The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed in 1933 in Uruguay by twenty American republics including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and the United States, was never a European or African affair. Yet its principles became the backbone of customary international law, defining what makes a state a state beyond recognition or political mood swings. Ironically, this Latin American treaty now exposes the hypocrisy of Ethiopia’s campaign against Eritrea’s sovereignty and the ganazo mentality that drives it.
1. The Four Pillars of Statehood and Eritrea’s Strength
Article 1 of the Convention outlines four criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and capacity for international relations. Eritrea meets each one without question.
Permanent Population: Eritrea’s people are permanent in every sense, rooted in an identity forged through colonization, war, and endurance. Ethiopia’s argument that migration weakens Eritrea’s legitimacy is dishonest. People fleeing hardship do not erase a nation; they prove its resilience.
Defined Territory: Eritrea’s borders were defined by the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties between Italy and Ethiopia and reaffirmed by the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) in 2002. Ethiopia’s refusal to implement the ruling and its historical encroachments violate both Article 1 and the non-intervention principle of Montevideo.
Effective Government: Eritrea has a functioning state apparatus. International law does not judge governance by popularity contests but by effectiveness.
Capacity for Foreign Relations: Eritrea maintains embassies, signs treaties, and engages globally. Ethiopia itself has held peace talks and signed agreements with Eritrea, which makes its current “non-existent state” argument both absurd and self-incriminating.
2. Ethiopia’s Breach of Every Montevideo Principle
The Montevideo Convention was designed to protect weaker nations from the predations of stronger ones. Ethiopia’s actions toward Eritrea have violated nearly every principle it stands for.
Non-Intervention: From diplomatic isolation campaigns to economic blockades, Ethiopia’s actions breach Article 8’s commitment to non-interference.
Sovereign Equality: Ethiopia’s tone toward Eritrea reeks of paternalism, the same colonial arrogance Latin America rebelled against when drafting Montevideo.
Recognition Independence: Article 3 states that a state’s existence is independent of recognition by others. Ethiopia’s current rhetoric suggesting it can “rescind” recognition is not just baseless; it’s legally illiterate.
3. The Hidden Strategy: Containment, Exodus, and Collapse
Ethiopia’s long game against Eritrea has been a war of attrition disguised as diplomacy. Through sanctions, border tensions, propaganda, and manufactured crises, Addis Ababa pursued a strategy to weaken Eritrea without direct invasion. The logic was cruelly simple.
Create refugee outflows to hollow out the population.
Cut off trade and credit to cripple the economy.
Spread disinformation to fracture Eritrean unity.
Wait for collapse, then step in under the mask of “humanitarian rescue.”
It was not just hostility; it was calculation. Ethiopia hoped Eritrea would bleed silently, its youth scattered and its economy strangled, until the state itself became a ghost ripe for repossession.
4. Ganazo Mentality and Imperial Nostalgia
Behind this policy is a dangerous blend of ganazo mentality and imperial nostalgia—the loud posturing of power without the substance of legality or restraint. Ethiopia’s political establishment continues to dream of the imperial era, when control over the Red Sea was a symbol of greatness. This nostalgia has mutated into arrogance, a belief that Eritrea’s independence was a historical accident that must one day be corrected.
This mindset mistakes volume for vision and aggression for strategy. It has led Ethiopia to violate every principle the Montevideo Convention was designed to protect. Instead of respecting sovereignty and equality, it clings to fantasies of dominance and entitlement.
5. The Historical Irony
The Montevideo Convention, born from Latin America’s defiance of imperial control, has come full circle as Eritrea’s legal and moral shield. The Convention was drafted by nations tired of domination, determined to define sovereignty as a right, not a favor. Eritrea stands today as their spiritual heir.
Eritrea meets the Convention’s standards in every respect. Ethiopia, consumed by ganazo pride and imperial nostalgia, violates them in every act.
Verdict:
Eritrea stands firm under the Montevideo Convention. Ethiopia stands guilty of undermining its principles through aggression, interference, and containment. The ganazo mentality that drives its policy is the ghost of empire masquerading as strategy. The Montevideo Convention was written to restrain exactly that kind of ambition, to ensure that sovereignty is not dictated by noise, but protected by law.
Read the full text of the Convention: Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (PDF)
