Date: Friday, 25 July 2025
Ethiopia’s expansionist ideology: the quintessential allegory of the cave
By Sultan Mohammedsied Omer
How and why was Ethiopia motivated to claim Eritrea in the 1940s? What was John Spencer’s role in this saga? Where have we seen this “give-and-take” idea before? How and why was Eritrea’s right for self-determination denied? Where will the daily saber-rattling by the Ethiopian regime and its supporters take the country and the region at large? The article covers these topics and more.
Plato's allegory of the cave portrays mentally institutionalized prisoners, shackled by neck and ankle, held captive inside a cave while a bonfire burns behind them in the middle of it. The prisoners cannot see anything beyond the shadow on the wall, in front of them, that is created by the fire’s flickering reflection. As a result, they perceive this shadow as their sole reality and mistake this to be the entirety of existence. The metaphor, in its simplest form, alludes to people often confusing shadows (what they perceive) with reality, but that actual reality exists beyond their immediate experience. Similarly, many Ethiopian intellectuals, in pursuit of realizing the dream of sea ownership, mislead their people by appealing to their emotions over this unattainable dream and keep them in absolute ignorance. Like the prisoners in Plato’s cave, many Ethiopian intellectuals remain imprisoned by the short-sighted belief that sea coast ownership will solve the country’s economic and geopolitical issues. This myopic agenda has been immensely detrimental to the Horn of Africa. Sadly, the real world beyond the cave, with its challenges and opportunities, is ignored in the inflammatory campaign for port ownership.
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to advise Ethiopians to courageously challenge the learned history and narratives that have been ingrained in them through various intellectuals and so-called nationalists. It is a gentle reminder for them to understand and reject the fables and misinformation that have taken root in their collective memory and plunged their fertile land into the swamp of poverty for way too long. Studying history is imperative to understanding your roots, the past of your forefathers that has shaped your present and boosted morale. However, policies followed by successive Ethiopian regimes have made their country a cause of instability and restlessness for themselves as well as for the Horn of Africa. This is not to seek sea access, but because the leaders of this territory since the time of emperor Menelik have been motivated by expansionist and conquering aspirations.
The September 1991 edition of the “Harbegna” (i.e. “Patriot”) magazine clearly reflected this ideology while covering, broadly, cooperative partnerships. In an article titled “Interview with comrade Isaias Afwerki”, the magazine asked about future relations with neighboring countries. The then Secretary General of the People’s Front and the current President of Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki, responded “with Ethiopia and Sudan, for example, we can fight external pressures and conspiracies together, cooperate in capital investment through joint programs, use each other's resources to eradicate external dependence. Therefore, instead of just arranging our own, separate programs, it is undoubtedly better to work by charting programs with extensive and far-reaching implications. Our thinking must also broaden on par with this level. This may have previously existed only as an idea. However, I think it is important to have keen awareness and understanding of it now as it is heading towards becoming a reality.”
Based on this prudent principle, the Eritrean government closed shut the past dark history of oppression and massacres, without demanding any compensation or apology from the Ethiopian government and allowed Ethiopia to use Eritrean ports free of tariffs and customs duties in the early years of independence, on the basis of bilateral agreement signed in 1993.
This stance did not change even after the post-independence invasions that aimed at re-annexing Eritrea. On March 24, 2000, before the atmosphere of war had even slightly been diminished, Eritrea opened its Assab port for use by the international aid effort that was mobilized to feed the large section of the Ethiopian population1. This position continued even after the 2018 political changes in Ethiopia.
A 2024 strategy document released by the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) under the title of “The Grand Strategy of Two Waters” confirmed that Eritrean ports are indeed open for Ethiopian use. This document clearly lays out Eritrea’s openness by stating that “since our relations normalized in 2018, the Eritrean side demonstrated a desire to resume port services. However, this is not sustainable. In summary, internal and external factors have constrained Ethiopia’s aspirations of port ownership.” The document argues that these obstacles cannot be overcome “unless Ethiopia ignores international and regional laws, including its neighbors' territorial integrity and sovereignty, it will not succeed to own its own ports or access to the sea Ethiopia seeks”.2
Myths and fables
These days, some Ethiopian intellectuals as well as the prime minister are planting seeds of hatred and protracted hostility that will deprive the Horn of Africa peace for generations to come. Armed with the evil slogan used to agitate for war “where there is hunger, the law is of no avail,” they have drafted thousands of recruits, trumpeting mendacious propaganda ad-nauseam to enable their expansionist political discourse garner the desired attention they so believe.
Successive Ethiopian regimes, including the current one, have developed a bad habit and natural disposition of laying blame on others for the country’s ills. As public grievances grow in the country, instead of trying to remedy the historical tensions they had created, they spend sunrise to sunset making diversionary claims. For instance, one such claim is that Ethiopia's population-driven economic crisis was caused by the lack of a sea outlet that it “had owned but lost”. International law does not recognize this population size or economic "need" as a legitimate basis for claiming the territory of a sovereign state. If that was the case, it would open a Pandora's box of territorial disputes globally. Therefore, their argument which relies on demographic pretext to justify territorial expansion is nothing short of a terribly erring daydream.
The prime minister of Ethiopia has been busy describing his expansionist plans against Eritrea in various meetings. In his speech to the House of Representatives, in a provocative and blatant violation of the sovereignty of countries, he made contradictory statements to justify his dangerous plans, going so far as to audaciously claim that “Ethiopia has a natural right to have a direct gateway to the Red Sea, the Red Sea is Ethiopia’s natural border and that this is supported by historical, geographical, racial, ethnic and economic arguments. Moreover, for Ethiopia, not directly owning an outlet in the Red Sea is a matter of existence.” When this official trumpet was blown, all intellectuals with chameleon-like character withdrew from their hitherto trenches and immediately turned 180 degrees against the people and government of Eritrea. Suddenly discarding their previous praise of Eritrea as their sole “friend during the hard times”, they unleashed venomous barrage of attacks against Eritrea’s unity and sovereignty.
Whenever this expansionist ambition is raised in Eritrea, there is a widespread view that all arguments made by Ethiopia are illegitimate and therefore it is pointless and a waste of time to entangle oneself in their ridiculous agenda. However, these false narratives are being disseminated by the Ethiopian state media networks and repetitively amplified by the regime’s supporters on the cheap belief that “lies become true if repeated often”. Hence, it is important to tirelessly repeat the obvious and objective truth to minimize their lies from misleading the entire Ethiopian population as well as other foreign entities. Their lies must be met with the truth to be halted from contaminating the region and afar!
Going back in time, this country called Ethiopia reached the Red Sea coast for the first time in its history in 1952, after illegally annexing Eritrea under the guise of federation with the goading and significant support of foreign superpowers. For 39 years, until 1991, it violently controlled the coast in a reign of terror and widespread massacres. Eventually, the 39-year-old Ethiopian navy was dismantled by the small and poorly armed but brave navy of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front.
“Through Eritrea, to the sea” John Spencer
In modern Ethiopian history, initiatives and conspiratorial schemes to attain a sea outlet began during the reign of emperor Haile Selassie. At that time, Ethiopia’s focus was on ports belonging to three different countries. The port of Zeila, of Somalia; port of Djibouti; and the Eritrean ports of Assab and Massawa. When emperor Haile Selassie set his eyes on these four ports, he was not trying to reclaim what he lost, rather he was vying to attain what he previously never had.
This is where the truth begins. The port of Zeila in Somalia was the primary focus of the emperor’s attention. However, the emperor’s adviser, John Spencer, in his personal memoir, had documented in detail (starting on page 141) that since the port was under British rule and Britain was a close ally of the United States, he thus counselled the emperor that pursuing the port of Zeila would be viewed as open hostility towards the Britain and therefore impossible to execute.
The emperor then turned his attention towards the port of Djibouti. Again, the advisor rendered the emperor's ambitions as unwinnable on the grounds that this would cause trouble with France, which ruled Djibouti and was one of the main allies of the United States. After that, it was the advisor and not the emperor that made another proposal.
Between 1936 and 1941, Eritrea, along with the Italian Somaliland made up the ‘Italian East African Empire’ and was for the first time being administered together with some parts of Ethiopia (the Italian-controlled parts of the country). After World War II ended with victory for the Allied forces and the defeat of Italy, Eritrea and Somaliland came under British military rule while Ethiopia regained its independence under emperor Haile Selassie.
Keenly aware of this prevailing circumstance, the emperor's adviser, John Spencer, took advantage of this opening to turn the emperor’s attention to Eritrea to quench Ethiopia’s thirst for ports and sea outlet. Emperor Haile Selassie had concerns, on account of the responses he received on his ambition towards the first two countries. He asked if “it was possible to annex Eritrea” since it was under the British military administration at the time. Whatever trick he had up his sleeve, John Spencer reassuringly dispelled the emperor’s concerns by saying, “don’t worry about it, just leave it to us. The US government will prepare a plan to realize this goal.” Thereafter, emperor Haile Selassie, convinced by John Spencer’s advice, turned his full attention towards Eritrea for the realization of his ambitions.
Following the defeat of Italy, the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 was to determine the fate of the Italian-controlled countries of Eritrea, Libya and Somalia. Article 23 of the Paris Peace Agreement required the Allied powers (USA, UK, France, Soviet Union) to decide the future of the Italian colonies, including Eritrea, within one year. If they could not agree, the matter was to be referred to the UN General Assembly.3
The British proposed to partition Eritrea with the western parts going to Sudan while the highlands and coastal areas awarded to Ethiopia. The United States, for its part, proposed that Eritrea form a full union with Ethiopia. France proposed that Eritrea remain under the trusteeship of the Italian Administration while the Soviet Union, on their part, proposed to keep Eritrea under international trusteeship. Thus, they could not agree on the future of Eritrea. As they could not reach a common ground, the matter was referred to the UNGA in 1948 in accordance with previous agreement. It’s to be noted here that Ethiopia supported the British proposal of partition when full ownership seemed unlikely to succeed4. Eventually, through the 1950 UNGA decisions, Libya and Somalia were granted independence while Eritrea was chained into a dubious “federation” with Ethiopia against the will of its people after a few years of exploitative and vandalizing rule by the British.
As the world emerged from the bitter times of World War II and was plunged into the era of the Cold War politics due to superpower competition, the US hatched and sponsored a so-called “federal act” with the dual aim of realizing imperial Ethiopia’s dream of annexing sea coast on one hand and guaranteeing US strategic and security interests in the Red Sea region on the other. Through subterfuge and secret dealings, this “federal” proposal received the required votes at the UNGA, notwithstanding its clear violation of international law and total disregard to the Eritrean people’s right of self-determination.
Article 10 of the UN Charter states that “the General Assembly of the United Nations shall have the power to make recommendations on international affairs, including the subject of decolonization.” Its recommendations are not enforceable and legally binding unless approved by the Security Council. That is why the UNGA’s federal decision has gone down in history as an illegal and unfair decision that did not go through the proper procedures under the charter of the organization. As an attempt to reconcile this glaring miscarriage of justice, it is claimed that the UNGA was accorded de facto empowerment to make such decision since the Allied Forces had agreed to accept and abide by its recommendations.
Recently declassified secret documents of the US State Department’s Office of the Historians laid bare the UN General Assembly’s justifications. The truth, as revealed by the State Department document entitled “Disposition of the former Italian Colonies,” notes that the federal resolution was passed primarily to achieve common US-Ethiopian goals and expand cooperation. The memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff state “As to the nature of the rights in Eritrea, the Joint Chiefs of Staff would state categorically that the benefits now resulting from operation of our telecommunications center at Asmara—benefits common and of high military importance to both the United States and Great Britain—can be obtained from no other location in the entire Middle East-Eastern Mediterranean area. Therefore, United States rights in Eritrea should not be compromised.”5 In short, the main driver for the UN decision of federation was Cold War geopolitics rather than historic facts. This meant that support for Ethiopia, “the strategic ally”, took precedence over Eritrea’s legitimate rights.
Federation Decision: Pre-annexation of Eritrea
Emperor Haileselassie worked hard on the diplomatic front to convince the vital importance of Eritrean ports for Ethiopia's economic sustainability and that his aspiration to annex Eritrea had legal and historical backing. Ironically, Ethiopia and UK at the same time also promoted the false narrative that Eritrea was not viable economically as an independent nation. But how is a non-viable Eritrea supposed to ensure the survival of Ethiopia? It was this contradiction that annoyed some countries at the UN Political Committee, so much so that the Pakistani representative retorted “if, as the British delegation was claiming, Eritrea was poor, destitute and a hopeless ruin, would Britain be justified in asking Ethiopia to carry such a heavy burden.”6 Clearly, the UN did not consider Eritrea's unique colonial history of more than 50 years under Italy, nor the prevailing Eritrean nationalism. Hence, the biggest legal mistake the UN made in general was to pass the federation resolution knowing full well that Ethiopia's arguments were based on deep-rooted expansionist ambitions and not on legal or historical basis.
During the federation period, however, Ethiopia's gradual abrogation of the federation and the failure of the United Nations to handle the matter properly fueled Eritrean protests. To contain these protests, the emperor began to take brutal measures, leading the Eritrean youth to conclude that overcoming the harsh repression through peaceful means was futile. As a result, they launched an armed struggle on September 1, 1961, before Ethiopia officially annexed Eritrea on November 14, 1962. The war for independence caused incalculable destruction of lives and property for both nations.
In 1910, when Menelik invaded and conquered vast areas, Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia) took its present-day geopolitical structure and international borders. Eritrea was already a country, founded in 1890, some 20 years ahead of Abyssinia. Exactly 10 years after Menelik's conquests, on September 28th, the kingdom of Abyssinia became the first African state to join the League of Nations upon its establishment in 1920. Later, the name of the country was changed to Ethiopia.
Right of self-determination: for independence or secession
The right to self-determination is an inviolable right that allows colonized peoples to determine their own future. This right includes the right of a people to form an independent state (political freedom), to join another government (union) or to have autonomy within a country. Secession, on the other hand, means secession from a country (a political unit) that has been known as a unified state. It means separating a part of the country from the larger state. The people of Eritrea were denied this right of self-determination they should have enjoyed in the mid-20th century just like all the African countries that were freed from the yoke of colonial rule in accordance to the UN Charter.
As the Eritrean revolution strengthened, various Western and Ethiopian intellectuals, in their campaign to secure their geostrategic interests and introduce the struggle as an isolationist movement, worked hard to promote that the Eritrean issue was a question of secession and not of self-determination. To this day, there are many who try to promote this false narrative. Mengistu Hailemariam, while delivering speeches at various military parades and meetings, used to convey slogans with embedded narrative construct such as “Gentay Wenbede Yidemesalu”, meaning “Separatist thieves will be destroyed”. As a result, the Eritrean struggle was misrepresented in the collective memory of Ethiopians as a separatist movement, not a question of self-determination. The Eritrean people’s struggle was casted in such light as to even be stigmatized by Africans and was made to appear more complicated. Because the struggle was against Ethiopia that’s adorned with the “symbol of ancient civilization and free Africa” image.
Until the partitioning of Africa by European forces in the mid-19th century, the people of present-day Eritrea had long had a clear geographical coverage, ruled by ‘kings of the Sea’ (Bahre Negash or Bahre Negestat) and other chiefs, and had their own customary laws and traditions whose records still remain to date. That is why, when the Italian government looked at the reality of Eritrea and its people, it made sure that the existing laws and regulations continued while the people preserved their culture. The Turks and Egyptians ruled Eritrea before Italy established it as a modern country, which was followed by the British and Ethiopians.
How did Mengistu Hailemariam escape
Some American diplomats found it hard to balance their profession from their personal feelings that was informed by the brutality of Ethiopian occupation of Eritrea. For instance, after the fall of the Haile Selassie regime, Ambassador Keith Wauchope served as Deputy Principal Officer at the US Consul in Asmara from 1975-1977. He highlighted his country’s mistakes in handling the Eritrean issue, detailing that “I felt that their cause was not being properly represented in the West, that we had gone so far down the line to try to maintain a relationship with the Ethiopians. In doing so, we had forgotten some of our basic values. After all, the Eritreans were fighting for self-determination, it was their country, they had been betrayed by the West…We saw American-made aircraft dropping American bombs on the Eritreans.”7
Ambassador Larry Williamson, who served as Acting Director of East African Affairs from 1980-82, brought up one story about Irv Hicks to underscore the degree of attention and care the United States extended to Ethiopia. When Irvin “Irv” Hicks Jr was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (1989 to 1991), the situation in Ethiopia deteriorated and the defeat of Mengistu Hailemariam became certain. At that point, on behalf of the US government, Hicks brokered asylum for Mengistu Hailemariam with the Rhodesians (colonial-era name of what are now Zimbabwe and Zambia). Despite strained relations between Mengistu and the US, Hicks flew to Addis Ababa and told Mengistu “we can get you and your family and anybody else you want to take out of here, but you’ve got to get out now before the fighting starts because we can’t stop that”.8
Williamson, underscoring Mengistu’s quick acceptance of the escape plan, recalls that “Mengistu gave it about the same consideration that I gave the assignment to London, and we got some unknown aircraft into the airport, packed that whole bunch in, sent them south, and the next thing you know there’s a triumphant entry into Addis Ababa by the Tigreans and the Eritreans. We worked hard at that one.” Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam faced no consequences despite deceiving the Ethiopian people and committing genocide against the Eritrean people. Indeed, as the testimony shows, Ethiopian leaders have caused their country and people pay a heavy price in pursuit of unattainable dreams—and when approaching total failure, they prioritize themselves over their people.
Ethiopian writer Laureate Tsegaye Gebremedhin, in the chapter titled “The Language of Tears and the Deception of History” of his book “Ethiopia: History or Myth?”, states that the Ethiopian people have long hungered more for truth than for bread. He says the country's leaders, starting from emperor Haile Selassie to Meles Zenawi, feigned concern for the nation—shedding tears in pretense—while in truth, they cared only about preserving their own power. When Haile Selassie was overthrown, as he was taken to prison accompanied by escorts, he is known to have lamented “Oh Ethiopia, did we really harm you? Did we not truly toil for you?” Similarly, Mengistu recounts in his memoir how, upon seeing his army scatter in the final hours, he “curled up on a rock and washed my face with tears.” If that is indeed the case—that is, if they had truly learned from the results of their impossible dreams—then, as King Solomon reflected “the world is utterly meaningless”, it would have been a profound confession and a valuable lesson for future leaders. Alas, Ethiopian leaders only realize it when they’re overwhelmed and scattered like bees.
Joseph P. O’Neill served as Chargé d'Affaires at the US Embassy in Asmara from 1992-93 and was previously Deputy Chief of Mission in Addis Ababa (1983-86). O’Neill was interviewed in May 1998 by Thomas Dunnigan. Recounting his observation of the referendum process, O’Neill affirmed of its flawless conduct, explaining that “there was a referendum to see whether the people of Eritrea wanted to be independent or not. The referendum went off flawlessly. I was involved, the United Nations, everybody was involved. Flawless. No cheating, no nothing. It just went well. Some weeks after this, not very far after, the United Nations answers itself “Completely clean. We believe the referendum was free and fair.”9
Fallacy of the Dream
The phrase “Ethiopia is not a distant country from the Red Sea. It is a country of the Red Sea, perhaps it is 30, 40, 50, 60 kilometers away from the sea” has become a familiar refrain adding flavor to official statements and media headlines. This statement goes on to claim that the country called “Ethiopia” was separated from the coastline by only a few kilometers due to the actions of powerful countries. It concludes that “the root cause of the multitudes of problems in Ethiopia is because the country is detached from the Red Sea”
This statement needs to be corrected. Ethiopia was not separated from the coastline by a few kilometers due to the actions of superpower countries, but it temporarily occupied and exploited the Eritrean sea coast for nearly 39 years through an unjust decision conspiratorially orchestrated by its powerful allies. But it was then defeated by the true owners of the sea coast and is now within its borders, far from the shore but retains the right to use nearby ports for commercial purposes on the basis of international law and bilateral agreements. This is the truth!
The rhetoric that some Ethiopian intellectuals are currently repeating stems from the 2024 IFA guidelines document. This research document on expansionist and invasion plans along with their future implications, developed by many intellectuals and falsely referencing international law, totally fails to reflect the country’s real circumstances. Accordingly, the 2024 Institute of Foreign Affairs document advised that, in the pursuit of sea outlet, the only viable path is to create a new point of contention. For there is no provision in international law supporting the existing argument.10
The referred laws touch only on the right of usage and freedom of transit within the scope of “the Law of the Sea”. Given the current and internationally recognized geographic structure of the countries, Ethiopia, despite its difficulty accepting its landlocked status, has no legal basis under international law for any other designation. Not only do the references fail to reflect Ethiopia’s reality, but the document itself acknowledges that no international agreement supports Ethiopia’s claim to ownership of a sea outlet.
On the other hand, some Ethiopian legal scholars try to justify Ethiopia’s claim to right of sea coast ownership by referring to Article 125 of the Maritime Code of UNCLOS. However, does Article 125 really support their argument? This article has three sub-articles. Ethiopian intellectuals on this subject scarcely mention sections 2 and 3 of Article 125 in their published documents. However, mere emphasis on sub-article 1 does not guarantee the completeness of article 125. Section 2 of the Article states that the rights of a landlocked country are based on an agreement with a coastal country. In addition, sub-Article 3 of the Article reaffirms that the transit (coastal) state shall exercise full sovereignty over its territory even as it upholds the rights of the landlocked state. Thus, Article 125 strikes a balance between the rights of the landlocked state and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the transit state.
Undeniably, access to the sea is of economic importance to any landlocked country. But portraying it as an “existential threat” as some Ethiopian politicians are doing so is a delusional rhetoric. Moreover, when a recognized legal framework for transit exists, their claim that “lack of sea access is an existential threat to Ethiopia” is but a pretext for territorial ambitions. The real threat to Ethiopia’s existence lies in its policies of internal ethnic discordance and expansionist aspirations through violent invasions. Unless Ethiopian politicians abandon the unattainable dream of owning the Eritrean coastline, clearly the threats to Ethiopia's existence and survival as a nation will only grow and bear dangerous consequences. Eritrea has never denied Ethiopia transit rights, provided they are based on mutual respect and agreements. It is a matter of public record that Ethiopia did in fact utilize Eritrean ports for years after Eritrea's independence (until 1998) without any issue on the basis of bilateral arrangements. Ethiopia's decision to shift its trade route to Djibouti after the 1998-2000 conflict was a strategic choice made by Ethiopia, not an obstruction by Eritrea.
The dream of reaching the sea is not new in Ethiopia’s political history. Emperors Menelik and Haile Selassie, along with Mengistu and Meles, all attempted to fulfill their expansionist ambitions under similar arguments. The current government appears determined to continue this march, still grounded in the same fallacies. But this dream is not new merely in its recurrence. It is also a strategy to divert attention from internal matters. This historical pattern may not have led the country to utter disintegration, at least not under the early leaders. However, as the rope loosens, it is important to understand where that unbridled coastline ambition ultimately leads. Every leader has been filling up the cup of historic failures with his wrong actions. Each has left behind a devastating trail, a legacy that has only gone from bad to worse. If Ethiopia continues down this irreversible path, Eritrea’s principled statement that “Ethiopia’s unity benefits the Horn of Africa” will be remembered with regret. Therefore, the hallucination that links the sea to the existence of Ethiopia is in reality reversed, as it undoubtedly will threaten the very existence of Ethiopia.
Deja Vue of the Give and Take Ideology
It is not difficult to see the similarity between the recent “give-and-take” proposal issued by Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the 2004 “give-and-take” proposal put forward by the then EPRDF government. They amount to an invitation for war while professing a desire for peace since they ignore the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s decision. They resemble a political theater where diplomacy becomes the continuation of war by other means. But who can this deceive or convince? Certainly not the people of Eritrea, whose long political experience makes them immune to such childish rhetoric.
Much like the current narrative, it is important to recall the 2004 “give-and-take” peace proposal was issued as a public relations drama and to confound its non-acceptance of the EEBC decision.
At the time, in connection with the 'peace proposal,' the newspaper “Weyin” interviewed the former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. Referring to the Eritrean–Ethiopian peace bill presented by PM Meles Zenawi and approved by parliament, the journalist wondered that “it is understandable the principle of “give-and-take” expressed in the peace bill has caused confusion. Some interpret it as giving up Badme to gain Assab. Others argue that this give-and-take approach is flawed and should be rejected. What exactly does “give-and-take” mean anyway?”
Prime Minister Meles replied, saying “regarding the border issue, we accept the Boundary Commission’s decision in principle and aim to resolve it through the framework of give-and-take. In terms of negotiations for good neighborliness, it involves addressing the root causes of the conflict separately, within the same give-and-take principle…We have put forth that these should be resolved and implemented through negotiated give and take in a way that ensures mutual benefit, which I believe is a right choice.” The journalist further asked, “Can this proposal bring lasting peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea?” Meles replied, “it is difficult to predict the outcome with certainty, as policy is merely an idea, like any other plan.”
Setting aside former PM Meles Zenawi’s tangential and convoluted response, the “give-and-take” proposal revolves around Eritrea’s sovereign territories. Despite the final and binding EEBC ruling, the so-called peace proposal offers Eritrean territories—currently under forceful Ethiopian occupation but legally awarded to Eritrea—as a bargaining chip in exchange for other of Eritrean sovereign territories. Therefore, following the court's decision, the grumblings and complaints voiced by some officials from the main guarantor countries reveal, on one hand, their support for Ethiopian leaders’ agenda and, on the other, their transparent efforts to prolong the conflict. The apparent sympathy shown by US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, in the events that followed was evidently rooted in an agenda crafted for public relations consumption. In short, it is clear that Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's response, along with the undue pressure from the guarantor countries to “create a platform for dialogue and talk to each other” was not intended to resolve the underlying issue, but rather to take measures that challenged Eritrea’s sovereignty and to further prolong and complicate the crisis. Alongside Jendayi Frazer, other prominent figures selected to advance the theatrical campaign included Canadian Lloyd Axworthy, the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy, and US General Carlton Fulford.
Today, it is much the same, though expressed in a new and more transparent tune. The Prosperity government, which has been in power for seven years, has plunged the country into heightened ethnic tensions, severe economic problems, growing instability and a deep socio- political and crisis. As part of the strategy to confuse and divert, the Ethiopian prime minister has exposed the country to a state of schizophrenia, brought on by incoherent policies and plans, often reflected by impulsive speeches delivered on television or during hastily convened sessions with representatives of the people. While lawlessness prevails across the country and public confidence in the federal government continues to erode, it has become common to throw around naïve remarks such as “we have no intention of invading what isn’t ours; we’re simply saying, give us access to the sea and we’ll share our resources with you”.
The absurdity of the ‘give and take’ proposal speaks for itself. Because sovereignty is not a commodity that can be sold or exchanged. It is the worst absurdity to justify this ridiculous “proposal” of exchanging sovereignty for commercial businesses by arguing “what's wrong with us dreaming of the sea right in our noses while people dream of reaching Mars?”
The purpose of all this hallucination is clear: rather than addressing the internal crisis in Ethiopia that urgently demand solutions, it seeks to externalize the issue and redirect the Ethiopian people’s attention toward an unattainable fantasy. However, the Ethiopian people saw right through these bogus tactics as they recognized that the main objective of the campaign was to divert their attention in an attempt to prolong Prosperity Party’s power, control and consequential exploitation.
Conclusions
Once again, regarding the issue of sea access, there are calls for “dialogue”. But dialogue about what exactly? As far as sea access is concerned, Eritrea has demonstrated a principled and fair stance since the day after independence. Therefore, there is no need to establish a “dialogue” forum. What is required is simply to pursue the use of sea access in a way that respects Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with international maritime law.
As for Ethiopia’s quest for direct ownership of Eritrea’s sea coast, it is bound to fail as it is illegal and unacceptable under the charters of the United Nations and the African Union. It would obviously jeopardize international peace and security. Therefore, the view that both sides should be open for dialogue fails to acknowledge the reality on the ground. A more appropriate stance would be a clear call that “Ethiopia must be governed by international law”. The statement, promoted even by the PM, that “it is no longer blasphemy to raise the question of direct maritime ownership” is primarily aimed at legitimizing expansionist ambitions beyond the bounds of international law by deceiving and inflaming the emotions of the Ethiopian people.
The recent documentary titled “From a Drop of Water to the Sea” and prepared by some Ethiopian intellectuals had, therefore, one singular and clear purpose. It is an effort to extensively propagate the sea agenda while sowing terror and fear in the public and defaming the Eritrean government through all the media channels, until the narrative is inflated sky-high! The social media platform is endlessly amplifying this narrative in an echo chamber. A string of so-called geopolitical analysts has moved beyond social media to appear in mainstream outlets, promoting the narrative that “tensions are rising, the cloud of war looms over the Horn. If the inevitable war breaks out, history shows the region will face an unprecedented crisis. Intervene now and avert war while it’s still possible”. The goal is to create a non-existent issue by fueling the situation they say is heating up with their inflammatory words, to furnish the invader with another pretext and thereby conjure an illusion of war that is seconds away so as to ultimately pressure the Eritrean side to unfair negotiation terms or parameters.
It is imperative to assess where Ethiopia will ultimately end up as a result of the persistent claims of “Ethiopia possesses a historic and legal sovereign right to enter the Red Sea” being advanced by intellectuals in all forums —at the House of Representatives, media, social platforms and in diplomatic engagement. This relentless repetition of unrealistic demands, intended to shape public opinion and garner international sympathy, is viewed as a propaganda tactic and an exercise in narrative control. However, even if a lie is repeated a thousand times, documented evidence will have the final say.
Various analysts explain that when the country became plagued by ethnic conflict, governance challenges, economic crises and more, the current prime minister reignited the longstanding mantra of “ownership of the Red Sea” as a diversion from these internal challenges. He constructed a coherent narrative claiming that “for Ethiopia, this was a matter of survival”, believing it could defuse domestic opposition. Furthermore, he uses choice words and exploits the shortage of money to justify the wrong policies of successive governments. Framing his expansionist agenda as inspiring a sense of national pride and justifying his provocative statements, he asserts that “the cause of our poverty is due to loss of the Red Sea. We will restore the history of Ethiopia that once had one of the strongest navies on the Red Sea coast”.
Ploys grounded on historical and cultural connections are also attempts to redraw Africa's colonial boundaries. Such thinking, however, goes beyond challenging Eritrea's sovereignty. In short, the Prosperity party’s campaign aims to gain domestic support, influence international opinion and achieve Ethiopia’s regional ambitions by wreaking havoc in the region while undermining international laws and engendering chaos. But these tactics will only have detrimental outcomes to the whole Ethiopian population. In addition, one of the fundamental pillars of a country and nationalism is sovereignty. Any party that sets aside acceptable international law and issues statements that violate and sidestep the sovereignty of a country does not have a right to then issue calls for “dialogue”.
Looking beyond these issues, who is driving Ethiopia's rush for the Red Sea? Whose ultimate opportunistic benefits are served by external forces rushing to create various alignments and the instability in the Red Sea? Where will this port imperialism project of certain Gulf nations lead and how is it further entangling the situation in our region? Where is the constant scapegoating of Eritrea for its principled stance and positions headed? We will leave it to time to reveal the outcome of the disinformation disseminated by various agents with narrow and dangerous interests. Together, we shall see who will be intimidated, terrorized or even be forced to abandon his foundational principles through these constant drumbeats of “come to the negotiating table or else” shouts. Because the goal is to instill cringing fear and force a deviation from Eritrea’s principled stance. The future will reveal who will bear the worst consequences of all these instigations and amateur calls for war, for as it is written in holy books “Let not him who girds on his harness boast as he who puts it off.”
In conclusion, ever since Eritrea and Ethiopia established relations at state level, the cause for strained relations has been the violation of Eritrea's sovereignty and territorial integrity. There can be no dialogue on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea. It is non-negotiable! For, by what logic can a party that makes proposals to violate Eritrean sovereignty be granted a platform for dialogue? Who will talk to whom, and what will the talks cover? Before talks can take place, there are the preconditions of respect for sovereignty and officially rescinding and apologizing for earlier irresponsible statements and wild claims. This is a critical factor not only for talks, but also for normalizing relationships. It’s these steps that would herald mutual trust, peace and collective prosperity in our region. The most important legacy that can be passed on to future generations.
Footnotes/references
