From port access to the inviolability of internationally recognized borders:
Why Eritrea’s position matters far beyond the Horn of Africa
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.