Red Sea Tensions: Abiy Ahmed’s Claims, Eritrea’s Sovereignty, and the World’s Inaction

By David Yeh

Eritrea’s sovereignty over its territory, including its Red Sea coastline, is an established fact recognized internationally since its independence. The historical record shows that while Abyssinian powers expanded into some of the Eritrean highlands, they never controlled the Red Sea coastal areas. These regions, including the strategic ports of Massawa and Assab, were historically autonomous and later under Ottoman, Egyptian, or Italian administration before Eritrea became an Italian colony. Eritrea achieved de facto independence in 1991 following decades of liberation struggle, and this independence was formalized with international recognition in 1993. Despite repeated claims and narratives from Addis Ababa, it is historically inaccurate to assert that Ethiopia ever held sovereignty over Eritrea’s Red Sea ports. The use of historical revisionism to justify territorial claims ignores both Eritrea’s longstanding struggle for self determination and the established international legal norms that protect sovereign borders.

Potemkin Party Chief Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia has publicly emphasized his view that Ethiopia’s access to the Red Sea is a matter of existential and historical necessity. In multiple speeches beginning in October 2023, Abiy asserted that securing direct, permanent access to a Red Sea port is a “natural,” “historical,” and “existential” right for Ethiopia, framing it as essential for a landlocked nation projected to reach 150 million people by 2030. In these addresses, Abiy described Ethiopia’s reliance on ports in Djibouti, Somalia, and Sudan as unsustainable, and he linked the quest for port access to Ethiopia’s long term economic survival. He emphasized that, should diplomatic negotiations fail, force might be considered, stating that “if not us, our children will make it happen,” invoking both historical claims to the Aksumite Empire and a broader narrative of rectifying what he views as historical injustice. In addition, he publicly floated the possibility of offering shares in Ethiopian enterprises, including Ethiopian Airlines, Ethio – Telecom, or the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, in exchange for port access. This approach demonstrates a willingness to negotiate economically, but it also frames the acquisition of a port as non – negotiable, raising concerns about Ethiopia’s respect for Eritrean sovereignty.

Abiy’s rhetoric has further escalated tensions by referencing global examples to justify coercive ambitions. He cited the Israeli position on the Golan Heights as a precedent, suggesting that, in his view, nations can secure territory by force when necessary for survival. This framing normalizes the idea that Ethiopia might use military means to achieve access to Eritrean ports if negotiations fail, disregarding international law and the sovereignty of neighboring states. Despite the provocative nature of these statements, Eritrea has not engaged in any military posturing, nor has it supported opposition groups within Ethiopia. Eritrea has consistently maintained a defensive and measured stance, respecting international norms and signaling that it will defend its sovereignty without initiating conflict.

It is also important to clarify the historical relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrean ports. Ethiopia did not lose access to the sea in 1991; it continued to use the ports of Massawa and Assab freely until 1998. The cessation of port usage was voluntary on Ethiopia’s part, occurring in the context of rising tensions that culminated in the 1998–2000 Eritrea – Ethiopia war. Ethiopia refused to use the ports even for humanitarian purposes and declared it would not return. Eritrea’s sovereignty over its ports remained unchallenged during this period, and its restraint contrasts sharply with Abiy Ahmed’s current rhetoric, which frames the cessation of access as an injustice requiring redress.

Abiy has portrayed Ethiopia’s need for port access as an existential imperative for a population exceeding 120 million people, with projections reaching 150 million. He argues that relying on ports in Djibouti, Somalia, and Sudan is unsustainable, describing Ethiopia’s landlocked status as a “geographic prison” and suggesting that a failure to secure a port could provoke future conflict in the Horn of Africa. He has made repeated references to historical grievances and framed the Red Sea access issue as central to Ethiopia’s national survival, invoking both demographic and economic arguments to justify his position. In doing so, he conflates legitimate developmental concerns with a territorial claim over sovereign Eritrean land.

The international community has been largely silent in response to these provocations. Despite Ethiopia’s public statements and escalating rhetoric, including threats of potential military action, regional and global organizations have not issued strong warnings or undertaken meaningful mediation. The African Union, the United Nations, and key Western powers have maintained a muted stance, failing to affirm Eritrea’s sovereignty unequivocally or deter coercive claims. This silence not only emboldens Ethiopia’s ambitions but also undermines the credibility of international norms protecting territorial integrity. The lack of robust engagement creates a dangerous precedent in the Horn of Africa, a region already beset by conflict and humanitarian crises in Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Eritrea’s position remains consistent with both regional stability and international law, yet the absence of firm international support leaves Eritrea in a position where it must continue exercising vigilance and restraint.

Abiy’s efforts to secure port access have included both economic and political maneuvers. In early 2024, Ethiopia signed a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland to lease a section of coastline for potential port use. Somalia strongly objected, viewing this as a violation of its sovereignty. Djibouti, which hosts the vast majority of Ethiopia’s trade, has similarly rejected Ethiopia’s territorial ambitions, emphasizing that its sovereignty and the integrity of its ports are non – negotiable. These responses demonstrate that neighboring states view Ethiopia’s claims as threatening and unacceptable, highlighting the risks associated with coercive territorial ambitions. Eritrea’s measured response, refraining from military escalation or support for opposition movements within Ethiopia, underscores its commitment to international law and regional stability.

Eritrea’s historical, legal, and strategic position reinforces the legitimacy of its sovereignty. The coastal Red Sea areas were never under Abyssinian control; Ethiopia’s empire expanded only into some of the highlands of present day Eritrea. The ports of Massawa and Assab remained outside the Abyssinian administration and were subsequently incorporated into Italian Eritrea, with local autonomy prior to colonization. Eritrea’s independence in 1991, followed by international recognition in 1993, established the modern legal framework for its borders. Any claims suggesting that Ethiopia has a historical right to control these ports are inconsistent with historical records and international law. Furthermore, Eritrea’s consistent restraint, including the absence of military mobilization and non – interference in Ethiopia’s internal conflicts, contrasts sharply with Ethiopia’s aggressive rhetoric, framing Eritrea as a responsible regional actor that respects international norms.

Abiy’s rhetoric conflates historical narrative, demographic necessity, and economic strategy to justify claims over Eritrean territory. He has described Ethiopia’s Red Sea access as an “inalienable right,” emphasizing that failure to secure a port threatens national survival. Yet this rhetoric ignores Eritrea’s legitimate sovereignty and the historical reality that Ethiopia never held control over the Red Sea coastline. By framing Eritrea’s ports as a target for potential coercion, Abiy risks destabilizing the Horn of Africa, undermining regional peace, and violating fundamental principles of international law. Eritrea’s defensive stance, in contrast, demonstrates a principled approach grounded in legality, restraint, and strategic prudence.

The potential consequences of coercive attempts to acquire Eritrean ports are severe. Military action, even if limited to the Assab region, could spark wider conflict, drawing in neighboring states and destabilizing an already fragile region. Eritrea’s position, characterized by defensive readiness and adherence to international norms, is the best guarantee against escalation. The international community’s muted response thus represents a critical failure, allowing Ethiopia’s ambitions to remain unchecked and creating unnecessary risk for the Horn of Africa. Eritrea’s restraint, legitimacy, and legal sovereignty demand unequivocal recognition and protection from external actors.

Ethiopia’s domestic context further exacerbates the risk. Internal conflicts, including the civil war in Amhara region and ethnically based unrest, have weakened the state, strained economic resources, and created humanitarian crises. Abiy’s focus on external territorial ambitions over internal stability reflects a diversionary strategy that seeks to galvanize nationalist sentiment while deflecting attention from domestic shortcomings. This approach not only increases the risk of conflict with Eritrea but also undermines prospects for peace and development within Ethiopia itself. Eritrea, by contrast, has remained focused on protecting its own territory while avoiding involvement in Ethiopia’s internal disputes, reinforcing its role as a stabilizing actor.

Abiy’s insistence on achieving port access, coupled with historical revisionism and threats of force, highlights the asymmetry between Ethiopia and Eritrea. While Ethiopia positions itself as entitled to Eritrean ports based on historical grievances and demographic needs, Eritrea relies on established legal norms, measured diplomacy, and defensive readiness. This asymmetry underscores the importance of international engagement to prevent escalation, affirm Eritrea’s sovereignty, and discourage coercive claims. Eritrea’s defensive posture and consistent adherence to international law serve as a model of responsible state behavior in a volatile region.

In summary, Eritrea’s sovereignty over its territory and Red Sea ports is indisputable, grounded in historical reality, legal recognition, and prudent statecraft. Ethiopia’s claims under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, framed in historical, existential, and demographic terms, are inconsistent with historical facts and international norms. The Red Sea coastline was never under Abyssinian control, Ethiopia voluntarily ceased using the ports in 1998, and Eritrea has consistently maintained a defensive, non-provocative stance. Despite these facts, the international community has largely remained silent, failing to actively uphold Eritrea’s sovereignty and provide deterrence against coercive ambitions. This silence risks emboldening aggressive rhetoric, destabilizing the region, and creating the conditions for potential conflict. Eritrea’s restraint, legitimacy, and adherence to international law must be fully recognized and defended. Protecting Eritrean sovereignty is essential not only for Eritrea itself but for the stability and security of the entire Horn of Africa.

Eritrea has shown strategic restraint, relying on diplomacy, law, and measured readiness to maintain its territorial integrity. Its refusal to support Ethiopian opposition groups, coupled with the absence of any military posturing, demonstrates a commitment to peace and adherence to international law. In contrast, Ethiopia’s repeated statements emphasizing historical entitlement, demographic necessity, and willingness to use force create significant regional risk. Abiy’s rhetoric, linking Ethiopia’s Red Sea ambitions to historical claims and citing international examples such as the Golan Heights, normalizes coercive measures that contravene sovereignty norms. The international community’s failure to respond decisively reinforces this risk, leaving Eritrea as a steadfast, responsible actor in a region facing multiple conflicts.

In defending its sovereignty, Eritrea stands not only for its own territorial integrity but also as a guardian of regional stability and international law. Its position highlights the difference between a nation seeking defensive security and one pursuing aggressive territorial ambition. Ethiopia’s pursuit of Red Sea access, framed as a historical and existential imperative, cannot justify violating Eritrea’s sovereignty or international law. Eritrea’s measured, disciplined, and legal approach demonstrates that principled state behavior, rather than coercion, remains the path toward lasting stability in the Horn of Africa. International actors must recognize and support Eritrea’s position to prevent escalation, uphold legal norms, and maintain regional peace.