Ethiopia’s Maritime Puzzle
Since losing its coastline with Eritrea’s independence in 1993, Ethiopia has wrestled with dependence on Djibouti for over 95 percent of its imports and exports. For years, this reliance has fueled unease in Addis Ababa about sovereignty, security, and economic growth.
Now, a new chapter is unfolding. Between 2023 and 2025, Ethiopian leaders have swung between fiery threats, unilateral port deals, military revisionism, and diplomatic appeals. Ethiopia’s calculated ambiguity about its quest to the sea outlet is bereft of stealth.
From Abiy’s Warning to Somaliland’s Deal
In October 2023, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed warned parliament that Ethiopia “must acquire a port” and, if denied justice, “we will fight.” The bluntness alarmed Eritrea and Somalia.
By January 2024, Addis Ababa pursued a different path: a controversial Memorandum of Understanding with Somaliland. The deal promised Ethiopia access to Berbera port and potential military basing in exchange for possible recognition of Somaliland’s independence. Mogadishu denounced the move as illegal, Egypt rallied to Somalia’s side, and the region braced for escalation.
Taye’s Softer Line at the UN
Fast forward to September 2025. Speaking before the UN General Assembly, President Taye Atske-Selassie struck a more conciliatory note: “All that Ethiopia asks for is access to the sea.”
Gone were the threats of 2023. The statement echoed international law, which recognizes landlocked states’ rights to transit but only through agreements with coastal neighbors.
Generals Raise the Stakes
Yet, behind the podium diplomacy lies a harder edge. In September 2025, Major General Teshome Gemechu, a senior Ethiopian defense official, openly questioned the legitimacy of Eritrea’s 1993 independence. He suggested that the Red Sea port of Assab had been wrongly ceded, hinting at unfinished business.
Similarly, Brigadier General Bultii Taaddasaa, Chief Executive Officer of Ethiopia’s Military War College, features prominently in Ethiopia’s strategic discourse. His influence shapes how the officer corps frames questions of sovereignty, access, and regional order (see video here: https://youtu.be/Pl3x-oDK1DA?si=1vzql8V6q0LZ-dkZ).
Propaganda as Pretext
Alongside these voices, Ethiopian state and allied media have amplified a narrative that Eritrea is backing insurgencies in both Tigray and Amhara.
One striking video, titled “የሽግግር መንግስት የባህር በር አሳልፎ የመስጠት መብት የለውም” (“The Transitional Government Has No Right to Cede the Sea Port”), is available here: https://youtu.be/hhgmWdL4A1U?si=0ILGU9g-Uzjwl_-T. It asserts that no government has the right to give away a port, framing maritime access as a matter of national betrayal.
But the narrative stretches credibility. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) has historically despised Eritrea — from the 1998–2000 border war to the recent Tigray conflict, where it accused Eritrea of atrocities. Branding TPLF as an Eritrean proxy is politically convenient, but factually dubious.
Why This Matters
- Dual messaging — At the UN, Ethiopia presents moderation; at home, generals and propagandists float sovereignty revisionism.
2. Legal limits — International law provides rights of transit, not territorial claims.
3. Regional instability — Eritrea views such rhetoric as existential. Somalia is already destabilized by the Somaliland deal. Djibouti fears being sidelined. Egypt sees an opportunity to exploit Ethiopia’s overreach.
The Horn’s Precarious Balance
The Horn of Africa is no stranger to war over borders. The 1998–2000 Ethiopia–Eritrea war cost tens of thousands of lives. A return to sovereignty disputes would risk dragging the region into another cycle of conflict, at a time when drought, displacement, and economic fragility already burden millions.
Ethiopia faces a stark choice: pursue negotiated, contractual access through Djibouti or Somalia — preserving regional stability — or indulge revisionist claims and propaganda, risking regional war and international isolation.
The Bottom Line
Ethiopia’s maritime rhetoric is more than a policy debate; it is a struggle between moderation and militarism. If Addis Ababa’s diplomats prevail, the country may secure fair access through law and negotiation. If its generals and propagandists dominate, the Horn of Africa could face yet another destabilizing crisis.
Ethiopia’s calculated ambiguity about its quest to the sea outlet is bereft of stealth.
Recognition is not a Favor, it is a Fact
By ALULA FREZGHI
In the realm of international law, recognition of a sovereign state is not a whimsical gesture, nor a political bargaining chip. It is a solemn acknowledgment of a people’s right to self-determination, rooted in history, struggle, and legal process. Once granted, it is rarely revoked, because to do so would undermine the very foundations of global order.
Yet today, we hear reckless murmurs from certain Ethiopian quarters, suggesting the derecognition of Eritrea. Such talk is not only legally incoherent, it is politically suicidal.
Derecognition has historically occurred only under extreme conditions: when a state collapses, ceases to exist, or is fabricated through brute force and lacks legitimacy. Eritrea meets none of these criteria. On the contrary, Eritrea’s statehood is among the most hard-won and legally validated in Africa. Its independence was affirmed through a UN-supervised referendum, endorsed by the African Union, and recognized by the international community.
To question Eritrea’s sovereignty is to insult the memory of tens of thousands who gave their lives for freedom. It is to deny the legitimacy of a process that Ethiopia itself once celebrated.
Let us be clear: Eritrea is not the one teetering on the edge of disintegration. Ethiopia, plagued by internal wars, ethnic fragmentation, and constitutional paralysis, is the one whose cohesion is in question. Those who speak of derecognition should first ask whether their own house still stands.
To the Progressive Party and its misguided provocateurs: your bluff is transparent, your rhetoric is hollow, and your grasp of international norms is nonexistent.
Eritrea’s flag will continue to fly not because others permit it, but because its people earned it.
ዓወት ንሓፋሽ
Victory to the Masses.
Eritrea’s Sovereignty Is Not a Bargaining Chip—It Is a Fortress Forged in Fire.
By: ALULA FREZGHI
Hussein Issa Akili’s ( Abu Mahmud) call to differentiate Eritrea’s nationhood from its ruling regime is indeed important. However, his approach risks moral ambiguity by suggesting that critiques of governance must be carefully isolated to avoid “confusing” the nation with its regime. This is not clarity; it is containment and fails to acknowledge the brutal challenges Eritrea has faced since its independence.
From 2008 to 2018, Eritrea endured one of the most aggressive sanction regimes in modern African history. Arms embargoes, diplomatic isolation, and economic strangulation were imposed not due to proven crimes, but because Eritrea refused to submit to regional subservience. These sanctions constituted not mere policy but warfare by alternative means. They targeted the nation’s youth, development, and dignity, fueling propaganda campaigns that encouraged our young men to flee, demonized our sovereignty, and labeled Eritrea as a North Korea of Africa (pariah).
Even today, Eritrea faces suffocation through swift banking bans and financial blacklisting, instruments designed to cripple its economy. Yet, despite this siege, Eritrea stands resilient, not as a failed state, but as the only stable and coherent nation in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia is fractured by civil war and imperial nostalgia, Somalia is held hostage by foreign troops and internal divisions, and Sudan is engulfed in chaos. In stark contrast, Eritrea has preserved its borders, institutions, and invaluable independence.
This is not a justification for the Eritrean government, but rather an acknowledgment of the facts on the ground.
Critiquing Eritrea’s governance without recognizing this geopolitical crucifixion renders one’s discourse incomplete. The Eritrean government’s defensive posture, suspicion, and rigidity did not emerge in a vacuum; they were forged in the fire of betrayal, encirclement, and existential threats. Eritrea was not only managing internal dissent but also resisting external dismantlement.
While Akili’s warning against “voices who justify Ethiopian demands” has merit, he missteps by implying that critique weakens sovereignty. In truth, dissent does not undermine sovereignty, it is silence that threatens it. Eritrea’s strength lies in its people’s ability to speak, to organize, and to demand justice; defending sovereignty is a necessity.
Moreover, invoking the “Afar people of Dankalia” while simultaneously defending a regime that has marginalized them is not an act of solidarity, there is no truth to that, it is to the contrary . True national unity necessitates justice for all communities, not mere rhetorical inclusion.
Let us be unequivocal: Eritrea’s sovereignty is non-negotiable. It does not belong to the regime; it is the inheritance of martyrs. However, sovereignty devoid of justice is fragile, and unity without truth is hollow.
Eritrea’s constancy is rooted not in slogans but in the resilience of its people. To honor the nation means confronting its challenges, defending its dignity, and rejecting both foreign domination and domestic repression. While governments may be transient, the people’s right to shape their own future is eternal.
ALULA FREZGHI
Advocate for Eritrean Sovereignty and Regional Stability
I can be reached through my email.
[email protected]