The AU Cannot Preach Peace While Ignoring Threats to Sovereignty

by @dahlakib

The African Union’s recent statement marking the 25th anniversary of the Algiers Agreement was meant to reaffirm peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Instead, it highlighted a deeper problem: the AU’s growing reluctance to defend its own foundational principles when they are most needed.

At the core of the AU Constitutive Act is a clear commitment to respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the use or threat of force. These principles were designed to protect African states from exactly the kind of destabilization now threatening the Horn of Africa. Yet the AU’s statement made no explicit reference to them an omission that cannot be ignored.

This silence is particularly troubling given the recent conduct of the Ethiopian administration. For more than two years, senior Ethiopian officials including the Prime Minister, military leaders, diplomats, and other representatives have openly threatened to seize Eritrea’s port of Assab by force. Some have gone even further, publicly questioning Eritrea’s legitimacy as a sovereign state. Such rhetoric is not political posturing; it is a direct violation of the AU’s prohibition on threats of force and a dangerous normalization of expansionism.

Equally misleading is the continued portrayal of the Algiers Agreement as “unfinished.” Legally, the Agreement was implemented more than two decades ago. In April 2002, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission issued its final and binding decision, followed by virtual demarcation of the border in accordance with international law. There was no provision for appeal. Physical placement of boundary markers was a technical step that failed due to political obstruction not legal ambiguity.

By calling on “both sides” to recommit to peace without acknowledging these facts, the AU risks creating false moral equivalence. Peace agreements fail not because of mutual misunderstanding, but because violations are tolerated and accountability is avoided. Silence in the face of threats only emboldens them.

The issue is further complicated by institutional reality. The African Union is headquartered in Addis Ababa the capital of the state whose officials are issuing threats against their neighbors. While host status should not compromise neutrality, prolonged silence under these circumstances raises serious questions about credibility and independence.

Across Africa, the AU has repeatedly affirmed the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity in other conflicts. Those same standards must apply here. Principles lose meaning when they are applied selectively.

If the AU wishes to be seen as a credible guarantor of peace, it must move beyond symbolic anniversaries and vague statements. It must clearly and consistently defend sovereignty, reject threats of force, and uphold binding legal decisions regardless of who violates them.

Peace without principle is not peace at all. It is merely a pause before the next crisis.

Footnotes (with Links)

1. African Union Constitutive Act, Articles 4(a), 4(b), and 4(f):
   https://au.int/sites/default/files/pages/34873-file-constitutiveact_en.pdf
2. Algiers Peace Agreement (2000), Article 4 (establishing the EEBC and its final and binding mandate):
   https://www.peaceagreements.org/view/221/
3. Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border, 13 April 2002 (Final and Binding):
   https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/804
   (Permanent Court of Arbitration / EEBC official decision)
4. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1430 (2002), reaffirming the binding nature of the EEBC decision:
   https://undocs.org/S/RES/1430(2002)