Ethiopia Wants Eritrea’s Coastline Like a Thief Wants a Spare Key

by Ghidewon Abay Asmerom

A nation cannot remedy its internal dysfunction by attempting to annex the geography of its neighbors, yet Ethiopia’s recent rhetoric insists otherwise. Its leaders claim that population size, poverty, historical memory, development needs, or regional resemblance somehow entitle them to Eritrea’s sovereign coastline. But every one of these arguments collapses under the weight of even the simplest analogy. Their logic is as broken as their state, and their excuses crumble the moment they are translated into everyday terms. Take the following:

1. The notion that a large population confers a right to someone else’s port. That is no different from a man insisting that because his family is large, he is free to break into his neighbor’s house and use their kitchen. Size does not create ownership; population is not a property deed.
2. The claim that poverty entitles Ethiopia to another country’s coastline is equally warped. It mirrors the thinking of a man who says, “I’m broke, so I have a right to take my neighbor’s car.” Poverty explains a need; it does not validate theft.
3. Even more absurd is the protestation that Ethiopia was “cheated” during the Scramble for Africa because it did not receive a coastline. This is like the child who joined a neighborhood fight, threw stones at everyone, stole lunchboxes, and then complained that it was unfair he didn’t receive the biggest slice of cake afterward. One cannot claim injustice while boasting about all the grabbing one participated in.
4. The historical argument—perhaps the weakest of all—that “history gives Ethiopia a right to the Red Sea.” This is the logic of a squatter who illegally occupied a house for decades, was finally evicted, and then returns thirty years later claiming, “I can’t find the eviction notice, so I should still have the keys.” Temporary occupation is not ownership. Illegality does not transform itself into title deeds simply because time has passed.
5. The idea that Ethiopia “deserves” Assab because its Ethiopia’s occupation was courtesy of the Americans, the British and the Soviets is even more absurd. It is the geopolitical equivalent of a hostage taker telling his victim: “I held you captive, abused you, violated your rights for forty years; now that you have freed yourself, I should be allowed back into your home.” The occupation ended. The victim reclaimed their life. The boundaries are settled. The only sensible response is: leave, and don’t come back.
6. The development argument collapses just as quickly. Claiming “we need the sea for development, therefore Eritrea must give it to us” is like a man insisting that because he wants to start a business, the bank’s money is automatically his. Need is not entitlement. Development requires cooperation, agreements, contracts—not confiscation dressed up as economic necessity.
7. The cultural argument is thinner still. Claiming that Ethiopia and Eritrea “look alike” and therefore should share ports is on par with saying: “My neighbor and I both wear T-shirts, so I deserve a key to his backyard.” Similarity does not erase sovereignty.
8. The grievance about landlocked geography fares no better. Declaring it “unfair” that Ethiopia lacks a coastline is the complaint of a man living on the tenth floor demanding the right to use someone else’s garden. Geography is not a moral injury; it is a fact of nature. And the plea that regret over past decisions somehow justifies taking land today bears the logic of a gambler who lost everything at the casino and insists he deserves another person’s paycheck to make up for past stupidity. Regret does not rewrite reality.
9. Finally, the argument that Ethiopia’s “big economy” entitles it to Eritrea’s sea is no more credible. It is the reasoning of a wealthy rancher telling a small farmer: “Because I have more cows, your land should be mine.” Wealth is not a warrant. Size is not a claim.

When these claims are stripped of slogans and expressed in plain, everyday terms, their true absurdity becomes impossible to deny. The entire narrative is an attempt to disguise internal crises with external fantasies, to convert domestic failure into territorial ambition, and to turn Eritrea into the scapegoat for problems Ethiopia refuses to confront.

No nation earns a coastline through need, nostalgia, or noise. No amount of rhetorical inflation turns desperation into law. Sovereignty is based on borders, not excuses—and those borders do not bend to the analogies Ethiopia accidentally lives out every day.