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.
