Ethiopian Regime’s Sea Access Delusion and Eritrea’s Strategic Alliances

The delusional notion of a “right to sovereign sea access and port ownership” has now reached a dead end. The international community cannot, in all honesty, entertain or accommodate this absurd claim. The only option is to relegate it to the dustbin of history.

Consequently, the Prosperity Party (PP) appears to have shifted gears. In a recent series of articles, its mouthpiece—the Horn Review (HR)—has sought to undermine Eritrea’s maritime security strategy, draw false parallels between Ethiopia and Bolivia’s sea access cases, malign the Red Sea Trading Corporation, and link Ethiopia’s isolation and instability to Eritrea and Egypt, as well as the TPLF.

Masquerading as an independent research platform, the Horn Review has moved from its earlier obsession with “sovereign sea access” to meddling in Eritrea’s sovereign security and strategic policy choices. In its article “Foreign Military Presence and Eritrea’s Calculus,” it offers a poorly argued critique of Eritrea’s maritime strategy, claiming that “the country’s engagements over the years reflect a pragmatic approach to foreign partnerships, one guided less by ideological consistency than by strategic necessity.”

The so-called “researcher” behind this claim fails to grasp that strategic priorities inevitably reshape security partnerships, trade blocs, and alliances. The fluidity of international relations and the constantly shifting global landscape compel all nations to adapt their alliances. These shifts arise from complex interplay of power dynamics, economic interests, security imperatives, shared values, and global challenges. Eritrea’s strategic location as a littoral State naturally situates it within this broader matrix of international relations.

Eritrea’s consistent position has been that the security of the Red Sea basin should first and foremost rest with the littoral States themselves—to prevent the kind of external interference that has historically destabilized the Horn of Africa. Eritrea therefore emphasizes dynamic diplomacy, multilateral collaboration, and conflict-prevention mechanisms that strengthen regional peace and stability.

How, then, can Eritrea be expected to engage in mutually beneficial strategic alliances with the Potemkin Party when the latter continues to reject the sanctity of internationally recognized borders?

Record of Opportunistic Alliances

Ironically, the Horn Review’s critique of Eritrea’s strategic interests attempts to obscure Ethiopia’s erratic record of shifting allegiances since the dawn of its modern history. Scholars have long noted that Ethiopia’s foreign policy – well before the PP’ accession to power – was fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. Its interventions in South Sudan and Somalia were deeply problematic, justified under the guise of “regional peace and security,” yet driven by narrow self-interest and principally carried out under the bidding of major powers.

Ethiopia has never been a neutral actor in Somalia. Over the years, successive Ethiopian regimes supported multiple factions, culminating in the 2006 invasion aimed at toppling the Islamic Courts Union. Today, the Potemkin Party’s alignment with the UAE similarly reflects opportunism and proxy politics. The UAE’s expanding influence under the current Ethiopian regime raises serious questions about whether this partnership serves Ethiopia’s national interest. The UAE’s record in Sudan and Somalia, where its backing of armed groups like the Rapid Support Forces has fueled instability, underscores these concerns.

Bolivia’s Case and the False Parallel

The Horn Review also attempts to equate Ethiopia’s situation with Bolivia’s “right to the sea.” To set the record straight, Bolivia brought its case before the International Court of Justice, arguing that the Chilean government had an “obligation to negotiate in good faith with the goal of granting Bolivia sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.” However, on October 1, 2018, the ICJ ruled against Bolivia, dismissing the case as untenable on grounds of legal substance and merit. As such, the parallel the Prosperity Party attempts to draw collapses under the weight of this undeniable fact.

The Horn Review repeats a familiar distortion:

“A similar story unfolds at the opposite end of the African continent. Ethiopia, once a country with a strong presence on the Red Sea, became landlocked after an agreement following a war with Eritrea…”

Invoking connections with a distant past in an attempt to legitimize the quest for sovereign sea access runs counter to historical reality. While it is hardly necessary to delve into the ancient and medieval history of the Horn of Africa and Northern Africa, it is worth noting that various civilizations arose at different times, sharing neither historical, political, nor geographical continuity. These include the Land of Punt (c. 2500–980 BCE); the Adulite Civilization, which flourished mainly in the Eritrean coastal lands and both predated and coexisted with the Axumite Empire (1st century BCE–8th century CE); and the Axumite Empire itself (1st century CE–940 CE). In addition, various fiefdoms with disparate centers of power and limited territorial reach emerged across disconnected regions.

“Conjuring up’’ the debunked fabricated myths of continuum and congruence to justify encroachment upon or invasion of a sovereign neighboring country constitutes a grave and unequivocal violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. In reality, Ethiopia’s political presence in Eritrea’s coastal lands was limited to the bogus Federation and subsequent Annexation periods, spanning from 1952 to 1991.

Following Italy’s defeat in World War II, Eritrea came under British Military Administration until 1952. At the same time, the US leveraged its diplomatic and political clout at the UN to impose the ill-advised federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, denying Eritrea’s right to decolonization. Emperor Haile Selassie later violated that federation, annexing Eritrea as Ethiopia’s 14th province, an act that sparked a 30-year war of liberation.

In May 1991, the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) decisively defeated the Ethiopian army, leading to the collapse of the regime and Eritrea’s independence, debunking the false claim that Ethiopia “lost” access to the sea due to ‘’political indecision’’ or ‘’mismanagement.’’ Ethiopia’s later attempt to seize Assab during the 1998–2000 border war also ended in a decisive defeat. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC), established under the Algiers Agreement, reaffirmed Eritrea’s borders as originally defined by the Treaties of 1900,1902 and 1980 on the basis of the foundational principle of the Sanctity and Inviolability of Sovereign Borders. It must be recalled here that the litigation and subsequent 13 April 2002 EEBC Arbitral Award were sparked by the Ethiopian regime’s putative claims on the town of Badme; not on any part of Eritrea’s sovereign coastal territories as the PP seems to insinuate these days.

The Potemkin Party’s recurring claim that its “loss of sea access” resulted from “agreements” or “political mismanagement” is nothing more than a denial of reality. It epitomizes a dogged refusal to acknowledge the forcible eviction of Ethiopian occupation after three decades of a costly war, with deleterious consequences to the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia. In the event, PP’s officials are desperately clinging to myths, excuses, and historical revisionism to conceal their irredentist ambitions. In a broader perspective, it is unfortunate that certain segments in Ethiopian elite circles seem to be incapable of coming to terms with reality and the contemporary history of both nations with a positive and forward-looking mindset.

On the Red Sea Trading Corporation (RSTC)

The Red Sea Trading Corporation (09), established in 1984, supports Eritrea’s socially responsible development programs and ensures the steady provision of essential goods—stabilizing domestic markets. RSTC originated from the EPLF’s wartime efforts to organize trade and development in liberated territories, laying the groundwork for self-reliant economic growth.

Potemkin Party’s Self-Inflicted Regional Isolation

It is hardly necessary to detail the current Ethiopian regime’s chronic tendency to externalize its internal problems. The country is now suffering the consequences of its own actions. Its self-aggrandizement and irredentist ambitions have set it on a collision course with its neighbors, undermining regional stability and endangering peace in the Horn of Africa. In addition, the siege mentality that the PP harbors stems from narrow tribalist grandeur camouflaged in national Ethiopian garb; political shortsightedness; reflexive and reactive tendency to deflect public attention from the domestic quagmire that it has stoked; and its persistent mishandling of regional affairs. The Amharic proverb “የቆጡን ላውርድ ብላ የብብቷን ጣለች” succinctly encapsulates the reckless and shortsighted political culture that has characterized successive Ethiopian regimes.