Commentary 2 - Condemn Abiy Ahmed Regime’s Threat to Invade Eritrea 

Amb. Andebrhan Welde Giorgis

This is the second instalment of a three-part commentary on the constant confrontation between the Ethiopian expansionist narrative and the Eritrean nationalist narrative. Relying on the perspectives of history and international law, the concise commentary debunks Ethiopia’s baseless expansionist claims over Eritrea and buttresses the legitimacy of Eritrea’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Ethiopia’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, has threatened to invade Eritrea, occupy its coastline and seize the port of Asseb. Lacking any historical or legal basis for his threat, Abiy is waging an emotional propaganda to divert attention from Ethiopia’s worsening domestic problems and mobilise support to shore up his fragile and failing ethnoreligious sectarian regime. 

On 13 October 2023, Abiy Ahmed issued a threat against the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea. In mid-February 2025, he displayed a map of Africa that incorporates a large territory of Eritrea within Ethiopia during the AU Summit in Addis Ababa. Upping the ante, Abiy has deployed military assets, including Eritrean pawns, in Samara, the capital of the Afar Regional State adjoining Eritrea. These measures constitute a dire threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea and effectively signify a declaration of war on the State of Eritrea. 

The Making of Eritrea and Ethiopia 

During the precolonial period, between the mid-16^th and late 19^th centuries, the territory of modern Eritrea remained fragmented. Medre Bahri suffered occupation of parts of its territory by Ottoman Turkey (1557-1872), Khedivate Egypt (1872-1885), Italy (1869-1889) and Abyssinia (1876-1887). Italian occupation in 1890 brought about the territorial integration of Eritrea into a colonial state under a central administration. Subsequently, Eritrea endured Italian colonial rule (1890-1941); British military occupation (1941-52); federation with Ethiopia (1952-1962); and Ethiopian annexation (1962-1991). 

Meanwhile, during the onset of the European scramble for Africa, Abyssinia found itself in the paradoxical position of both a victim and a perpetrator of colonial aggression. It foiled Italian invasion at the Battle of Adwa in 1896, a great feat hailed as “the first major African victory over a European country since Hannibal’s time two thousand years earlier”.  

Having foiled Italian colonisation, Abyssinia expanded through a series of wars carried out in collusion with or adroit exploitation of the rivalries of the European colonial powers to conquer non-Abyssinian territories. The acquisition of “vast quantities of modern firearms”, initially from Italy, which “made possible the inception of Menelik’s empire”, and later from France, which “made possible its completion”, enabled Menelik, the King of Shoa, to seize “central power in Abyssinia” as emperor in 1889, conquer “colonies” and transform the “Shoan kingdom” into the “Ethiopian empire”. 

The conquered “colonies” include lands inhabited by the Afar, Anuak, Beni Shangul, Borana, Gambela, Gurage, Oromo, Konso, Sidama, Somali, Welamo and Welayta peoples in the west, south and southeast of the country. With the completion of Menelik’s conquests by 1910, Abyssinia assumed its present geopolitical formation while Eritrea was already an established colonial state by 1890.

It is evident therefore that there existed neither an Ethiopia nor an Eritrea recognisable in their present geopolitical formations and existing international boundaries prior to the advent of the colonial era. Eritrea and Ethiopia, just like the prototype modern African state, owe their present geopolitical formations to the partition of Africa by the European powers. The colonial partition of the Horn of Africa shaped the present geopolitical formation, not just of Eritrea and Ethiopia, but also the entire region of the Horn of Africa, while colonial treaties delimited their international boundaries.  

The Making of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary 

Eritrea and Ethiopia share approximately 1,000 km long common border delimited by three colonial treaties. The 1900 treaty agreed between Ethiopia and Italy delineates the Central Sector of the boundary. The 1902 treaty agreed between Italy, Ethiopia, and Great Britain is an annex to the 1900 Treaty between Italy and Ethiopia amending the Western Sector of the Treaty Line while keeping the Central Sector intact. The 1908 treaty agreed between Italy and Ethiopia delimited the Eastern Sector of the boundary. 

So delimited, the colonial treaty border between Eritrea and Ethiopia retained its de facto and de jure international status which Eritrea inherited and sanctified at the time of its declaration of independence as a sovereign state. International recognition of the sovereign State of Eritrea and Eritrea’s joining the community of free nations as a member of the UN, the OAU and IGAD upholds the sanctity of the colonial treaty border consistent with treaty law. The principle of uti possidetis juris, the inviolability of colonial borders existing at the time of accession to independence, is also upheld by international customary law and the AU Constitutive Act.

Eritrean National Identity and Statehood 

Italy brought together a hitherto fragmented territory and diverse population under a single central administration. It established a unified colonial entity, built a network of modern urban, industrial, transport and telecommunications infrastructure designed to service a settler colony. The introduction of new factors and relations of production unleashed new social forces with an awareness of their common position of alien oppression. 

Resistance to Italian colonial oppression and systemic racism cultivated a shared national identity and fanned Eritrean nationalism. The experience of common oppression under alien domination forged the development of a shared psychological makeup and a distinctive Eritrean national identity. The reality of an autonomous Eritrean history and a feasible Eritrean culture forged a distinctive Eritrean national identity.  

The continuation of Italian policy of oppression and racial discrimination under British military administration fanned resentment and intensified Eritrean yearnings for freedom. The dialectics of colonial oppression and the resistance of the colonised generated an awareness of a common condition and an overarching Eritrean national identity that transcends ethnic, linguistic, religious, and regional affiliation. Over a century of common political and armed resistance reinforced a distinct Eritrean identity, consolidated Eritrean nationalism and defeated imperial Ethiopian hegemony and its enablers. The tenacity, potency and resilience of Eritrean nationalism successfully challenged Ethiopian annexation and international complicity to achieve self-determination. Eritrea’s independence settled the territorial and boundary question once and for all. 

Legitimacy Cast in Steel

The legitimacy of Eritrean self-determination, sovereign statehood and territorial integrity is rooted in history and founded in international law. Lasting peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia requires Ethiopia, including the TPLF and the Tigrean elite, to respect (1) the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea and (2) the sanctity of the colonial treaty border between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Durable peace is a necessary foundation for cooperative relations between the two countries and the coprosperity of the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples. 

The Eritrean people made immense sacrifices to gain independence. Sovereign Eritrea is the collective acquis of the toil, sweat and blood of successive generations of Eritreans; and it is here to stay. Despite enduring domestic adversity on account of the atrophying of an erstwhile revolutionary movement, the patriotic Eritrean people have demonstrated the determination, capacity and resilience to defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country. They should not be forced to do so again. Beyond independence, the Eritrean people seek justice and aspire to live in peace, freedom and prosperity under the rule of law. 

Today’s governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia had no role in the making of the common border between the two countries. Both states inherited the colonial treaty border. It is thus incumbent upon Ethiopia to unequivocally embrace the principle of uti possidetis juris and affirm its unconditional recognition of Eritrea’s boundary as delimited by the colonial treaties. Abiy’s regime, his Prosperity Party minions and certain elements of the Ethiopian elite (including the TPLF and certain elements of the Tigrean elite) should recall and bear in mind the disastrous consequences of the first unilateral attempt (1997) by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s regime to redraw the boundary whose negative impact continues to reverberate to this day. Otherwise, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it! 

The expeditious implementation of the Algiers Agreement and the physical demarcation of the boundary in line with the Demarcation Directions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), with the technical support of the UN Cartographic Unit, is imperative to avert recurrent war and build peace. Demarcation would, among other things, signify the abandonment of Ethiopia’s perennial territorial ambitions over Eritrea or parts thereof. 

Eritrea’s experience with Ethiopia under Emperor Haile Selassie, Colonel Mengistu, Prime Minister Meles and now Prime Minister Abiy shows that an Ethiopia dominated by the elites of a single ethnic group represents an existential threat to the national security of Eritrea. Although the establishment of a regime type is an issue that concerns the people of Ethiopia, securing lasting peace between the two countries would necessarily require the emergence of an inclusive democratic regime in Ethiopia willing to live in peaceful coexistence and cooperative relations with Eritrea. The emergence of democratic governance and development of autonomous civil society would play a supportive role in the process in both countries. 

Bold steps are needed to end the vicious cycle of zero-sum outcomes and vengeance to avert war and usher in a new era of reconciliation. This would enable a realignment of progressive forces at the national, bilateral and regional levels committed to the pursuit of a new democratic dispensation conducive to peaceful coexistence and cooperative relations. Once established, a democratic Eritrea and a democratic Ethiopia can normalise and institutionalise their relations in line with international law and cooperate in earnest to capitalise on the complementarity of their economies for the benefit of their respective peoples.

Access to Sea: Right of Use, Not Ownership 

Abiy has staked a right of ownership of access to the sea and vowed to fight for it for generations to come. His reckless claim is nothing new. It echoes the defunct narrative of certain elements of Ethiopian (and Tigrean) elites who reject the legitimacy and bemoan the reality of Eritrea’s sovereign independence. It is consistent with the expansionist narratives of “Greater Ethiopia” and “Greater Tigray’ to dominate the whole or parts of Eritrea and gain access to the Red Sea on grounds of defunct history and ethnic or cultural similarity. 

The claim of right of ownership of access to sea rather than right of use of access to sea and freedom of transit is an existential threat to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea and a menace to the peace, progress and wellbeing of the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples as well as to regional stability. 

Ethiopia’s pursuit of right of use of access to the sea is legitimate and essential for the conduct of its foreign trade. However, the terms of access and modalities of transit should be agreed through bilateral negotiations with one or all its maritime neighbours in accordance with international law. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 125) (25) provides similarly land-locked states with the right of access to the sea and freedom of passage through the territory of transit states; with agreed terms and modalities of freedom of transit between the land-locked states and the transit states; and with the transit states exercising full sovereignty over their territory and the right to take all measures necessary to prevent any infringement on their legitimate interests.    

Even maritime states that possess their own ports use transit states to complement their own ports for efficient and cost-effective services. For instance, Germany, which owns Europe’s largest economy and several ports of its own, uses the Dutch port of Rotterdam as the major outlet for the bulk of its international trade. The forty-four land-locked countries in the world, including the sixteen in Africa, have worked out bilateral agreements with the relevant transit states for access to the sea. Ethiopia itself has such an agreement with Djibouti and had negotiated a Protocol Agreement with Eritrea in 1993 which provided it with concessionary terms of access and freedom of transit to the use of Eritrea’s ports of Massawa and Asseb.  

It should, however, be recalled that Ethiopia unilaterally forfeited the use of Eritrea’s ports and transit facilities when it declared war on Eritrea in 1998 and resorted to bombing Asseb and Massawa. Ethiopia went further to threaten international shipping against using the Eritrean ports. I am unaware that Eritrea has ever denied Ethiopia the right of use of its ports. 

I am aware, however, that after the end of the war, Ethiopia’s then premier, Meles Zenawi, had vowed not to use Eritrea’s ports to deny revenues and inflict financial harm on Eritrea in a lose-lose mindset. Ethiopia must abandon its warmongering and outrageous assertion of ownership, reverse course and negotiate a win-win bargain for the right to use port access and transit freedom in good faith in the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

Although left idle to rot as ghost towns to date, Eritrea’s ports have a great potential to serve as world class hubs and key links in the global trade network and entrepots of international transhipment, à la Dubai. With a modicum of prudence, wisdom and statesmanship, Eritrea’s present ports and additional developable ones on its long Red Sea coastline have ample space to serve countries beyond Eritrea and the region. 

_{Eri-Platform reposts this commentary, originally published on online on www.eri-platform.org on 30 November 2023; then revised and republished on 11 March 2025; is now updated and streamlined with substantive edits to reflect present Eritrean priority of self-defence at the request of many followers on account of its timely relevance in view of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s threat and military preparations to invade Eritrea.}