A quiet but intense information war is unfolding across the Horn of Africa, with Eritrea once again at the center of competing narratives about sovereignty, security and the Red Sea.
During the first week of October, three publications and one diplomatic document converged to portray Eritrea as both unstable and obstructive. Together, they created a single storyline that regional observers say could shape how international institutions perceive future relations between Asmara and Addis Ababa.
The Economist’s Familiar Portrayal
On Oct. 2, The Economist magazine described Eritrea as “Africa’s most secretive dictatorship facing an existential crisis.”
The article claimed Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed intends to “gain control of one of Eritrea’s Red Sea ports,” reviving speculation that Addis Ababa could use force to regain maritime access.
Eritrea’s Information Minister Yemane G. Meskel denounced the piece on X (formerly Twitter), calling it “grotesquely speculative” and “vindictive.” The government said the British publication’s reporting recycled “outdated ideological perspectives” and ignored Eritrea’s right to self-determination.
The Economist (4-10 Oct. 205 Edition) continues to excel in notoriety to churn out another grotesquely speculative report against Eritrea. As in previous cases, its chronic problem is two-fold: i) vindictive excesses of a disgruntled HOA reporter who was booted out from the…
— Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 (@hawelti) October 6, 2025
Analysts argue the timing of the story reinforces a broader campaign to frame Eritrea’s sovereignty as conditional and Ethiopia’s ambitions as inevitable.
Horn Review’s Legal Provocation
Two days before The Economist’s issue appeared, the regional think tank Horn Review published an essay titled “Eritrea Unraveled: The Case for Ethiopia’s Reversal of State Recognition.”
The piece claimed that Ethiopia’s 1993 recognition of Eritrea’s independence was “premature, unconstitutional and reversible.” It cited the Montevideo Convention to suggest that Eritrea no longer meets international criteria for statehood because of population flight, political repression and economic stagnation.
Legal experts contacted by Setit Media rejected the argument as “lawfare” the use of legal language to achieve political ends. They noted that Eritrea’s independence was affirmed through a UN-supervised referendum and recognized by the African Union, making its sovereignty irreversible under the continental principle of uti possidetis juris, which preserves colonial-era borders.
Ethiopia’s Letter to the United Nations
On Oct. 2, Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a formal letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres accusing Eritrea of funding insurgent groups and colluding with remnants of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The letter, signed by Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos Hessebon, said Eritrea’s “ultimate objective is to destabilize and fragment Ethiopia.”
Addis Ababa alleged that Asmara has armed militias in the Amhara region and backed a TPLF splinter faction. The two-page correspondence warned that Ethiopia’s “policy of maximum restraint is not indefinite,” even as it asserted the government’s commitment to pursue sea access “through peaceful means.”
Diplomatic observers viewed the letter as an attempt to internationalize what has been a bilateral dispute, positioning Ethiopia as a victim of external aggression while reaffirming its ambition to secure Red Sea access.
Coordinated Messaging
Taken together, The Economist article, the Horn Review essay and the Ethiopian letter reflect a synchronized message, according to regional analysts: Eritrea as the source of instability, Ethiopia as the aggrieved power seeking order.
Setit Media’s review of the sequence shows the narratives moving in stages first through Western journalism, then regional commentary, and finally formal diplomacy. Each step reinforced the next.
“This is how perception management works,” one researcher that Setit spoke to said. “First you describe Eritrea as failing, then question its legitimacy, and finally justify action in the name of peace.”
Eritrea’s Challenge
Eritrea has maintained a characteristically reserved posture. Officials in Asmara have not issued new statements beyond Minster Yeman G.Meskel’s rebuttal. Analysts caution, however, that in the modern information environment, silence can be misinterpreted as acquiescence.
Communications specialists urge Eritrea to adopt a more proactive strategy: documenting facts, engaging African institutions and challenging narratives that undermine its legitimacy.
“Eritrea’s sovereignty was earned, not granted,” said a former diplomat familiar with the 1993 independence process. “But if others tell the story louder and faster, they can reshape how that sovereignty is perceived.”
The Broader Red Sea Context
The dispute unfolds as power competition intensifies along the Red Sea. Sudan remains fragmented, Egypt expands its naval presence, and Gulf States pursue influence through port investments.
Eritrea’s coastline especially the ports of Assab and Massawa has become a symbolic prize in the region’s new maritime chessboard. Ethiopia’s repeated references to sea access underscore that geography remains destiny in the Horn of Africa.
Setit’s View
Setit Media maintains that Eritrea’s independence, affirmed by international law and three decades of sovereign governance, cannot be revoked by editorial campaigns or diplomatic pressure.
The events of early October demonstrate that the struggle over Eritrea’s image has replaced earlier military confrontation with a battle of narratives. In this contest, the most powerful weapon is not the missile, but the message.
Eritrea’s task is clear: respond not with outrage but with evidence, clarity and confidence.
Because in today’s Horn of Africa, sovereignty is defended not only by borders but by words.
