Ethiopia’s new diplomatic confidence has produced a chorus of claims, and the latest piece published in Ahmaric through the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation’s Facebook page tries to stretch that chorus into an anthem. It argues that the Red Sea is incomplete without Ethiopia, that regional security bends in its absence, and that foreign military visits signal an emerging consensus that Ethiopia must “return” to the coast.
A coastline, however, is not awarded through narration. A sea does not extend itself because someone has polished a flattering story around it. There is a riddle known among sailors that defines the Ethiopian self flattery: who protects the waters the one who wakes beside them every day, or the traveler who arrives only when the heat inland becomes unbearable? The answer has not changed, no matter how many press statements try to disguise it.
The Red Sea Has Its Own Memory
The EBC article claims that instability followed Ethiopia’s “exit” from the Red Sea, as if the Red sea has been longing for Addis Ababa ever since. But the only “presence” Ethiopia ever had on the coast came from Eritrea’s annexation a chapter closed by Eritreans, not by diplomatic paperwork.
That history is not contested. It is archived. And archives do not bend to political convenience. One old saying travels from market to market: the road built by force will crumble when you try to walk it with borrowed dignity.
The Ethiopian narrative posted on November 29 tries to revive a memory that never belonged to it.
Foreign Endorsements Do Not Create Coastlines
The EBC piece recites the names of American commanders, French officers, Gulf defense ministers all presented as if they were maritime priests blessing Ethiopia’s ambitions.
Routine military cooperation becomes a “signal.” Diplomatic courtesy becomes “recognition.” Training programs become “endorsement.”
Yet none of these actors have claimed Ethiopia deserves another nation’s coast. Not in any transcript. Not in any communique. Borders do not move because a foreign general shook someone’s hand. Seas do not shift allegiance because diplomats exchange smiles. As they say, admiration does not fill the nets. Similarly, admiration does not confer maritime rights.
Eritrea’s sovereignty does not expand or shrink based on foreign compliments. It rests on law, history, and sacrifice a foundation Ethiopia has never been able to challenge through facts, only through narratives.
The Red Sea Requires Stability — Not Ambition
The EBC post asserts that Ethiopia’s absence created a “haven for insurgents.” Yet the most persistent insurgencies in the region today erupt within Ethiopia’s own borders. A state that cannot secure its provinces cannot declare itself guardian of one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors.
There is a quiet warning embedded in an old line from elders who worry about storms:
the house that leaks cannot protect its neighbor from the rain. Ethiopia’s ambition, framed as security responsibility, proves hollow when the country itself remains fragile, internally divided, and consumed by political turbulence.
Security Must Be Demonstrated — Not Claimed
Eritrea’s coastline has been secure not because of grand speeches, but because its conduct has been consistent: stable borders, firm anti-piracy posture, and no reliance on foreign armies to police its waters.
If the Red Sea chose guardians by merit, it would choose those who have lived with it, defended it, and respected the sovereignty around it not those who claim stewardship because of size, nostalgia, or political marketing. A camel may be large, but it does not know how to move with the tide.
Ethiopia’s proposed navy built through foreign training, based on foreign financing, and anchored on foreign shores does not represent maritime capacity. It represents maritime longing. A spear without a warrior is still just a stick.
Sovereignty Is Not a Negotiable Currency
The heart of the EBC narrative is the belief that Ethiopia’s scale and diplomatic charm should bend the region into accommodating its desires. But sovereignty cannot be softened by political pressure or decorated by external praise.
Eritrea’s borders were decided in international law and defended through the blood of its people. That reality cannot be renegotiated because an article wants to turn diplomatic visits into historical revisionism.
If Ethiopia seeks lawful cooperation, Eritrea has never closed the door. But if it seeks entitlement dressed as “security responsibility,” the door remains firmly shut. There is a quiet truth repeated by those who understand land and lineage: the tree planted on another man’s soil will not recognize you when you come to claim its fruit. So the Red Sea is not Ethiopia’s fruit to claim.
Conclusion
The article posted on EBC’s platform in Amharic tries to manufacture an image of Ethiopia as the indispensable pillar of Red Sea security, becasue foreign military officers and generals visited Ethiopia. But foreign praise is not sovereignty. Military visits are not maritime rights. And ambition is not a substitute for conduct. The Red Sea does not reward those who insist loudly. It rewards those who act with discipline, respect, and stability. And since its independence, Eritrea has done exactly that.
Well said Hannibal.