Narrative Warfare Is Undermining Peace — International Law Cannot Be Rewritten by Political Spin

By ALULA FREZGHI

No story can change international law or justify illegal actions.

In Ethiopia, the ruling Prosperity Party is engaging in a strategic campaign of narrative warfare. This approach aims to legitimize unlawful ambitions in the region while avoiding blame for the rising tensions in the Horn of Africa. This is not diplomacy; it’s a calculated effort to twist public perception, distort legal facts, and undermine the principles of international peace, including those established by the United Nations Charter.

Trying to reframe expansionist goals using terms like self-defense, victimhood, or historical rights is not harmless rhetoric. It directly violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which clearly forbids the use of force against any country’s territorial integrity or political independence. If these narratives go unchallenged, they risk giving approval to actions that international law explicitly prohibits.

Moreover, there is a troubling trend of misusing regional and international institutions. Instead of promoting fair dispute resolution, these platforms are increasingly used to push one-sided political goals. Neutrality is compromised not only through blatant bias but also through silence and selective engagement. This decline in integrity weakens the ability of such organizations to foster peace, security, and cooperation in the region.

Eritrea has consistently emphasized a critical point that is often overlooked: multilateralism is not an end goal but a tool to protect legality, equality among nations, and mutual respect. When institutions fail to uphold these values or become vehicles for distorted narratives, stepping back should not be mistaken for isolationism. It is a principled rejection of their failures and political shortcuts.

Ignoring misleading narratives, especially those that seek to justify aggressive claims or normalize illegal actions, poses a serious risk to both regional and international order. In the Horn of Africa, where borders are clearly defined and recognized, allowing such revisionism threatens stability and encourages those who wish to change established norms.

The emergence of what some call “Erifluenza” is not a spontaneous reaction; it’s a well-planned narrative strategy aimed at hiding expansionist goals, shifting accountability, and creating false moral equivalences.

Eritrea’s stance is clear: we are committed to sovereignty, legality, and true regional stability. The credibility issue does not lie with Eritrea but with those attempting to rewrite recent history to justify future wrongdoings.

Eritrea firmly supports peaceful coexistence, lawful regional cooperation, and honest bilateral and multilateral engagement, while outright rejecting any effort to normalize coercion through misinformation or manipulation of institutions.