In my previous article titled “Who is Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia?” published on setit.org, I reviewed Dr. Araia’s education, academic work history, his focus on myths, and the accusations that he has so far faced for misinterpreting history. In this article, I will focus on his recent presentation to a YouTube channel called CyberpowerTigrayMedia1. In his presentation, as usual, he toiled to make an argument supporting Ethiopia’s frivolous claim to own a port and its corridor in a sovereign Eritrean territory called Assab. Dr. Araia classified his arguments as legal and historical.
Legal Argument
In my previous article, I criticized Dr. Araia for his disinterest in international law and treaties. Although for the wrong reasons, I am glad that this time he tried to correct that weakness. To build his legal argument, he mentioned the 1982 Law of the Sea and its branch, the 1958 Geneva Convention about the seabed. In the meantime, I invite everyone who can understand English to go and listen to his presentation. It is clear evidence of how Dr. Araia manipulates information to make his argument. Remember, the Law of the Sea is about landlocked countries’ right to use ports owned by neighboring countries. It is not about a landlocked country requesting to own a port and its corridor on land that belongs to a neighboring country. So again, Dr. Araia misinterpreted the law. The Law of the Sea 1982 states:
Right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit (Article 125)
Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising the rights provided for in this Convention including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.
The terms and modalities for exercising freedom of transit shall be agreed between the land-locked States and transit States concerned through bilateral, subregional or regional agreements.
Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no way infringe their legitimate interests.²
The other law Dr. Araia victimized was the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Seabed. In his presentation, Dr. Araia said the convention stated the seabed belongs to all countries. Dr. Araia purposely did not make a distinction between territorial and international seabed. If he did, it would go against his argument. His objective is not to explain; it is to convince or confuse. The convention clearly states:
“The 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf grants coastal states exclusive rights over the seabed and subsoil of their continental shelf, which extends beyond their territorial waters. This area is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory into the sea, including the seabed and subsoil up to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coast or the outer edge of the continental margin, whichever is greater.”³
The above information, taken from the pages of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Seabed, indicates how far Dr. Araia goes to manipulate information.
Historical Context Argument
Although his training is in education (pedagogy or the science of teaching), Dr. Araia likes to talk about history so that he can manipulate 500-800-year-old events with no consequences. As usual, he tried to argue that before the Italian colonization, Tigrean (Ethiopian) warlords used to conquer the current land called Eritrea. I do not understand how his argument is related to his current claim of owning a port and its corridor to the sea on an internationally recognized territory of a neighboring country, Eritrea. If we follow his argument, the Ottomans who administered Massawa in the 16th century and later transferred it to Egyptian rule in 1872 should claim the port of Massawa, which is a sovereign territory of modern Eritrea. The British, who used to say “the sun never sets on the British Empire,” should reclaim all the territories they colonized. So, his arguments are gibberish and do not follow logic. Because at some point in time, hundreds of years ago, Tigrayan warlords conquered the highlands of Eritrea, that does not give the current Ethiopian government the right to claim a port and its corridor. The whole circus by the Ethiopian government and its operatives like Dr. Araia shows how volatile the region Eritrea is in, and it always needs to be ready for eventualities.
Was He an Ethiopian Nationalist in 1989?
In his presentation, Dr. Araia mentioned that he supported Eritrean independence but also wanted the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) to cede the Assab port of Eritrea to Ethiopia. Also, he mentioned that he met with the current President of Eritrea—then the General Secretary of EPLF—in the rural areas of Eritrea, where the EPLF was operating, a couple of times. Here you can see a clear contradiction in his narrative. If he supported Eritrean independence, he would not have been an Ethiopian nationalist. The truth is different. When the EPLF agreed to mediation with the then-Ethiopian military government, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front was furious that it was not included. Had the EPLF reached an agreement with the then-Ethiopian military regime, the fate of the TPLF could have been sealed. The TPLF released a scratchy criticism of the meeting and accused the EPLF of conspiring against the will of the Eritrean people, which is independence. Here is where Dr. Araia’s role comes from. He was invited to the meeting as a Tigrayan nationalist who supports the TPLF. Accordingly, Dr. Araia brought up the issue of the port of Assab in his encounter with the EPLF delegation to discredit the delegation in front of its supporters for agreeing to talk to the Ethiopian regime without the TPLF. Now, Dr. Araia is changing his story to get the attention of the current Ethiopian government. He is telling the current Ethiopian government that he was a lifelong nationalist who advocated for Ethiopian ownership of the Eritrean Assab port. This is what politicians call flexibility. Dr. Araia is full of surprises.
Before I end my article, I would like to remind Dr. Araia that when it comes to Eritrea, these are the facts:
Ottoman and Egyptian Colonial Powers (12th century CE – 19th century):
• Ottoman and Egyptian Influence:
The Red Sea coast became a contested area, with the Ottoman Turks establishing a garrison in Massawa and the Egyptians occupying the lowlands.
Colonial Era (19th century – 1991):
• Italian Colonization (1890–1941):
Italy declared Eritrea a colony and later annexed it into Italian East Africa.
The Eritrea-Ethiopia border was established through a series of colonial-era treaties between Ethiopian kings and Italy, primarily the 1900 Treaty (Mareb-Belesa-Muna line), the 1902 Treaty (western sector), and the 1908 Treaty, with the Algiers Agreement of 2000 establishing a Boundary Commission to delimit and demarcate the border based on these treaties.
• British Administration (1941–1952):
British forces occupied Eritrea during World War II and administered it as a United Nations trust territory.
• Union with Ethiopia (1952–1962):
Although similar colonies like Libya and Somalia were given independence, against the will of the Eritrean people, the United Nations voted to make Eritrea a federal component of Ethiopia, but the arrangement was later dissolved by the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie.
War of Independence and Independence (1961–1993):
• Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF):
The Eritrean People’s Liberation Front was formed and waged a long and bloody war for independence against the Ethiopian government. It defeated the Ethiopian forces and took full control of Eritrea in May 1991.
• Independence Referendum (1993):
Eritreans overwhelmingly voted for independence, leading to the establishment of the internationally recognized independent state of Eritrea.
Post-Independence (1993–present):
• Eritrean-Ethiopian War and The Algiers Agreement (1998–2002):
A conflict with Ethiopia over the border (Badme Triangle) led to a devastating war, leaving a lasting impact on the region.
Ethiopia and Eritrea signed the Algiers Agreement (in Algeria) to resolve the conflict through an international court based in The Hague, the Netherlands. On April 12, 2002, the Ethio-Eritrea Boundary Commission, established by the Algiers Agreement, gave its final and binding verdict and ended its job by virtually demarcating the border.
Conclusion
It seems Dr. Araia has left his academic roots and chosen to engage in propaganda. To be honest, his arguments do not deserve any response at all. Yet I am forced to respond to educate those youngsters who may unknowingly be victimized by his false propaganda. I just want to show that, despite his academic degree, Dr. Araia’s arguments are hollow and deserve to be aired on Ethiopian TV stations to local viewers, not to people who understand how international law works. Currently, Ethiopia is facing wars in almost all regions of the country. It is plagued by hunger, death, and poverty. The government is buying sophisticated drones to kill its people on a daily basis. It is bringing the agenda of port ownership to overshadow the raging internal conflicts and associated crimes that it is committing on its people. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, Dr. Araia chose to be part of it. The good thing is, like other past propagandists, sooner or later, Dr. Araia will finish his shelf life and will be thrown to the side. On the positive side, Eritreans in Eritrea and all over the world will celebrate Eritrean Independence Day on May 24, 2025, which is about a month away. Happy Birthday, Eritrea.
References.
