Every landlocked country has the right to access the sea for maritime purposes, a principle explicitly affirmed under UN Resolution Article 125. However, this does not imply that the resolution grants territorial sovereignty.

Ethiopia’s current narrative on sea access largely driven by external actors is not genuinely focused on securing a legitimate maritime lifeline or trade routes to support economic development. Instead, it reflects a troubling agenda: an opportunistic playbook by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), designed to entangle Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa in perpetual conflict. The ultimate aim is to carve out geopolitical advantage in port investments and exploit the region’s natural resources, undermining stability and sovereignty in the process.

Criticizing the UAE’s hazardous war strategy in Africa crafted to protect its questionable investments is one thing. But ignoring the willingness of certain African leaders to serve as instruments of Abu Dhabi’s proxy agenda is the height of naïveté. The Emirates would never have the nerve to implant destabilizing policies without the complicity of these easily‑bought leaders.

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 United States has removed sanctions imposed on the Eritrean Defense Forces and other Eritrean entities, according to a September 18 notice from the U.S. Department of the Treasury reported by Reuters. The sanctions were originally imposed in 2021 during the conflict in northern Ethiopia. Reuters reports that Eritrea’s Information Minister Yemane Gebremeskel welcomed the removal, describing the earlier measures as unwarranted and damaging to Eritrea.

For Eritreans, however, the significance of this moment reaches beyond the lifting of a designation.

It touches something much older: the experience of a people who have spent generations learning to endure pressure without surrendering their sense of national sovereignty.

Eritrea’s resilience was not created by sanctions, and it will not disappear with their removal.
It was formed long before today’s diplomatic language.
It was formed through a history in which Eritreans repeatedly confronted circumstances in which the existence, independence and political choices of the country were contested by forces far more powerful than Eritrea itself.

That history helps explain why Eritrean society has often viewed external pressure through a different lens from the one used in foreign capitals.

For many Eritreans, sanctions were never simply an entry on a government list. They were experienced within a much broader historical memory — a memory shaped by colonial rule, federation, annexation, armed struggle, independence and the continuing effort to protect sovereignty in one of the world’s most strategically contested regions.

The sanctions imposed in 2021 were connected by Washington to Eritrean actors and the war in northern Ethiopia. The U.S. Treasury at the time stated that the measures targeted the Eritrean Defense Force, the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice and other Eritrean entities and individuals under Executive Order 14046.

Five years later, the political circumstances have changed.
The sanctions have been removed.

But the deeper question is what this change tells us about Eritrea’s place in the region.

Eritrea sits on one of the most consequential maritime corridors in the world. Its coastline stretches along the Red Sea, facing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. Reuters noted that the renewed attention to the Red Sea and the region’s changing security environment has increased the strategic significance of Eritrea’s location.

This is where Eritrea’s history and geography meet.

A country does not choose its geography.
Eritrea did not choose to stand beside the Red Sea, next to the Bab el-Mandeb, at the meeting point of Africa and the Middle East. But generations of Eritreans have understood that geography brings both opportunity and vulnerability.

The Red Sea has always been more than water surrounding the country.
It has been a corridor of civilizations, commerce, military competition and political influence.
And Eritrea has remained there through all of it.
That continuity matters.

The removal of sanctions does not erase the disputes and competing interpretations surrounding the wars of the region. Nor does one policy decision rewrite the historical record. But it does demonstrate something important about international politics: policies change as circumstances change, and relationships that once deteriorated can also move in another direction.

For Eritreans, this is precisely why national resilience has mattered.
Resilience is not the absence of hardship.
It is the ability to remain standing while hardship changes form.

At different moments, Eritrea has faced military pressure, diplomatic isolation, economic restrictions and international campaigns of criticism. The country’s response has repeatedly been shaped by the conviction that its national interests cannot simply be outsourced to external powers.

That conviction has deep roots.
The independence struggle itself was built around an insistence that Eritreans should determine Eritrea’s future.
That principle did not begin with independence in 1993.

It was forged through decades of struggle.
It survived war.
It survived displacement.
It survived political isolation.
And it survived the difficult years that followed independence.

This is why the removal of sanctions should not be understood simply as a victory over another country, nor as the end of every disagreement between Eritrea and the outside world.

It is better understood as another chapter in a much longer story.

A story in which Eritrea has repeatedly been forced to navigate an international environment where powerful states pursue their own strategic interests, regional alliances shift, and yesterday’s assumptions can become today’s liabilities.

Eritrea remains.
That is the part of the story that is easiest to overlook.

International headlines often move rapidly from one crisis to another. Governments change positions. Alliances evolve. Sanctions are imposed and later removed. Strategic priorities shift.

But countries with long historical memories measure time differently.

For Eritreans, resilience is measured across generations.

It is found in the memory of those who fought.
In the families who endured separation.
In communities that rebuilt after destruction.
In a generation that carried education, culture and national identity through extraordinary circumstances.
And in a people who continue to see sovereignty not as an abstract diplomatic word, but as something purchased through sacrifice.

The September 2026 decision therefore deserves to be viewed within that longer context.

The United States has changed its position toward Eritrean entities that were sanctioned in 2021. Eritrea has welcomed the measure. Reuters has also noted the potential significance of Eritrea’s strategic position along the Red Sea.

What comes next will depend on politics, diplomacy and the interests of the states involved.

But one thing is already clear.

Eritrea’s story did not begin with the sanctions.
And it will not be defined by their removal.

The deeper story is the endurance of a nation that has spent much of its modern history navigating pressure from outside while attempting to preserve its own political space.

That is what resilience means in the Eritrean context.

Not the absence of pressure.
Not the absence of hardship.
But the refusal to allow either to determine the final chapter.

Eritrea remains a country shaped by its history, its geography and the determination of its people to decide its future.

And history, as Eritreans know better than most, is rarely finished when the headlines disappear.

General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his accompanying delegation were warmly received by President Isaias Afwerki upon their arrival at Asmara International Airport.

The current visit forms part of the periodic consultative framework between the two sisterly countries, reflecting the importance both Eritrea and Sudan attach to direct dialogue and regular exchange at the highest level.

Strengthening Bilateral Relations

During the working visit, President Isaias Afwerki and General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan will discuss the enhancement of bilateral ties, as well as regional and international issues of mutual interest.

The consultations come against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving Horn of Africa and Red Sea region, where stability, sovereignty, security, and constructive relations between neighbouring countries remain of fundamental importance.

For Eritrea and Sudan, maintaining regular communication provides an important avenue for addressing shared concerns and strengthening cooperation based on mutual interests and respect for national sovereignty.

Eritrea and Sudan: Neighbours with Shared Interests

Eritrea and Sudan are linked by geography, history, and longstanding ties between their peoples. Their proximity also means that developments affecting one country inevitably have implications for the wider regional environment.

Regular consultations between Asmara and Khartoum therefore represent more than routine diplomatic engagement. They provide an opportunity for the two neighbouring countries to exchange perspectives, coordinate where their interests converge, and reinforce channels of direct communication.

Eritrea has consistently emphasized the importance of regional countries taking ownership of their affairs and pursuing solutions through dialogue, while respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Asmara’s Role in Regional Diplomacy

The visit by General al-Burhan once again highlights Asmara’s role as an important venue for regional political consultations.

President Isaias Afwerki’s engagement with neighbouring countries has placed strong emphasis on direct dialogue and frank discussions concerning developments in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.

The meeting with General al-Burhan provides another opportunity for such consultations, particularly on issues of mutual concern to Eritrea and Sudan.

A Continued Commitment to Dialogue

The working visit underscores the value both countries place on maintaining direct, high-level communication.

At a time of profound challenges across the region, strong relations between neighbouring states are increasingly important. Eritrea and Sudan’s continued consultative framework offers a channel through which the two countries can discuss their interests, strengthen bilateral ties, and exchange views on regional and international developments.

General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s arrival in Asmara is therefore not simply a diplomatic visit. It is a reaffirmation of the enduring relationship between Eritrea and Sudan and of their commitment to continued consultation, mutual respect, and cooperation.

Asmara remains a place where regional issues can be discussed directly, openly, and with the interests of neighbouring countries at the center of the conversation.

Sixty-five years ago, in the rugged lowlands of Eritrea, a decision was made that would change the course of history.

On September 1, 1961, Hamid Idris Awate and his small group of fighters opened fire against the forces of Ethiopian domination. The first shots of the Eritrean armed struggle were fired.

For Eritreans, this was not simply the beginning of a war.
It was the beginning of a national determination.
It was Bahti Meskerem — the day a people who had exhausted every peaceful and political avenue decided that their dignity, identity, and right to determine their own future could no longer be surrendered.

A People Who Refused to Be Erased

Eritrea’s road to independence did not begin with the first rifle shot.

For years, Eritreans had pursued their aspirations through political organization, petitions, diplomacy and peaceful resistance. After the defeat of Italian colonial rule, Eritreans sought to determine their own political future.

Instead, in 1950, the United Nations adopted a federal arrangement linking Eritrea with Ethiopia.
The federation was supposed to protect Eritrea’s autonomy and institutions.

Instead, those guarantees were progressively dismantled.
Eritrean political freedoms were restricted. National institutions were weakened. Eritrean symbols and identity were attacked. Eventually, Ethiopia unilaterally abolished the federation and annexed Eritrea in 1962.

The international community watched.
And Eritreans understood a painful lesson: their freedom could not be entrusted to the interests of foreign powers.
The struggle for self-determination had been denied through diplomacy.

The road to armed resistance was therefore born from years of political struggle, frustration and the refusal to accept permanent domination.

September 1: The First Step on a Long Road

When Hamid Idris Awate raised the rifle on September 1, 1961, he could not know what the following thirty years would demand.

He could not know the mountains that would become battlefields.
He could not know the generations that would sacrifice their youth.
He could not know that the struggle he helped ignite would ultimately transform Eritrean history.

But he understood something fundamental:

A people that abandons its dignity loses more than territory. It loses its future.
Awate therefore became a symbol of the decision to resist.
His legacy is not measured merely by the first shots he fired. It is measured by what those shots represented: the refusal of Eritreans to disappear as a people.

Thirty Years of Sacrifice

The struggle that began in 1961 would become one of Africa’s longest and most demanding wars of national liberation.
Eritreans faced forces vastly superior in military resources and manpower. Yet the struggle survived.
It survived because it was carried not only by fighters in the field, but by an entire society.
Farmers, workers, mothers, fathers, students, refugees and communities across Eritrea contributed to the national cause.
Generations endured displacement, loss and hardship.

Thousands gave their lives.
Many never returned home.

They did not make those sacrifices because independence was easy.
They made them because they believed that freedom, dignity and national existence were worth defending.

That is why Eritrean independence cannot be reduced to a political declaration or a diplomatic agreement.

It was earned through sacrifice.

From Adal to Asmara

The road from September 1, 1961 to May 1991 was long and extraordinarily difficult.

Yet the Eritrean people endured.
When Eritrean forces entered Asmara in 1991, the armed struggle had reached its decisive victory.

Two years later, in 1993, the Eritrean people overwhelmingly confirmed independence through a referendum.
For Eritreans, this completed a journey that had begun decades earlier.
The world could finally see what Eritreans had refused to surrender:
Eritrea was a nation determined to exist on its own terms.

Independence Was Not a Gift

This is perhaps the most important lesson of Bahti Meskerem.

Eritrean independence was not handed to Eritrea by a foreign power.
It was not a gift from a great nation.
It was not the result of somebody else’s generosity.
It was the product of a people’s determination and sacrifice.

That history matters.

Because nations that forget the price of their freedom can easily forget the value of their sovereignty.

Eritrea must therefore remember.

Remember Awate.
Remember the fallen.
Remember the fighters who never saw independence.
Remember the families who carried the burden of war.
Remember the communities that survived displacement and destruction.
And remember the generations who believed that Eritrea’s future belonged to Eritreans.

Bahti Meskerem Is More Than a Date

September 1 is not simply another date on the calendar.

It is a day of remembrance.
It is a day of gratitude.
It is a day of national reflection.

But above all, it is a day of dignity.

Bahti Meskerem reminds Eritreans that our history was written by people who refused to surrender their identity.

It reminds us that unity was forged through shared hardship.
It reminds us that the Eritrean flag carries the memory of those who sacrificed everything so that future generations could live under it.
And it reminds us that sovereignty is not merely a word.

Sovereignty is responsibility.

Eritrea’s Future Belongs to Eritreans

Today, Eritrea faces a different generation of challenges.

The battlefield has changed.
The weapons are different.
The pressures are different.

But the fundamental principle remains unchanged:

Eritrea’s future must be determined by Eritreans.

A sovereign nation must protect its independence, preserve its national identity, strengthen its institutions, develop its economy and give its young people reasons to build their future at home.
Patriotism is therefore not only about remembering yesterday.

It is about building tomorrow.

The greatest tribute to those who gave their lives for Eritrea is not merely to speak their names.
It is to ensure that their sacrifice was not in vain.

To the Eritrean People

To every Eritrean — at home and across the world — September 1 carries a message.

Our differences must never become greater than the history we share.
Our disagreements must never erase our common identity.
Our future must never be surrendered to division.

We are connected by a history that cannot be rewritten by political fashion, foreign narratives or temporary circumstances.
We are connected by the sacrifices of those who came before us.
We are connected by Eritrea.

One people. One history. One national dignity. One sovereign homeland.

Bahti Meskerem — Forever

Sixty-five years after the first shots at Adal, the meaning of September 1 remains powerful.

A small beginning became a national revolution.
A revolution became independence.
And independence became a responsibility passed from one generation to the next.

The men and women who began the struggle did not know exactly what the future would bring.
But they knew what they refused to accept.

They refused to live without dignity.
They refused to see their identity erased.
They refused to surrender their homeland.
And they refused to believe that Eritrea had no future.

That spirit is the enduring meaning of Bahti Meskerem.

We remember the fallen.
We honor the veterans.
We defend the truth of our history.
We protect our unity.
We build our nation.
And we carry Eritrea forward.

Happy Bahti Meskerem — September 1, 2026.

65 years of resistance.
65 years of sacrifice.
65 years of national determination.

Eritrea was not given her freedom. Eritreans fought for it.

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.