Introduction
I never intended to write a sequel to my previous article. However, the inflammatory rhetoric circulating in Ethiopian media—especially from government-affiliated outlets—has compelled me to speak out. When high-ranking officials beat the war drums as a daily habit, the dangerous implications of their statements cannot be ignored. In a region already scarred by conflict, prioritizing peace over further discord is imperative.
Questioning the Rhetoric
I recently came across a video in which the Ethiopian Chief of Staff boldly declared that Ethiopia would, sooner or later, become a Red Sea country. In his address, he made several unsubstantiated claims that defy basic geographic and legal realities. Similarly, the Minister of Agriculture reportedly asserted that Assab has always been part of Ethiopia and was never part of Eritrea. Such statements raise a critical question: Do these officials truly believe their own words, or are they merely echoing rhetoric without a sound understanding of history and international law?
Historical and Legal Context
Why does the Prime Minister persist with such weak arguments—citing Ethiopia’s population of 120 million or a so-called historic right to a sea corridor—as justification for claims that have no legal basis? International law recognizes Ethiopia as a landlocked nation, making its only viable option the securing of seaport services through commercial agreements. In reality, Ethiopia already benefits from such arrangements with neighboring countries like Djibouti, and Eritrea has never denied it access to maritime trade.
Ethiopia’s modern borders were largely defined in the late 19th century. Emperor Menelik II’s territorial expansion, following the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, was pivotal in shaping the country’s current boundaries. At the same time, Eritrea’s borders were delineated when it was established as an Italian colony in 1890. These historical events cemented Ethiopia’s enduring status as a landlocked nation—a fact further underscored by Prime Minister Abiy’s pragmatic visit to Eritrea. His journey, which culminated in a peace deal and the unconditional acceptance of the 2002 EEBC verdict, reaffirms that, despite current calls for a seaport or a historic right to a Red Sea corridor, Ethiopia has always been landlocked.
Domestic Implications
Ethiopia faces profound internal challenges. The nation is plagued by deep-rooted ethnic conflicts, severe political and economic crises, and a security situation in which the central government struggles to extend its control beyond the capital and a few major cities. Many Ethiopians—even those who might share the ambition of acquiring a seaport—question the wisdom of waging war against a neighbor when such pressing domestic issues remain unresolved. Is this merely an outdated tactic—a way to manufacture an external enemy to distract from internal failures? Only time will reveal the consequences, though many fear that this approach could hasten the collapse of the Ethiopian state—or what remains of it.
Conclusion
The inflammatory rhetoric and expansionist ambitions not only undermine the prospects for lasting regional peace but also divert critical resources away from addressing Ethiopia’s internal challenges. The Horn of Africa has long been a victim of both foreign intervention and local expansionist agendas—forces that continue to prioritize external ambitions over the urgent need for cooperation and stability. Unless regional leaders break free from these destructive influences and commit to a genuinely collaborative framework, the cycle of conflict and instability will persist to the detriment of all nations in the region.
