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.

This article rests on a selective interpretation of international law, an incomplete account of the history of the #Horn of #Africa, and a troubling attempt to recast legitimate concerns regarding #sovereignty and territorial integrity as evidence of political insecurity rather than lawful state responsibility. It is therefore necessary to address several of the issues raised in this selectively framed piece.

The title itself is particularly revealing. It reflects an increasingly common tendency in certain Prosperity Party (PP) political and intellectual circles to delegitimize Eritrea’s invocation of sovereignty by portraying it not as a foundational principle of international law, but as a form of concealment, obstruction, or paranoia. That framing is deeply problematic.

Sovereignty is not something #Eritrea must “hide behind.” Sovereignty is the cornerstone of the modern international legal order, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. For African states in particular, many of which emerged from colonial partition, territorial disputes, occupation, and prolonged external interference, the defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be dismissed as rhetorical posturing; these are existential legal principles rooted in painful historical experience.

For #Eritrea, these concerns are not theoretical. Eritrea emerged from a long anti-colonial and anti-annexation struggle following federation, annexation, and decades of war. #Ethiopia was not merely a neighboring state in #Eritrean historical memory; it was Eritrea’s former colonizer. That historical experience inevitably shapes Eritrea’s understanding of sovereignty, borders, and national survival.

As the Amharic proverb aptly states: “የወጋ ቢረሳ የተወጋ አይረሳም” — “The one who inflicted the wound may forget, but the one who was wounded never does.” The proverb captures an essential reality often ignored in external analyses of #Eritrea: historical memory shapes national security consciousness. States and peoples that endured annexation, war, occupation, territorial disputes, sanctions, and prolonged external pressure do not, and cannot, approach questions of sovereignty lightly or abstractly.

From an #Eritrean perspective, sovereignty is therefore not an abstract diplomatic slogan or tactical political shield. It is inseparable from the sacrifices made during one of Africa’s longest liberation struggles and from the determination to prevent any return, direct or indirect, to arrangements perceived as compromising Eritrea’s hard-won independence and territorial integrity.

To suggest that Eritrea’s insistence on sovereignty somehow masks illegitimate motives effectively reverses the legal burden. It implies that smaller states defending internationally recognized borders must justify their concerns, while larger regional powers, advancing inflammatory hegemonistic ambitions and openly invoking “historical rights,” “natural entitlement,” or “strategic necessity” regarding maritime access, are treated as merely pursuing economic pragmatism.

From Eritrea’s perspective, the issue has never been whether Ethiopia, as a landlocked state, possesses legitimate developmental interests in commercial maritime access. Eritrea has never disputed that principle. International law already recognizes the rights of landlocked states to negotiated access and freedom of transit. The issue is whether such ambitions are being articulated and pursued in a manner consistent with the UN Charter, sovereign equality, and the prohibition against the threat or use of force.

Article 2(4) of the @UN Charter prohibits not only the use of force, but also the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. International law does not require states to wait for military invasion before taking seriously rhetoric, strategic signaling, or political discourse carrying coercive implications. Preventive vigilance regarding credible coercive signaling is fully consistent with the sovereign right of states to safeguard their territorial integrity and political independence.

Against this backdrop, Eritrea’s concerns regarding Ethiopia’s increasingly assertive discourse on Red Sea access are neither irrational nor propagandistic. Senior Prosperity Party (PP) officials, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, have repeatedly framed maritime access in existential and revisionist terms, invoking notions of “historical rights,” “natural entitlement,” and strategic inevitability. #Ethiopia|n political discourse surrounding Red Sea access has at times gone even further, with prominent figures openly declaring that Ethiopia would obtain maritime access “peacefully if possible and militarily if necessary.”

This rhetoric has not emerged in isolation. It has been accompanied by a broader climate of increasingly normalized irredentist discourse on Ethiopian social and political media platforms, including circulation of altered maps depicting Assab and portions of sovereign Eritrean territory as part of Ethiopia. Independent fact-checking organizations documented multiple instances in which maps were digitally manipulated to incorporate Assab into Ethiopian territory amid heightened public debate surrounding #RedSea access.

Equally troubling were images and videos circulated from military-linked events and social media accounts showing #Ethiopia|n military figures displaying maps incorporating portions of southern #Eritrea into #Ethiopia during public ceremonies associated with special forces mobilization and nationalist messaging. Whether officially sanctioned or not, the widespread dissemination of such imagery contributed to a political environment in which revisionist territorial narratives increasingly entered mainstream discourse.

Taken together, these developments cannot reasonably be dismissed as harmless nationalist symbolism. In a region with a long history of interstate war, contested borders, and unresolved territorial grievances, such rhetoric and imagery carry legal and security implications that responsible states are entitled to take seriously under the precautionary logic embedded within Article 2(4) of the @UN Charter.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed himself publicly characterized Red Sea access as an existential issue for Ethiopia and suggested that the matter could not remain unresolved indefinitely. International media and regional analysts increasingly warned that such rhetoric, combined with military mobilization and nationalist agitation surrounding Assab, risked contributing to renewed regional instability and fears of interstate confrontation.

The 2024 Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and #Somaliland further heightened tensions, particularly as Somalia formally rejected the arrangement as an infringement upon its sovereignty and territorial integrity. These developments underscore precisely why questions of maritime access in the Horn cannot be divorced from wider legal and security considerations.

Equally problematic is the article’s selective treatment of the 1998–2000 Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict.Eritrea’s borders were not undefined or ambiguous constructs. They were established through the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties concluded between imperial Italy and imperial Ethiopia. These treaties formed the legal basis upon which the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), established under the Algiers Agreement, based its delimitation ruling.

Critically, the EEBC’s final and binding decision awarded Badme, the principal flashpoint and casus belli of the 1998–2000 conflict, unequivocally to #Eritrea. That fact is legally fundamental. It demonstrates that the territorial dispute centered on areas ultimately determined by the competent international arbitral body to fall within Eritrean sovereignty.

The article also misrepresents the role of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission by implying that it definitively adjudicated the broader origins of the war. As legal scholars, including analyses published in the European Journal of International Law, have noted, the Claims Commission was not specifically mandated to comprehensively determine the origins of the conflict. The independent investigative mechanism envisaged under Article 3 of the Algiers Agreement for that purpose was never constituted.

Thus, no authoritative international process ever fully examined the broader antecedents of the conflict, including tensions arising from contested administration, local clashes, militia activity, mapping disputes, and allegations of encroachments into sovereign Eritrean territory during the 1990s, as well as the unprovoked assault by Ethiopian troops against an #Eritrean army unit in the Badme area on 5 May 1998. What was conclusively determined, however, was the territorial issue itself. And on that question, the #EEBC ruled in #Eritrea’s favor.

The defining legal and political crisis of the post-war period therefore was not Eritrea’s rejection of international law, but Ethiopia’s refusal, for nearly two decades, to implement a binding arbitral ruling it had expressly agreed would be “final and binding.” This remains one of the most consequential contradictions in discussions surrounding the rule of law in the Horn of Africa.

At stake was not merely a bilateral border dispute, but the integrity of international arbitration itself. If states may disregard binding arbitral rulings when politically inconvenient, the credibility of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms under international law is fundamentally undermined.

The article’s treatment of the 2009 sanctions regime is similarly incomplete. From #Eritrea’s perspective, the sanctions imposed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907 emerged from a highly politicized process shaped by Ethiopia’s manipulation of #IGAD and the @AfricanUnion. The allegations underpinning the sanctions were strongly contested and were never established through an independent judicial process meeting accepted evidentiary standards.

For many Eritreans, the sanctions episode remains a troubling example of the instrumentalization of multilateral institutions for geopolitical purposes. Indeed, many #Africa|n observers viewed the process with deep discomfort, recognizing the damaging precedent of one #Africa|n state mobilizing punitive international measures against another amid contested allegations. The eventual lifting of sanctions in 2018 further underscored the fundamentally political nature of the process.

The article also presents Eritrea’s National Service Program in a highly reductionist manner. While external narratives often portray the program solely through a militarized lens, Eritrea’s national service system has long included substantial civic and developmental components. National Service graduates contribute across ministries, schools, colleges, hospitals, infrastructure projects, local administrations, and diplomatic missions abroad.

More importantly, the statutory 18-month duration of National Service was prolonged largely as a consequence of the prolonged no-war-no-peace environment and continued security threats emanating from unresolved tensions with successive Ethiopian governments.

At the same time, Ethiopia itself has, in recent years, undergone extensive military mobilization, major arms acquisitions, and repeated internal armed conflicts across multiple regions. Numerous international organizations, media investigations, and even #Ethiopian institutions have documented serious abuses in regions such as Amhara and Oromia, including extrajudicial killings, drone strikes affecting civilians, arbitrary detentions, mass displacement, and attacks on civilian infrastructure.

A balanced and credible analysis cannot selectively invoke human rights concerns only where they reinforce preferred geopolitical narratives while minimizing or contextualizing large-scale violence elsewhere.

More broadly, #Eritrea’s foreign policy has consistently emphasized sovereign equality, non-interference, regional ownership, and resistance to hegemonic arrangements in the Horn of Africa. #Eritrea’s invocation of sovereignty is not “camouflage”; it reflects the historical experience of a state that emerged from one of Africa’s longest liberation struggles and subsequently endured war, sanctions, prolonged territorial occupation, and sustained external pressure.

Regional integration and economic cooperation in the Horn are both necessary and achievable. Eritrea has never opposed negotiated frameworks for trade, connectivity, or maritime access grounded in mutual consent and international law. What Eritrea rejects, correctly, is the normalization of rhetoric implying that the strategic ambitions or demographic weight of larger states entitle them to exceptional arrangements at the expense of the sovereignty and security concerns of smaller neighbors.

Ultimately, the issue is not opposition to Ethiopia’s development. It is the insistence that all regional ambitions remain firmly anchored within the principles of international law: sovereign equality, territorial integrity, non-interference, pacta sunt servanda, and the prohibition against coercion enshrined in the Charter of the @UN.

As for future Eritrea–Ethiopia relations, or “settlement,” as the author characterizes it, prudence, realism, and historical experience counsel patience rather than premature and unrealistic optimism.

Genuine peace and stable relations between neighboring states cannot be manufactured through diplomatic slogans, external pressure, or intellectual wishful thinking. They must emerge organically, gradually, and on the basis of mutual respect, consistency, reciprocity, and trust built over time.

Lasting peace cannot be rushed, especially after the considerable goodwill and historic opportunity extended in 2018 were ultimately undermined by a leadership in Ethiopia that failed to consolidate reconciliation internally, regionally, and institutionally. Sustainable peace in the Horn of Africa will require seriousness, strategic patience, and above all, an #Ethiopia that is first at peace with itself.

By Ambassador Sofia Tesfamariam
Published by AS Geopolitical Analysis

The two sides have now further deepened their cooperation. During a high-level visit in April 2026, discussions focused again on renewable energy, infrastructure, and vocational education. New solar projects in the Gash-Barka region and the development of the Massawa–Tesseney road connection were among the key topics discussed.

Representatives from both sides emphasized their commitment to strengthening long-term cooperation and supporting sustainable growth in Eritrea.

Sources:
African Development Bank Group, April 6, 2023, and May 11, 2026.

The operation came after more than five days of intense fighting, during which government forces regained control following heavy clashes with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and fighters from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N).

The recapture of Al-Kaily is considered a significant military achievement for the SAF, given the town’s strategic location in the border region and its wider importance for regional security.

Analysts monitoring Sudan’s crisis argue that the SAF’s success carries implications beyond Sudan’s internal battlefield. They suggest that this development represents a major strategic setback for Abu Dhabi and caution that it could potentially open a new front of confrontation involving Ethiopia, a close ally of the UAE.

Tensions in Blue Nile State remain high, as ongoing clashes between armed groups continue to undermine stability in the area.

Sources:
Anadolu Agency – Sudanese army captures Al-Kili area in Blue Nile from RSF
MSN News – Sudanese army recaptures strategic town of Al-Kaily in Blue Nile

“Sanctions against Eritrea were justified for years on security allegations. Yet fundamental questions remain unresolved: Where is the conclusive evidence?”

Until recently, Eritrea was widely portrayed in international discourse as an isolated, sanctioned state under heavy political pressure. In much of the Western media narrative, it was framed as an outlier — a difficult actor, a geopolitical problem at the Horn of Africa.  

Today, however, that tone is shifting. Even the United States appears to be reassessing its stance toward Eritrea. Reports of potential diplomatic re-engagement and discussions surrounding the easing of remaining sanctions suggest a clear shift in geopolitical reality. With this, Eritrea’s strategic relevance is being redefined.  

International politics is undergoing structural transformation. The era of uncontested Western dominance is gradually eroding. New centers of power are emerging, global trade routes are increasingly contested, and strategic regions such as the Red Sea are regaining critical importance.  

What has often been underestimated is Eritrea’s long-term strategic view. While many states adapted their policies to external pressure or short-term interests, Eritrea maintained a consistent focus on sovereignty, independence, and strategic autonomy. This approach brought sanctions, isolation, and sustained criticism but it also preserved Eritrea’s political orbit. That persistence is now reshaping how the country is perceived internationally.  

For years, sanctions against Eritrea were justified on the basis of security allegations and regional instability. Yet fundamental questions remain unresolved.   

Where is the conclusive evidence?  Why was there never a fully transparent international investigation?  Why were severe political measures maintained for so long despite growing doubts about the original claims?  

Across Africa, Eritrea has come to symbolize more than just a state. It represents an attempt by an African nation to define its own path independently of global power blocs. This is not about opposition to the West. Eritrea is not calling for confrontation. It is calling for respect for its policy of self-reliance.  

Among younger generations across the continent, there is growing awareness of how sanctions, narratives, and economic pressure have often been deployed against states that pursue independent political paths. Within this context, Eritrea has gained symbolic significance. Its principled self-reliance policy has allowed it to maintain sovereignty under the shadow of Western political and economic pressure.  

The Horn of Africa is one of the most strategically significant regions in the world. The United States, China, Russia, Gulf states, and other global actors are competing for influence, access, and positioning in the Red Sea corridor.  

In this new geopolitical landscape, Eritrea can no longer be ignored. Its geographic location and sustained political stance place it firmly within the regional playbook being shaped by both Western and Global South powers.  

Reports of possible normalization between Eritrea and the United States reflect a broader shift, international politics is adapting to new realities. Eritrea’s strategic self-reliance policy stands as a lesson in resilience a refusal to collapse under external pressure.  

Eritrea is not seeking special treatment. It is seeking equal treatment and respect for its political stance.  

In the emerging world order, Eritrea will remain in its own political orbit whether the international system chooses to engage with its self-reliance policy or continue relying on pressure and exclusion.  

One fact is already clear, Eritrea can be sanctioned. But it can no longer be ignored. 

By Dr. Nurit Ali
Dr. Nurit Ali is interest in justice and politics

In the heart of every Eritrean, May stands as a sacred symbol of freedom. It is not merely another page on the calendar  it is the memory of blood, sacrifice, hope, and the unbreakable determination of a people who refused to surrender.

For Eritrea, May marks the end of oppression, colonialism, and suffering. It is the month when the sun of liberty rose over the nation, shattering the darkness of foreign domination. That is why, every May, the heartbeat of Eritrea grows stronger.

The full-moon nights of May carry a unique spirit. Across the country, songs of freedom echo through the streets. Children wave the Eritrean flag with pride. Drums resound in cities and villages alike. Artists celebrate liberty through poetry, music, and theater. Families dance together, while the youth carry the pride of the nation deep within their hearts.

The younger generation celebrates this month with joy and gratitude. Many of them never experienced war or oppression firsthand, yet they understand that the freedom they enjoy today was purchased with the blood and sacrifice of thousands of martyrs.

Eritrea’s past was marked by pain and unimaginable hardship. Men and women fought under brutal conditions in the mountains, valleys, and deserts of the Sahel. They endured hunger, suffering, and death so that future generations could live in dignity and freedom.  

Eritreans remember this past not to remain trapped in sorrow, but to grasp the true value of liberty.

On May 24, 1991, Eritrea was finally liberated after decades of armed struggle. The bell of freedom rang across the nation, announcing the end of oppression and foreign rule.  

Two years later, on May 24, 1993, the Eritrean people overwhelmingly confirmed their independence through a historic referendum. The world recognized the will of a people who had never surrendered.  

On May 28, 1993, the Eritrean flag was raised at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York. Eritrea became the 182nd member of the UN — a moment of immense pride, dignity, and historical significance.  

Soon after, Eritrea joined the African Union. On May 4, 1994, its flag was raised in Addis Ababa, symbolizing continental recognition of Eritrea’s long and arduous struggle for freedom.

The Legendary “Operation Commando”

May also recalls one of the greatest military achievements in Eritrea’s liberation struggle: the legendary Operation Commando of 1988.

Despite limited resources and overwhelming odds, Eritrean fighters inflicted devastating defeats on the enemy. Planned with discipline and precision under extreme conditions, young men and women risked their lives deep inside enemy territory and returned as heroes.  

Their names became legends. Their actions became history.  

Operation Commando proved to the world that determination, unity, and belief in freedom can be stronger than tanks, aircraft, and massive armies. Even Eritrea’s adversaries were forced to acknowledge the extraordinary bravery of its fighters.  

To this day, the operation continues to inspire Eritreans across the globe.

May is more than a month. It is a living monument to Eritrea’s martyrs a time of honor heroes, glory, and national unity.  

It remembers the heroes who sacrificed their lives so Eritrea could live in freedom: mothers, fathers, and young fighters who never lost hope. A people who, despite hunger, war, and suffering, refused to surrender.  

That is why Eritrea celebrates May every year with pride, dignity, and deep gratitude.  

Because May will forever remain:  

– The Month of Freedom 
– The Month of Heroes 
– The Month of Eritrean Pride