Asmara, October 10, 2026 — Tensions between Eritrea and Ethiopia appear to be escalating further, following serious allegations by the Eritrean government against its neighboring country. Eritrea has called on the United Nations Security Council to take action against what it describes as Ethiopia’s declared intentions to wage war against Eritrea.

According to the Eritrean government, communications submitted by Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the UN Security Council on October 9, 2026, indicated that Ethiopia was taking measures to implement its stated military objectives.

Asmara has rejected Ethiopia’s reported attempts to justify its actions on grounds of self-defense, describing such arguments as unfounded and an attempt to legitimize potential military aggression against a sovereign UN member state.

Eritrea Warns of Threats to Its Sovereignty

The Eritrean government maintains that it has repeatedly alerted the international community to what it describes as Ethiopia’s efforts to secure sovereign access to the sea by threatening Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

According to Asmara, Ethiopia’s alleged threats and military plans violate fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly those concerning respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against another state.

Eritrea argues that its independence and internationally recognized borders must be respected and that any attempt to alter them through military force would represent a serious threat to regional peace and security.

Eritrea Cites International Warnings

The Eritrean government has also referred to statements issued by the UN Secretary-General and several UN member states in December 2025, marking the 25th anniversary of the Algiers Agreement.

According to Asmara, those statements emphasized the importance of respecting Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity amid growing regional tensions.

Eritrea alleges that Ethiopia failed to heed these warnings and instead continued pursuing what Asmara characterizes as long-standing military plans against Eritrea, allegedly linking them to military operations in northern Ethiopia.

These allegations have not been independently verified in this report.

Alleged Statement by Ethiopian Military Official Raises Concern

Particular attention has been drawn to remarks allegedly made on September 27, 2026, by General Abebaw Tadesse, Ethiopia’s Deputy Chief of Staff.

According to the Eritrean government’s account, the general stated that the ultimate objective of the war was to invade Assab, while Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray administrative region, was merely a stopover on the way to an invasion of Eritrea.

Asmara views the alleged statement as evidence of possible military intentions against Eritrean territory. However, the quotation and its context require independent verification before they can be treated as established fact.

The port city of Assab, located on Eritrea’s Red Sea coast, is strategically significant to regional trade and maritime access. Any military confrontation involving the area could have serious implications for security and stability across the Horn of Africa.

Eritrea Demands Action from the UN Security Council

The Eritrean government has urged the UN Security Council to strongly condemn what it describes as Ethiopia’s declaration of war and to adopt appropriate deterrent measures.

Asmara warns that a further escalation could cause extensive destruction and suffering among the populations of both countries while destabilizing the wider region.

A separate summary accompanying the Eritrean communication states that the government has lodged a complaint with the United Nations and demanded an end to what it considers provocations and territorial violations. The precise legal basis and wording of that complaint should be confirmed against the original submission.

Regional Stability at Risk

The latest allegations underscore the fragile relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia, two neighboring countries whose political and security relations have been marked by conflict and persistent tensions.

A renewed military confrontation could have far-reaching humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical consequences, potentially affecting neighboring countries and further complicating security across the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region.

The response of the UN Security Council remains to be seen. Independent verification of Eritrea’s allegations, together with an official response from the Ethiopian government, would be essential to establishing a comprehensive picture of the situation.

Editorial note: This article presents the position of the Eritrean government. The allegations and the quotation attributed to the Ethiopian military official have not been independently verified for this report. The original diplomatic communications and relevant official statements should be consulted before publication.

In a press statement issued by Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, apparently in response to the El-Alamein Declaration, Addis Ababa pays lip service to “peaceful engagement, mutual respect, and regional cooperation.” It further urges “all regional actors to address shared challenges through constructive dialogue, partnership, and adherence to the principles of good neighborliness.”

But this is precisely the crux of the matter.

The PP’s diplomatic rhetoric notwithstanding, the prevailing tensions gripping the Horn of Africa cannot be divorced from the policies and actions pursued by Addis Ababa over the past several years—policies that have undermined international law and the prospects for genuine regional cooperation.

Ethiopia and access to the ports of the Horn

Ethiopia has access to the ports of the Horn of Africa through commercial and transit arrangements. In what can reasonably be described as a buyers’ market, it has considerable latitude to enter into mutually beneficial commercial agreements with the coastal states concerned.

Yet the Prosperity Party has chosen to pursue an agenda of aggression and confrontation against Eritrea in an effort to acquire what it calls “sovereign access to the sea.”

This approach disregards the fundamental distinction between commercial access and sovereignty.

A landlocked country’s legitimate need for access to international markets can be addressed through negotiated commercial arrangements. It does not confer sovereign rights over the territory of a neighbouring coastal state.

Assab and the question of strategic depth

As spelled out in previous public statements by Ethiopia’s foreign-policy establishment, the issue has also extended beyond the port of Assab itself.

The argument has been advanced that:

“Without the protective depth offered by the Dahlak islands, Assab remains an exposed coastal facility vulnerable to hostile naval power…”

and that any enduring arrangement for Ethiopia would therefore have to consider both access to the coast and the strategic depth required to protect that access.

This raises a fundamental question.

If access to Assab requires consideration of the surrounding southern coastal zone and the Dahlak Islands, then the issue can no longer be presented merely as a question of commercial port access.

It becomes a question of territorial sovereignty and integrity.

Somalia and Sudan

The same pattern, according to Minister Yemane Gebremeskel, can be seen in Ethiopia’s relations with Somalia and developments surrounding Sudan.

The memorandum of understanding signed between Ethiopia and Somaliland has been rejected by Somalia as a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ethiopia has also faced allegations concerning support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan, including allegations of assistance linked to the United Arab Emirates. These allegations remain politically contested, but they form part of the broader regional security concerns surrounding Ethiopia’s foreign policy.

From Eritrea’s perspective, such developments have contributed unnecessarily to tensions that could instead be addressed through respect for sovereignty, dialogue and genuine regional cooperation.

Geographical proximity does not create sovereign rights

Finally, the suggestion that Ethiopia’s geographical proximity to the Red Sea somehow entitles it to the rights and responsibilities of the littoral states is, in legal terms, without foundation.

Geography may determine economic interests and strategic considerations. It does not, however, create sovereignty.

Ethiopia is a landlocked state. Eritrea is a littoral state.

Ethiopia’s need for reliable access to international trade routes can be addressed through commercial agreements, transit arrangements and cooperation with coastal neighbours. It cannot create a sovereign entitlement to another state’s coastline.

The distinction is fundamental:

Access is not sovereignty.
Commercial use is not territorial ownership.
Geographical proximity is not a legal title.

If Addis Ababa genuinely seeks peaceful engagement, mutual respect and good-neighborliness, those principles must be reflected not only in diplomatic statements but also in state conduct.

For Eritrea, the issue is therefore clear: regional cooperation must be based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity—not on claims derived from geography, strategic necessity or economic interest.

The joint declaration focused on sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference and regional cooperation. These principles are particularly relevant to Eritrea, given its position on the Red Sea and its wider security interests in the Horn of Africa.

The participants discussed the security of the Red Sea and the importance of freedom of navigation. They also emphasized the role of the Red Sea littoral states in addressing security and governance issues affecting the waterway.

For Eritrea, participation in the summit provides a direct regional forum to address issues affecting its security and its relations with neighboring states. The format also places Eritrea alongside Egypt, Sudan and Somalia in discussions concerning the wider Red Sea and Horn of Africa region.

Sudan was another major issue on the agenda. The four countries reaffirmed their support for Sudan’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity and called for efforts toward a political resolution of the conflict.

The summit also addressed Somalia, including the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the wider security situation in the country.

On the Nile, the participating states emphasized cooperation and the application of international law to shared water resources.

One of the practical outcomes was an agreement to maintain regular consultations between the four countries. This creates a continuing mechanism for discussing regional developments rather than relying only on occasional summit meetings.

From an Eritrean perspective, the importance of the meeting lies primarily in its regional setting. Eritrea participated as a sovereign Red Sea and Horn of Africa state, with its own security interests and foreign-policy priorities.

The summit does not resolve the region’s disputes, but it establishes a framework for continued political consultation among four states with significant interests in the same strategic region.

The Ethiopian Government issued a Press Statement today announcing the closure of the Eritrean Embassy in Ethiopia, as well as declaring ten Eritrean diplomats, including the Chargé d’Affaires and other Eritrean diplomats accredited to the African Union, persona non grata.

To justify these unwarranted acts of hostility, the Ethiopian Government has turned the tables and accused Eritrea of “direct and indirect acts of hostility and belligerence against Ethiopia.”

This is astounding indeed.

In reality, it is Ethiopia that has been pursuing an agenda of incessant hostility — in effect, a publicly pronounced declaration of war — against Eritrea for three years, in pursuit of “the imperative of acquiring sovereign access to the sea” through the invasion of sovereign Eritrean ports and coastal areas.

In parallel with these aggressive intentions, Ethiopia has gone further to host, train, and provide arms to an assortment of what it calls “Eritrean armed opposition groups” in an effort to stoke internal conflict and pursue “regime change” in Eritrea.

Throughout these trying times, Eritrea has displayed patience and restraint in the hope of averting a dangerous escalation.

In the current circumstances, however, Eritrea has no option but to reciprocate in kind and sever all diplomatic ties with Ethiopia, with all the negative corollaries that this entails.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Asmara

1 October 2026

In this exclusive interview with Eritrea Profile, Ogbu reflects on her upbringing in the Eritrean diaspora, her experience representing Eritrea at the United Nations, her research on rural solar energy and self-reliant development, and her vision for inspiring a new generation of Eritrean youth.

From promoting Eritrea’s history on the global stage to documenting the country’s renewable energy strategy, Ogbu explains why she believes Eritrea’s experience offers valuable lessons for Africa and beyond.

Read the full interview below and discover how one young Eritrean scholar is working to bridge history, technology, and national development while amplifying Eritrea’s voice around the world.
https://x.com/i/status/2085020335771091369

Source:
Eritrea Profile – Interview by Kidane Shimendi, “Grounded in History, Driven by Tech: A Diaspora Scholar’s Mission for Eritrea.