inspire us with his wisdom, humility, and devotion.
And may all the artists-freedom fighters of that unforgettable generation be remembered not for the hardships they endured, but for the nation they helped build

A nation that continues to draw strength, identity, and pride from their sacrifices.

AU–EU Summit Says Sovereignty Cannot Be Touched, Challenging Ethiopia’s Red Sea Claims

SETIT

25/11/2025

Leaders from Africa and Europe ended their summit with a strong message: sovereignty and territorial integrity are not open for negotiation.

In their joint declaration, they clearly stated they will continue to follow the UN Charter and protect the political independence of every state. They wrote that these principles “cannot be negotiated or compromised,” which is very rare to see in such high-level meetings.

This language comes at a sensitive time. Ethiopia has been speaking repeatedly about gaining “sovereign access” to the Red Sea through Eritrea. Many legal experts and regional observers say this idea has no base in international law.

The summit’s message makes one thing very clear: borders in the Horn of Africa are recognised, final, and protected. It also reminds all countries that they must avoid any threat or use of force to achieve political goals.

For Eritrea, this is important. It confirms again that its sovereignty is respected by both continents and that no one has the right to question its territorial integrity. The declaration also comes at a moment when tensions around the Red Sea are increasing, making respect for borders even more necessary for regional stability.

analysts say this joint statement is a quiet but firm response to Ethiopia’s recent rhetoric. It shows that the international community expects states to follow the law, not to revise borders or demand access by pressure.

Ethiopia’s Maritime Claim Is Not Based on History or Law — It Is a Direct Threat to African Sovereignty

Suleiman A. Hussien

23/11/2025

Ambassador Nebiyu Tedla’s article in Horn Review attempts to justify Ethiopia’s demand for “sovereign maritime access” as a logical product of history and geography. But such rhetoric conceals a far more troubling reality: Ethiopia is reviving an expansionist ambition, repackaged as necessity, and presenting it as legitimate diplomacy. In truth, it is neither diplomacy nor negotiation — it is a violation of international law from the moment it is asserted.

This is not a disagreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrea and Ethiopia are two sovereign states with clearly defined and internationally recognised borders. Ethiopia’s demand constitutes a direct assault on Eritrea’s sovereignty and, simultaneously, a challenge to the entire international legal order that maintains peace among states.

The UN Charter leaves no room for reinterpretation. Article 2(1) affirms the sovereign equality of all states; Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; and Article 2(7) forbids interference in the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign nations. Ethiopia’s claim to Eritrean territory violates each of these principles. Even voicing such a claim constitutes a prohibited threat under Article 2(4).

African law is even more explicit. The Constitutive Act of the African Union mandates respect for borders inherited at independence (Article 4(b)), prohibits the use of force (Article 4(f)), and forbids interference in the internal affairs of member states (Article 4(g)). These principles were reaffirmed in the AU’s 1964 Cairo Resolution, designed precisely to prevent the reopening of territorial disputes that could tear the continent apart. Ethiopia helped shape this principle — and now stands as the state most aggressively undermining it.

That a country openly repudiating AU founding principles continues to host the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa is becoming increasingly indefensible. A state cannot simultaneously be the custodian of the Union’s seat and the leading violator of its constitutional values.

Nor is Ethiopia’s behaviour limited to Eritrea. It has already violated Somalia’s sovereignty by signing an illegal memorandum of understanding with Somaliland, in outright defiance of Somalia’s territorial integrity. Ethiopian officials have also indicated interest in Djibouti’s ports and critical infrastructure. When viewed together, these actions form a clear pattern: Ethiopia is emerging as a serial violator of international law and African norms, seeking regional dominance through territorial pressure and intimidation.

The historical arguments deployed by Ambassador Nebiyu collapse under scrutiny. At no point in recorded history did any political entity corresponding to modern Ethiopia exercise sovereign authority over the Red Sea coast — not in antiquity, not in the medieval era, not under the Ottomans, and not during European colonial rule. Indeed, Ethiopia as a modern state emerged afterEritrea had already become an Italian colony with demarcated borders. Eritrea’s coastline was governed by indigenous polities for millennia and later by the Ottoman province of Habesh for more than three hundred years.

Yet even if Ethiopia had possessed historical control — which it did not — history has no standing in determining modern borders. The international system does not permit states to resurrect medieval memories or reinterpret ancient geography to justify territorial claims. If it did, no African state would survive the resulting chaos.

Eritrea’s position, by contrast, is grounded firmly in international law. Landlocked states are entitled to negotiate access to ports and transit routes, and Eritrea has never opposed such cooperation. But access cannot be transformed into ownership. Ethiopia’s demand that Eritrea surrender sovereign territory — in whole or in part — is incompatible with the most basic principles of the modern international order.

Eritrea’s coastline is not a strategic vacuum waiting to be reassigned. It is sovereign land — internationally recognised, legally protected, and defended at immense human cost during a 30-year struggle for independence and in the decades that followed.

Ambassador Nebiyu’s article attempts to normalise what is profoundly abnormal. It reframes territorial revisionism as an inevitable aspiration, as if Ethiopia’s need or size grants it unique rights. But if Ethiopia is allowed to advance such claims unchallenged, every African border becomes negotiable, and the continent enters a new era of instability with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The international community — including the United Nations, the African Union, IGAD, and responsible governments — must speak with clarity and urgency. No state may claim the sovereign territory of another. No country may redraw borders on the basis of ambition or perceived necessity. No government should remain host of the African Union while actively undermining its founding principles.

Ethiopia’s maritime claim has no basis in history or law. It threatens Eritrea’s sovereignty, undermines Somalia’s territorial integrity, and signals similar ambitions toward Djibouti. It jeopardises the entire African state system. The African Union Commission — which routinely issues statements on far less consequential matters — cannot remain silent simply because Ethiopia is its host country. Silence in this context is not neutrality; it is complicity, and it signals that AU principles are optional for some and obligatory for others.

The Commission must uphold its own Constitutive Act and speak clearly: no member state has the right to claim the territory of another, and territorial revisionism will not be tolerated — even when the violator sits in Addis Ababa. If the AU cannot defend its founding principles in this moment, then Africa must seriously question whether its headquarters can continue to reside in a state that openly undermines them.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions titled "Ethiopia’s Maritime Claim Is Not Based on History or Law — It Is a Direct Threat to African Sovereignty", are those of Suleiman A. Hussien and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Setit Media. ኣብዚ "Ethiopia’s Maritime Claim Is Not Based on History or Law — It Is a Direct Threat to African Sovereignty", ዘርእስቱ ጽሑፍ ተገሊጹ ዘሎ ርእይቶን ሓሳብን ናይ Suleiman A. Hussien እምበር መትከላትን መርገጽን ሰቲት ሚዲያ ዘንጸባርቕ ኣይኮነን።

Abiy Ahmed: Brinkmanship will not get you anywhere.

Abel Kebedom

20/11/2025

After Eritrea expelled the Ethiopian occupying Army in 1991, two years before the official independence of Eritrea on May 24, 1993, Assab Port was declared a free port. The port was fully open to Ethiopia, and the latter paid a nominal port service fee that covered only the operational port expenses. Assab, located strategically on the Red Sea, is a critical asset for both Eritrea and Ethiopia because of its proximity to international shipping lanes, providing essential maritime access for landlocked Ethiopia. The port has historically facilitated trade and commerce in the region, underscoring its strategic and economic importance. Additionally, in line with the free port policy of the Eritrean provisional government, Ethiopia used the Assab Oil refinery (1991-1998). When the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war of May 1998 erupted, Ethiopia not only unilaterally decided to move its port use to Djibouti but also tried to occupy Assab by military force and failed miserably.

After Eritrea and Ethiopia signed the Algiers agreement on 12 December 2000, to end the border dispute through arbitration of the court of law, the president of Eritrea offered the use of the Assab port to address the then-raging humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia. When United Nations officials approached the Ethiopian government with the proposal to use the Assab Port,Ethiopia refused to accept it. When Ethiopia and Eritrea reconciled in 2018, Eritrea was ready to strengthen its relationship with Ethiopia. From the Port of Assab, the Eritrean President again declared that the time had come for Ethiopia and Eritrea to work together to recover the lost opportunities during the 20-year no-war and no peace period. However, like previous successive Ethiopian leaders who used conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia as a pretext to stay in power, Abiy Ahmed moved to sabotage the reconciliation process.

Abiy Ahmed’s demand for ownership of a Port and its corridor by Hook or Crook.

Instead of following the spirit of reconciliation and negotiating in good faith, Abiy Ahmed decided to throw a grenade at the peace process between the two countries. After leaking the information for a year, the prime minister finally officially claimed the Eritrean Sovereign territory of Assab as Ethiopian. Making the situation worse recently, in his speech to his rubber-stamp parliament, he went further and questioned the independence of Eritrea. For the weakest Ethiopian prime minister in history, who begged a smaller but strong Eritrea to save his government from being overthrown by the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) during the 2020-2022 civil war, to hear him bashing the Eritrean population size, Army, and governance system is quite a ridiculous act.

In a typical government, information is released in a highly controlled manner. However, in Ethiopia, the civil servants, the army generals, and even ex-government employees, and thousands of social media army activists work for the Prosperity Party’s Ethiopian Ministry of Information. For instance, a widely circulated tweet from a social media influencer and government supporter claimed that Eritrea’s historical right to Assab was up for negotiation, sparking a heated online debate. The tweet was then magnified through televised clips on state-run media, creating a perception that Ethiopia’s claim over the port was gaining international support. This incident not only illustrates the mechanics of the propaganda machine but also underscores its potential to shift public opinion through orchestrated false digital campaigns. Using his heavy investment in social media, the prime minister tried to hoodwink Eritrea into giving up its sovereign port to Ethiopia, which is a very childish strategy.

Abiy Ahmed miscalculated.

Although Eritrea’s population is smaller than Ethiopia’s, threats to Eritrean sovereignty and territorial integrity, irrespective of political differences, result in unity among Eritreans. For this reason, Abiy Ahmed’s extensive propaganda campaign was effectively countered by Eritrean activists. However, in the face of Abiy Ahmed’s 30,000 paid propaganda army, there is still a need to increase community forums and social media platforms to disseminate accurate information and create awareness about the situation. Organizing educational events and engaging with international media to present the Eritrean perspective can also be effective in countering the Prosperity Party’s disinformation campaign. Furthermore, by collaborating with international organizations, the diaspora can advocate for Eritrea’s sovereignty and policy rights, ensuring that its narrative reaches a broader audience. Such measures not only reinforce Eritrean unity but also empower the diaspora to have a tangible impact on their homeland’s future.

Did Abiy Ahmed Benefit or Hurt Ethiopia?

Abiy Ahmed’s Brinkmanship destroyed whatever trust was left between Eritrea and Ethiopia. He revived the expansionist ambition of Ethiopian rulers and supported it with a broad-based propaganda machine. Accordingly, at this time, it will be very difficult for Eritrea to buy whatever the Abiy Ahmed government says or offers. The Abiy government should have been patient in building trust by addressing the pending issues between the two countries that have not been fully resolved. Yet the hasty Abiy Ahmed gravitated to hollow brinkmanship and made it worse. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Abiy Ahmed hurt Ethiopian Economic interests in using the Eritrean Assab port for commercial purposes.

The way forward.

Owing to the inexperienced and hasty actions of Abiy Ahmed, the Ethiopia-Eritrea relationship has grown increasingly complex. The issue has become multidimensional and extends across the entire Horn region. Abiy Ahmed’s Brinkmanship against Eritrea, his aggressive pursuit of Tigray’s destruction, his involvement in the Sudanese conflict, the suffering of the Amhara and Oromo people, and the escalating instability in the Afar region have become a threat to the peace of the Horn of Africa region. Therefore, the primary focus should be on restoring regional peace rather than prioritizing negotiations on Ethiopian commercial access to the port of Assab. The port has historically been a free port and will continue to do so. However, the region’s current political situation far exceeds the significance of Assab. Ethiopia survived by using the Djibouti port for 27 years and can continue to survive without Assab.

Conclusion.

The Ethiopian and Eritrean People are destined to live side by side as neighbors. However, the expansionist ambitions of successive Ethiopian rulers have posed an existential threat to the peace of the region. Unless such expansionist ambition is reversed, Ethiopian leaders stop the brinkmanship against their neighbors, peaceful coexistence in the region will continue to be elusive. Therefore, the people of the region need to march together for lasting peace. There is no other way to cure the embattled Horn of Africa region.

Eternal Glory to Our Martyrs and victory to the Masses.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions titled "Abiy Ahmed: Brinkmanship will not get you anywhere.", are those of Abel Kebedom and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Setit Media. ኣብዚ "Abiy Ahmed: Brinkmanship will not get you anywhere.", ዘርእስቱ ጽሑፍ ተገሊጹ ዘሎ ርእይቶን ሓሳብን ናይ Abel Kebedom እምበር መትከላትን መርገጽን ሰቲት ሚዲያ ዘንጸባርቕ ኣይኮነን።

Stop Asking Whether Ethiopia Can Attack Eritrea. Ask Why Ethiopia Thinks It’s Entitled To

Hannibal Negash

19/11/2025

A recent interview circulating in Ethiopian media featuring Jawar Mohammed and Tsedale Lemma has reopened an old wound in Horn of Africa discourse. Not because of its content, but because of its underlying premise. Eritrea was discussed yet again not as a sovereign country with its own agency, but as a terrain onto which Ethiopia’s political class projects its anxieties and ambitions.

The central framing of the conversation was not “Does Ethiopia have the right to threaten Eritrea?” It was “Does Ethiopia have the capability to wage war?” This is the problem in one sentence.

It reveals how deeply Eritrea remains lodged in Ethiopia’s political imagination not as an equal state, but as an unfinished chapter of Ethiopia’s internal story. Ethiopia still debates its strength instead of its legitimacy. It weighs the costs of war instead of the law and morality that forbid it. Even the analytical language used by Ethiopia’s intellectual class betrays this instinct: Eritrea becomes an obstacle, not a nation.

This is not an intellectual blind spot. It is a political inheritance one that Eritreans recognize instantly. As an African proverb teaches: “When a man carrying fire enters your courtyard, do not ask how strong he is. Ask why he carries fire at all.” Yet Ethiopia continues to debate the strength of its fire, rather than the danger of igniting it.

Eritrea as Ethiopia’s Mirror Not Its Neighbor

Throughout the interview, no matter the topic war fatigue, economic collapse, diplomatic decline Eritrea was treated as a variable inside Ethiopia’s political equation. This is a long-standing habit among Ethiopia’s political elite. Eritrea becomes the mirror through which Ethiopia measures its own crisis, its own decline, its own fractured identity.

The Red Sea issue made this particularly evident. Instead of treating Eritrea’s coastline as an established international border, the speakers discussed it as though it were a strategic resource whose ownership depends on Ethiopia’s condition and mood.

And nowhere was this clearer than in Jawar Mohammed’s remark that the Red Sea “belongs to the Afars.” It was delivered casually, framed as nuance, but the political message was unmistakable. It subtly chipped away at Eritrea’s sovereignty by reframing a national coastline as an ethnic space.

This is an old Ethiopian tactic: When Ethiopian unity is at stake, territory is sacred and indivisible. When Eritrean unity is at stake, territory becomes an ethnic puzzle open to foreign interpretation. That contradiction reveals motive, not confusion.

If Jawar genuinely believed territory follows ethnicity, he would have to concede that: Addis Ababa belongs to the Oromo alone; Gambella belongs to the Anuak and Nuer; Benishangul belongs to the Gumuz; Half the federation would need to be redrawn. But when discussing Ethiopia, he becomes a defender of national unity. When discussing Eritrea, he becomes an ethnic anthropologist. This is not intellectual rigor. It is political convenience.

As another African proverb warns: “The hyena may debate with the shepherd, but its thoughts remain on the flock.” Eritreans understand this instinct. We have lived it.

The Dangerous Normalization of Illegitimate Questions

The difficulty with conversations like this is that they normalize a fundamentally illegitimate premise: that Ethiopia is entitled to question Eritrea’s sovereignty. They make it appear reasonable to discuss whether Ethiopia “can” impose its will, rather than whether Ethiopia “may” or “should.” This is not harmless as Eritrea has been here before.

We were federated without consent. Annexed illegally, occupied militarily, subjected to cultural erasure and forced into a war of survival. Every stage of our injustice began with polite discussions about “shared identity,” “historical ties,” or “regional logic.” Conversations like that interview are not theoretical. For Eritreans, they are familiar preludes to aggression.

War Talk as a Symptom of Ethiopia’s Internal Collapse

The irony of the current moment is that Ethiopia is not projecting strength when it talks about the Red Sea. It is projecting collapse.

A crumbling economy, exhausted military, fragmented federation and delegitimized state have pushed Ethiopian elites toward outward fantasies. When a political order cannot govern internally, it often tries to stitch unity by looking outward. Eritrea has become the convenient symbol the imagined space through which Ethiopia can rediscover coherence.

But the country’s internal situation contradicts its outward bravado. Ethiopia is deeply fractured: The economy is trapped in inflation, debt and corruption. The federation is in open conflict with itself. The military is overstretched and war-fatigued. The population is worn down by repeated mobilizations. Diplomacy has eroded into unpredictability and personalism.

This is not a nation preparing for victory. It is a nation drowning in instability, trying to anchor itself on someone else’s shore. This reminds one proverb that summs up Ethiopian relaity. “A man who cannot repair his hut will try to rule the village.” So Eritrea must not allow itself to become the target of this displacement.

Eritrea’s Coastline Is a National Mandate, Not an Ethnic Footnote

Let this be stated with calm certainty: The Red Sea coastline is Eritrean. Not because Afars live there. Not because Tigrinya speakers live there. Not because any ethnic group claims it. It is Eritrean because Eritrea through collective struggle, collective sacrifice, and collective identity forged itself into a nation. Sovereignty does not belong to one ethnic group. It belongs to the people as a whole.

This is the core misunderstanding Ethiopian elites must finally confront: Eritrea is not a mosaic of tribes glued together. It is a cohesive state, built deliberately and defended relentlessly. This is why ethnic-fragmentation arguments fall flat. And this is why Eritrea rejects them with calm, unshakeable confidence.

Ethiopia Cannot Heal Until It Lets Go of Its Imperial Shadow

Eritrea’s independence is not Ethiopia’s unfinished story. It is a closed chapter, a historical fact and a sovereign reality. To make crystal clear, in case the Ethiopian elites have some confusion, Eritrea’s borders do not shift with Ethiopian emotion. Eritrea’s coastline is not Ethiopia’s bargaining chipand Eritrea’s people are not Ethiopia’s ethnic debate material.

For Ethiopia to stabilize, it must undergo an internal reckoning. It must face the empire in its head the lingering belief that its neighbors exist in relation to it, not beside it. Ethiopia cannot build a peaceful future while its political class still dreams in the grammar of dominance. As they say: “If the river forgets its path, the rocks will remind it.” History reminded Ethiopia once, It should not seek a second lesson.

Conclusion

Eritrea Will Not Serve as Ethiopia’s Psychological Canvas. The Jawar–Tsedale interview did not simply analyze Ethiopia’s crises. It revealed how deeply Ethiopian political culture remains trapped in a worldview that treats Eritrea as a subordinate variable rather than a sovereign equal. for Eritrea this worldview is a joke, and ignorant at best.

Eritrea is not a corridor for Ethiopian anxiety. Not a battlefield for Ethiopian unity. Not a talking point for Ethiopian elites. Not a placeholder for Ethiopian nostalgia. Eritrea is Eritrea a nation forged by its people, owned by its citizens, and protected by its history.

If Ethiopia seeks a future of peace, it must begin by accepting this simple, immovable truth: Eritrea is not Ethiopia’s battleground. It is its neighbor with strong national unity that is not hesitated to protect its boraders. We did that, we will do it again and again if our neighbours to the south do not stop seeking a secod lesson from history.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions titled "Stop Asking Whether Ethiopia Can Attack Eritrea. Ask Why Ethiopia Thinks It’s Entitled To", are those of Hannibal Negash and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Setit Media. ኣብዚ "Stop Asking Whether Ethiopia Can Attack Eritrea. Ask Why Ethiopia Thinks It’s Entitled To", ዘርእስቱ ጽሑፍ ተገሊጹ ዘሎ ርእይቶን ሓሳብን ናይ Hannibal Negash እምበር መትከላትን መርገጽን ሰቲት ሚዲያ ዘንጸባርቕ ኣይኮነን።

Why Ethiopia Is Manufacturing a Conflict With Eritrea

Hannibal Negash

18/11/2025

Ethiopia’s renewed hostility toward Eritrea is being framed as a struggle for “historical access to the Red Sea.” But strip away the slogans, and a more unsettling story emerges. Ethiopia’s leadership is turning toward external confrontation not because it needs a port, but because it is running out of political space at home. The threat of conflict with Eritrea is less a strategic calculation than a desperate attempt to stabilize a country drifting toward fragmentation. This is not about the sea. This is about survival.

A State Unraveling From Within

Ethiopia today is grappling with one of the deepest governance crises in its modern history. Federal authority has eroded in Oromia, where competing insurgent groups and federal forces fight for control. The Amhara region is locked in a cycle of confrontation with Addis Ababa, with Fano militias defying repeated attempts at disarmament. Tigray, still reeling from the devastating war of 2020–2022, remains politically fragile and economically shattered. Somali, Benishangul and Gambella regions live under persistent uncertainty, struggling to trust a federal government they perceive as increasingly inconsistent.

The Ethiopian economy is suffering under inflation, currency collapse and mounting debt. The national army is visibly strained by ethnic fragmentation. Institutions designed to integrate the country have instead become arenas of competing loyalties.

Amid this profound internal dislocation, Ethiopia’s ruling class has reached for a familiar political instrument: an external enemy powerful enough to momentarily quiet domestic fractures. Eritrea has been cast in that role once again.

The “Sea Access” Narrative: A Convenient Mask

Ethiopia’s leaders insist that regaining access to the Red Sea is an existential necessity. Yet the facts tell a different story. Ethiopia has relied on Djibouti’s ports consistently for decades. Negotiations with Somalia offer additional maritime options. No commercial crisis compels Ethiopia to threaten a sovereign neighbor.

Why, then, is Addis Ababa escalating?

Because the symbolism of “historic access to the sea” offers a narrative powerful enough to redirect public anger and obscure domestic failures. It turns complex political questions into emotional slogans. And it plays on a deep, unresolved feature of Ethiopian statehood: the belief that national unity can be manufactured through territorial ambition rather than built through political inclusion. In this sense, Ethiopia’s maritime rhetoric is not a geopolitical claim. It is political sedative.

A Century-Long Pattern of Externalizing Internal Crisis

What is unfolding today fits a long historical arc. From the late nineteenth century onward, Ethiopia’s rulers have repeatedly used Eritrea to reinforce their own legitimacy.

Menelik II’s imperial expansion sought strategic depth and symbolic power. Haile Selassie’s illegal 1962 annexation of Eritrea attempted to present himself as the guardian of Ethiopian territorial destiny. The Derg launched brutal campaigns to crush Eritrean liberation wars designed as much for domestic control as military victory. The TPLF-led EPRDF used a two-track policy: diplomacy on the surface, economic and political pressure underneath.

In each chapter, Eritrea became the terrain on which Ethiopian rulers tried to resolve domestic insecurity. Abiy Ahmed’s shift from reconciliation in 2018 to expansionist rhetoric in 2023–2025 is not a break from tradition. It is the latest act in a long, familiar script.

Why Eritrea’s Stability Irritates Ethiopian Elites

Eritrea is not without its own burdens. Political space is narrow. Civic freedoms are constrained. Economic hardship has shaped daily life for years. Young people struggle with limited opportunities. These realities deserve acknowledgment. Yet Eritrea has also maintained something Ethiopia has struggled to achieve across successive governments: national coherence.

No competing militias.
No ethnically-defined administrations.
No parallel power centers.
Stable borders.
Equal citizenship not divided by ethnic quotas.
Low crime and high internal security.
A consistent foreign policy.
A strong, if rigid, ethos of social justice and fairness in resource distribution.

Eritrea’s cohesion achieved despite extraordinary economic and geopolitical pressure—stands in stark contrast to Ethiopia’s fragmentation. For Ethiopian elites, this comparison is painful. A smaller, poorer state has managed to avoid the ethnic implosion that now threatens Ethiopia’s survival. Resentment grows where comparison stings. And resentment easily morphs into political hostility.

The Manufactured Logic of War

The belief that conflict with Eritrea could unify Ethiopia is rooted in political fantasy. External confrontation has never delivered lasting cohesion in Ethiopia. In fact, history shows the opposite: every previous attempt to use war as a source of unity eventually deepened internal fractures.

A conflict with Eritrea would not solve the uprising in Amhara, the turmoil in Oromia or the instability in Tigray. It would not strengthen the Ethiopian economy. It would not rebuild trust in institutions. It would not resolve Ethiopia’s long-standing crisis of identity. It would simply redirect the crisis outward, for a moment—before the consequences came crashing back.

A Region at Risk

Any Ethiopian attempt to manufacture conflict places the entire Horn of Africa at risk. The Red Sea corridor is already under pressure from global power competition, shipping disruptions and the war in Sudan. A new conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea would destabilize one of the world’s most strategic maritime regions.

Djibouti’s economy could collapse.
Somalia’s fragile political gains would come under strain.
Sudan’s war could spill further east.
Gulf and global powers could be drawn into a widening confrontation.
Shipping through Bab el-Mandeb one of the world’s busiest chokepoints could be compromised. The geopolitical costs of Ethiopian adventurism would be staggering.

Eritrea’s Measured Posture

Eritrea has not threatened Ethiopia. It has not mobilized offensively. Its diplomacy has emphasized stability, sovereignty and non-interference. It knows the price of war more deeply than any nation in the region.

Eritrea’s caution is often misconstrued as aloofness. But it is better understood as statecraft: the discipline of a nation that has paid for its independence with immense human cost and is unwilling to gamble its security on political theatrics unfolding next door.

The Core Truth

Ethiopia is not seeking the sea. It is seeking a distraction powerful enough to silence the chaos within its borders. Eritrea is not the obstacle Ethiopia portrays; it is simply the nearest political canvas onto which a desperate government is projecting its insecurities.

The Horn of Africa cannot afford another conflict engineered to rescue a failing political class. Eritrea deserves security from crises it did not create. Ethiopia deserves leaders willing to confront the country’s real problems rather than exporting them across the border. War will not build Ethiopia. It will only expose its fractures. Until Ethiopia’s leaders accept that, the danger of manufactured confrontation will remain and so will the risk it poses to millions across the region.

Ethiopia Cries “Proxy” While Acting as One

SETIT

14/11/2025

Ethiopia’s Convenient Proxy Story Says More About Addis Ababa Than Eritrea. Every so often a political speech lands with the kind of confidence that makes you pause. Not because it reveals something new, but because it works so hard to make the familiar look like a revelation. That is what Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos delivered at Addis Ababa University, a long, polished talk wrapped in history, diplomacy and careful language.

But beneath the formalities, he pushed several ideas, one of them was: Eritrea, he claimed, is acting as a proxy for foreign powers. It is a serious accusation and a strangely hollow one.

Anyone who has watched the Horn of Africa for the past few decades knows this storyline far from truth. In fact, it flips reality upside down. And it arrives at a moment when Ethiopia is struggling with its own internal crises and eyeing the Red Sea with a renewed hunger it can barely conceal.

When governments begin to reshape the past to soften the ground for their future ambitions, we should pay attention.

Eritrea as a proxy: the accusation that is ridiculous as it sounds, Gedion portrayed Eritrea as a country controlled by outsiders, manipulated by unseen hands, weaponized against Ethiopia’s interests. It is the oldest accusation in politics: if you cannot control your neighbor’s decisions, call those decisions foreign directed. The problem is simple.
It is not true and it ignores the region’s actual history.

Eritrea’s story, its struggles, its choices, its stubborn independence, has never fit neatly inside anyone’s geopolitical plans. No superpower liberated Eritrea. No patron shaped its national identity. Eritrea has made hard decisions, sometimes costly ones, but always on its own terms, for better or worse.

If we are talking proxies, Ethiopia’s own record is impossible to ignore. Here is the part of the conversation Gedion’s speech never touches. For decades, Ethiopia has been the region’s most reliable anchor state for outside forces. The 2006 invasion of Somalia was not an Ethiopian idea, it was behest of foreign power. The 1998 war with Eritrea unfolded with Western indulgence and encouragement. The sanctions regime that squeezed Eritrea for years had Addis Ababa’s fingerprints all over it, along with its external partners.

And now Ethiopia’s sudden obsession with what it calls existential access to the Red Sea aligns almost perfectly with the ambitions of the UAE, especially Abu Dhabi’s growing appetite for influence across the Red Sea corridor. This is not conspiracy. It is regional politics that everyone sees it.

So when Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of being someone else’s tool, it sounds less like a warning and more like projection. Why do this now? Because narratives shape maps. Ethiopia’s leadership understands something deeply: Before borders shift, stories shift.

If Eritrea can be portrayed internationally as a country acting on behalf of others, then its positions, especially on ports and sovereignty, can be dismissed as foreign influenced rather than legitimate. Once that seed is planted, Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions begin to look not aggressive, but defensive, not expansionist, but necessary, not opportunistic, but a correction of some historic wrong.

This is how governments prepare the ground before making bigger moves. First comes the narrative. Then comes the pressure. And then, if the world is inattentive, comes the irreversible.

Eritrean independence was earned the hard way, nobody gets to narrate it away. Eritrea’s foreign policy is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it has one undeniable trait: it is independent. Painfully independent. Sometimes stubbornly so. But always free from the dependency networks that have shaped so many other African states.

A country that refused foreign military bases, foreign aid strings, foreign political sponsorship, and foreign ideological umbrellas cannot be credibly described as a proxy.

Whether one approves of Eritrea’s choices or disagrees with them, they are Eritrea’s choices. And that matters. Because history has taught the Horn of Africa one harsh lesson: When a nation’s agency is dismissed, its sovereignty is not far behind. What Gedion’s speech really reveals is Ethiopia’s uncertainty. Behind the layers of scholarship and diplomacy, Gedion sounded like a government wrestling with internal fractures it does not know how to contain.

A country facing rebellions in multiple regions.
A leadership struggling to hold legitimacy.
An economy leaning on foreign lenders and foreign investors.
A government increasingly tied to UAE influence across the Red Sea corridor.
And now a state suddenly insisting its coastal ambitions are existential.

In such a moment, blaming Eritrea is a political convenience. Painting Eritrea as a proxy is a distraction. Invoking Eritrea is a way to shift the public gaze outward. This is what collapsing internal confidence looks like when dressed in diplomatic language. The Horn of Africa deserves better than recycled narratives.

This region has bled enough for ambition, suspicion and revisionist history. Eritrea and Ethiopia deserve a future not built on rhetorical shadowboxing or subtle threats disguised as regional integration. If Ethiopia wants peace, it should stop accusing its neighbor of being someone else’s puppet. If it wants access to the Red Sea, it should negotiate openly and respectfully, not build narratives that weaken Eritrea’s sovereignty by implication.

Because once powerful states or rising middle powers sense that a small coastal nation’s legitimacy is up for debate, the consequences are rarely reversible. In the end, the truth is simple: Eritrea acts for itself. Ethiopia often does not. And the sooner the region acknowledges that inversion, the sooner it can begin to have the honest conversations the Horn has avoided for far too long.

Eritrea is not a proxy. Eritrea is not a pawn. And no speech, however eloquent, can turn Ethiopia’s anxieties into Eritrea’s identity.

That is the story that needs to be told clearly and calmly.

1...345...26 Page 4 of 26