Recent analyses by Deutsche Welle and Foreign Policy Journal regarding Eritrea’s growing strategic importance in the Horn of Africa raise an important question: Is Eritrea being assessed on its own geopolitical and historical realities, or is it still being viewed primarily through an Ethiopia-centered lens?

Eritrea is unquestionably a strategically important state. Its position along the Red Sea, close to one of the world’s most consequential maritime corridors, and its relations with regional and international actors make it an important factor in the geopolitics of the Horn of Africa.

But beneath the current debate lies a more fundamental question:

Can economic interest in a port ever create a claim to sovereignty over another sovereign state’s territory?
The answer under international law is clear: No.

Port Access Is Not Sovereignty

Ethiopia’s status as a landlocked country presents genuine economic challenges. Access to seaports is essential for trade, supply chains and economic development.

But economic necessity does not create territorial entitlement.

Landlocked states around the world conduct international commerce through neighboring coastal countries through bilateral and multilateral agreements. Trade corridors, transit arrangements, port agreements and commercial partnerships can serve mutual interests without compromising the territorial sovereignty of the coastal state.

That distinction must not be blurred in the Horn of Africa.

Commercial access can be negotiated. Sovereignty cannot.

Eritrea does not claim Ethiopian territory. It does not seek Ethiopian land or resources. Nor does Eritrea have a fundamental objection to Ethiopia pursuing legitimate commercial access to regional ports through mutually agreed arrangements.

What Eritrea rejects is the notion that economic size, demographic weight or geographic disadvantage can create an entitlement to another state’s sovereign territory.

Eritrea’s History Must Not Be Rewritten

The historical framing of Eritrea also matters.

Descriptions suggesting that Eritrea merely “split” from Ethiopia or that Eritrean independence “stripped” Ethiopia of its coastline risk reversing historical cause and effect.

The Eritrean people possess a distinct and ancient history that predates European colonialism by millennia. Like the modern borders of many African states, Eritrea’s contemporary territorial boundaries were consolidated during the colonial period. Italy formally established the colony of Eritrea in 1890.

Following the Second World War, Eritrea came under British Military Administration before being placed in a federal arrangement with Ethiopia.

That arrangement did not survive.

In 1962, the federation was unilaterally abolished and Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia. What followed was three decades of armed struggle for independence.

In the internationally supervised referendum of 1993, 99.805 percent of Eritrean voters chose independence. Eritrea subsequently became a member of the United Nations.

To describe this historical process as Eritrea simply “taking” Ethiopia’s coastline is therefore not merely misleading—it obscures the political and historical reality behind Eritrea’s independence.

The Border Is Not an Open Invitation for Revision

The Eritrea-Ethiopia border question must also be understood within the framework of international law.

Following the 1998–2000 war, Eritrea and Ethiopia signed the Algiers Agreement and voluntarily submitted their territorial dispute to international arbitration.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission issued its delimitation decision in 2002, relying on the colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1910 and applicable international law. Under the Algiers Agreement, the determination was final and binding.

This principle matters far beyond the two countries.

If African borders can be reopened whenever a state becomes economically stronger, more populous or strategically interested in the territory of a neighbor, then virtually no border on the continent is secure.

Africa cannot afford such a precedent.

Eritrea’s Foreign Policy Does Not Require an Ethiopia-Centered Explanation

Another recurring problem is the tendency to interpret Eritrea’s relations with Egypt, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and other partners primarily as components of an anti-Ethiopian strategy.

That interpretation is overly narrow.

Eritrea is a sovereign Red Sea nation. Its foreign policy naturally encompasses maritime security, regional stability, trade, investment, transportation, diplomacy and bilateral cooperation.

Not every Eritrean diplomatic relationship exists because of Ethiopia.

Reducing Eritrea’s international engagement to an Ethiopia-centered geopolitical contest diminishes Eritrea’s agency as a sovereign state.

Stability Should Be Analyzed on Its Own Terms

There is also a striking contradiction in some external assessments of Eritrea.

On one hand, Eritrea is acknowledged as comparatively stable, cohesive, strategically positioned and increasingly relevant to regional and international partners. On the other, those same characteristics are frequently overshadowed by labels such as “authoritarian,” “repressive” or “autocratic.”

Critical analysis of Eritrea’s political system is legitimate. But serious journalism should go beyond labels.

Eritrea’s political development cannot be separated from its colonial history, its decades-long independence struggle, regional wars, national institutions and its particular nation-building experience.

Criticism is part of journalism.
But understanding must come before judgment.

This Is About More Than Eritrea

The fundamental issue extends far beyond the Eritrea-Ethiopia relationship.

Africa’s interstate order depends on several basic principles: sovereign equality, territorial integrity and respect for internationally recognized boundaries.

Those principles cannot apply selectively.

If a larger state can claim special territorial rights because it is landlocked, economically ambitious, demographically powerful or strategically dependent on access to another country’s territory, then the entire African state system becomes vulnerable.

What happens to Eritrea today could become a precedent for another African nation tomorrow.

Sovereignty Is Not a Bargaining Chip

Eritrea claims no territory belonging to another state. It seeks peaceful, mutually beneficial relations with Ethiopia and with all its neighbors.

But peace does not require surrendering sovereignty.
Cooperation does not mean territorial submission.
Trade does not mean ownership.
And access to a port does not mean sovereignty over the territory of another country.

Eritrea’s sovereignty is not a geopolitical bargaining chip. It is an internationally recognized right.

And that is why this debate matters far beyond Eritrea.

Defending Eritrea’s territorial integrity is ultimately about defending a principle that every African nation depends upon: no state should be entitled to challenge the sovereignty of another simply because it is larger, more powerful or strategically ambitious.

Eritrea is sovereign. Its territorial integrity is not negotiable. And Africa’s sovereignty must never become a bargaining chip in geopolitical competition.

According to the minister, the party—which he referred to as the “Potemkin Party”—is attempting to mislead the public through political theatrics, deception, and disinformation instead of addressing Ethiopia’s internal challenges.

His remarks came after, according to the minister, some officials from Ethiopia’s Oromia region and military officers circulated maps depicting parts of Eritrean territory as connected to Ethiopia.

Summarizing his criticism, Yemane presented the following formula:

PP Propaganda = Optics + Posturing + Deception + Disinformation + Delusion

He argued that these five elements form the core of the ruling party’s political communication strategy, which, in his view, is intended to distract from Ethiopia’s domestic crises while challenging the sovereignty of neighboring countries.

Concluding his statement, Minister Yemane reaffirmed that Eritrea would neither compromise its sovereignty nor be intimidated by what he described as false propaganda. He added that the “Potemkin strategy” would ultimately fail.

Source: Statement by Eritrean Information Minister Yemane Gebremeskel on X @hawelti

According to a statement released by TPLF authorities, federal forces advanced through the Shererina area, targeting TPLF positions close to the Ethiopia–Sudan frontier. The claims have not been independently verified, and the Ethiopian government had not issued an official response at the time of publication.

Separately, Sudanese sources reported that Ethiopian forces have also advanced toward the Um Barakit border sector, describing the deployment as an apparent attempt to reinforce Ethiopia’s position around the disputed Al-Fashiga region from both the Tigray and Um Barakit fronts.

The reported military movements have prompted concerns among regional observers, who warn that the situation could further destabilize the Horn of Africa if tensions continue to escalate along the Ethiopia–Sudan border.

Some Sudanese and regional sources have also alleged that the latest operation was coordinated or encouraged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following recent battlefield gains by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and allied groups in North Kordofan against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Those allegations have not been independently verified, and neither the UAE nor Ethiopian authorities have publicly responded.

The developments come as both Ethiopia and Sudan continue to face complex security challenges, with unresolved border disputes and ongoing armed conflicts contributing to heightened regional uncertainty.

Developing Story

This is a developing situation. Further updates will be provided as official statements and independently verified information become available.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Eritrea, Osman Saleh Mohammed, met on Thursday with the Acting Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the State of Qatar in Eritrea, Ghanem bin Mohamed Al Maadeed.

During the meeting in Asmara, the two sides discussed bilateral cooperation and ways to further strengthen relations between Eritrea and Qatar.

Both parties reportedly exchanged views on areas of mutual interest, with a focus on enhancing diplomatic engagement and future cooperation.

The delegation also included Egypt’s Minister of Transport and senior representatives from major Egyptian companies operating in infrastructure, energy, mining, logistics, and maritime transport sectors.

Eritrea’s Growing Strategic Importance

As geopolitical competition intensifies across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, Eritrea’s strategic relevance continues to grow. Positioned along one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, Eritrea occupies a critical geographic location connecting Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

A substantial portion of global trade and energy shipments passes through the Red Sea every day, making regional stability increasingly important not only for neighboring countries but also for international economic security.

Political observers increasingly view Eritrea as an important regional actor whose stability and geographic position give it a vital role in safeguarding the security of the Red Sea corridor. Despite regional tensions and external pressures, Asmara has maintained an independent foreign policy centered on national sovereignty, regional self-reliance, and resistance to foreign interference.

The expanding cooperation between Eritrea and Egypt may therefore represent more than bilateral economic engagement. Analysts believe it could signal the emergence of a broader regional realignment focused on maritime security, economic integration, and political coordination in the Red Sea region.

Maritime Cooperation and Economic Investment

During the visit, both sides signed a maritime transport agreement aimed at strengthening direct links between Egyptian and Eritrean ports. The agreement is expected to enhance cooperation in:

• Port and logistics infrastructure
• Maritime transportation
• Energy and electricity
• Mining and industrial development
• Agriculture and irrigation
• Pharmaceutical production

Egyptian officials emphasized that major Egyptian companies are not seeking short-term commercial opportunities alone, but are preparing for long-term investment and industrial cooperation inside Eritrea.

Several participating companies have previously implemented major infrastructure projects across Africa, including large-scale hydroelectric and transportation initiatives.

“Eritrea is a Pillar of Stability”

In remarks during the visit, Foreign Minister Abdelatty described Eritrea as a “fundamental pillar of stability” in the Horn of Africa. He praised Eritrea’s approach toward regional diplomacy and emphasized the importance of dialogue, de-escalation, and cooperation in addressing regional challenges.

The Egyptian delegation also conveyed a message from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and extended an official invitation to President Isaias Afwerki to visit Cairo.

Red Sea Security and Regional Sovereignty

Both Eritrea and Egypt reaffirmed their shared position that the security and governance of the Red Sea must remain the responsibility of the region’s coastal states. Discussions also focused on strengthening regional mechanisms for cooperation among Red Sea nations in areas such as maritime security, port connectivity, rescue coordination, and economic integration.

The talks come at a time of rising geopolitical tensions across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, increasing the strategic importance of stable regional partnerships.

For many observers, the growing Eritrea–Egypt partnership reflects a broader effort to build a new framework of regional stability based on sovereignty, cooperation, and independent regional decision-making.

Source:
Based on information published by shabait.

The discussions were also attended by Egyptian Minister of Transport Kamel Alwazir, along with representatives of several companies operating in the transport, energy, and mining sectors.

The talks focused on strengthening bilateral relations between Eritrea and Egypt, as well as addressing regional and international issues of mutual interest.

President Isaias emphasized the importance of enhancing cooperation between the two countries and reaffirmed Eritrea’s readiness to implement joint projects in collaboration with Egyptian economic and trade companies.

During the meeting, the two countries also signed an agreement on maritime transport cooperation aimed at promoting international shipping and strengthening cooperation in the sector.

Source:
@hawelti
https://x.com/i/status/2055641435907719452

For months, suspicious cargo and military flights between the UAE and Ethiopia have been documented. Particularly notable is Bahir Dar Airport in northern Ethiopia, which appears to have become a strategic hub for regional military activity.

Recent reports from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) regarding downed Turkish Bayraktar Akinci drones have further strengthened suspicions that Bahir Dar may have served not only as a logistical center, but potentially also as an operational base for military activities connected to the Sudan conflict.

If these allegations are confirmed, the consequences for the entire region could be severe.

While Addis Ababa publicly speaks about regional cooperation and stability, there is an increasing perception that the PP regime is, in fact, pursuing a policy of military power projection — supported by external actors with their own geopolitical interests.

At the same time, the United Arab Emirates is facing growing criticism over its alleged involvement in African conflicts, both directly and indirectly. Emirati interests, weapons transfers, and military networks have already been linked to several crisis zones across the continent. The current developments surrounding Ethiopia and Sudan could represent another chapter in this increasingly assertive foreign policy.

Particularly alarming is the potential internationalization of the Sudan war. Every form of foreign interference prolongs the conflict, deepens the humanitarian catastrophe, and further destabilizes the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region.

Meanwhile, the PP regime continues to dismiss criticism as “conspiracy theories” or “anti-Ethiopian propaganda.” Yet the number of unanswered questions continues to grow:

Why are military flights between the UAE and Bahir Dar increasing?
What role are foreign drones playing in the Sudan conflict?
Why are more indications of covert military cooperation emerging?

The people of the region deserve answers — not propaganda, intimidation, or geopolitical power games.

The Horn of Africa needs peace, economic development, and genuine regional cooperation. But as long as external actors and regional governments continue to instrumentalize conflicts for strategic interests, the risk of a much larger escalation will remain real.

Behind the diplomatic language and symbolic gestures lies a deeper reality: the world is moving away from a unipolar order dominated by a single power toward a more complex multipolar system shaped by competing political, economic, and strategic centers.

The rivalry between Washington and Beijing remains significant. It plays out through economic competition, technological confrontation, military tensions in the Pacific, disputes over Taiwan, and the broader struggle for global influence. Taiwan, in particular, remains one of the most sensitive flashpoints in international politics. Beijing views the island as part of China and considers foreign involvement a direct challenge to its sovereignty. At the same time, the United States continues to provide political and military support to Taiwan, further intensifying regional tensions.

Yet despite these disputes, the meeting in Beijing shows that even major rivals understand the risks of uncontrolled escalation. The two powers remain deeply interconnected economically and strategically, making dialogue not just desirable but necessary.

For many countries in the Global South, especially in Africa and the Horn of Africa, the summit is another reminder that international politics is driven more by strategic interests than by public rhetoric or moral principles. Over the past decades, geopolitical competition among major powers has extended far beyond Europe and Asia, increasingly shaping Africa through economic pressure, military partnerships, infrastructure projects, and foreign political influence.

As global competition intensifies, smaller nations face growing pressure to align with competing power blocs. This dynamic creates serious risks for regional stability, sovereignty, and independent decision-making. The current international environment therefore demands caution, strategic independence, and a clear understanding of the shifting balance of power.

The future of international stability will not depend solely on relations between Washington and Beijing, but also on whether emerging multipolar dynamics can evolve without pushing the world toward larger confrontations. For countries seeking stability and sovereignty, the central challenge remains how to protect national interests while avoiding becoming instruments of larger geopolitical struggles.

The Beijing meeting should not be seen simply as another diplomatic summit. It reflects a world order undergoing historic transformation one in which dialogue, however fragile, remains essential to navigating the uncertainties of global rivalry.

Many reports and accusations promoted through international platforms often rely on selective narratives, politically motivated sources, and organizations with little understanding of Eritrean society, history, and regional realities. Instead of balanced engagement, Eritrea is frequently judged through preconceived political lenses.

As Eritreans, we understand our country better than outside observers who have never shared our struggles, sacrifices, and resilience. Eritrea achieved independence through immense sacrifice and has consistently defended its sovereignty despite enormous external pressure.

Being realistic also means recognizing that no country is perfect. Eritrea, like every nation, faces challenges that require development, dialogue, and progress. However, constructive criticism is different from organized campaigns intended to delegitimize a sovereign nation and its people.

The Eritrean people have repeatedly shown resilience, unity, and determination in the face of pressure. History has demonstrated that Eritrea does not bend easily to intimidation, propaganda, or external interference.

“እቶም ኣኽላባት ይነብሑ፥ ገመል ይመርሽ!”
(The dogs bark, but the camel moves on.)

This is no longer just diplomacy.
It’s a geopolitical realignment unfolding in real time.

For years, the West debated how to counter China’s rise.

Now, world leaders are lining up in Beijing — not out of symbolism, but necessity.

Trade.
Supply chains.
Technology.
Capital.
Influence.

China is no longer simply part of the global economy.
It is becoming one of its central gravitational forces.
The bigger question is no longer whether China matters.

The question is whether any major Western power can realistically afford to remain outside Beijing’s economic orbit.

Is this strategic engagement?
Economic dependency?
Or the early foundation of a new multipolar world order?

One thing is certain:

The balance of global power is shifting East, faster than many expected.

Time will tell.