Weldu Ghebreselasie (PhD)
Speaking at the 118th Ethiopian Defense Force Day held at the Ethiopian Naval Force, the Chief of General Staff of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces once again lamented that it is unfair for Ethiopia to be denied access to the sea for the benefit of a community of two million—an unmistakable reference to Eritrea, even if the figure quoted is wrong for deliberate or other ulterior reasons. He argued that Ethiopia’s population will reach 200 million within the next 25 years, framing the country’s landlocked status as “illogical” under international law. He went so far as to accuse “historical adversaries” of depriving Ethiopia of maritime access and announced plans to further bolster the defense forces, accelerate development, and secure sea access for the country.
This rhetoric, bordering on absurdity, was echoed by the Prime Minister in his address to the People’s Representatives on 28 October 2025. He asserted that Ethiopia has a legal and historical right to the Red Sea and vowed to rectify “the mistake of the past 30 years.” In the same speech, he accused Eritrea of “warmongering” etc., warning that any war would have catastrophic consequences for Eritrea. Such obsession-driven statements reflect a persistent disdain for the sovereign rights of other nations, a disregard for international law, and the deep internal instability plaguing Ethiopia.
Ethiopian political figures seem to wish that international law would allow them to “own” a port and sea access. In doing so, they overlook a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” This principle aims to maintain international peace, develop friendly relations among nations, and foster international cooperation. Eritrea—whether home to two million people or twenty million—is a sovereign State entitled to the rights guaranteed under the UN Charter. The Prosperity Party (PP) cannot invoke international law to legitimize a goal that is, by its very nature, legally unattainable.
The repeated claim that Ethiopia has a legal and historical right to Eritrean ports is fallacious and a flimsy pretext for the PP’s war agenda.International audiences have heard it ad nauseam. The PP’s weaponization of myth, illusion, and disinformation to justify sea access starkly contradicts Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires all Member States to refrain from threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Ethiopia’s fixation on acquiring what rightfully belongs to another sovereign nation reflects a form of political narcissism—a disregard for others’ rights, norms, and laws.Psychological studies suggest that such narcissism often correlates with a lack of empathy and an inflated sense of entitlement.
The political immaturity and narcissism within the PP’s inner circle are most evident in the so-called People’s Representatives—a fawning assembly ready to erupt into thunderous applause at the mere mention of “returning to the sea.” The “distant sea” seems to illuminate their uncritical faces, giving their unrefined thinking an air of self-importance divorced from reality. Public opinion scholar Yankelovich once warned against such political delusion and inertia: “From an objective point of view, any discipline that seeks knowledge about the world must guard against the danger of passing off mere judgments as if they were facts.”
Belligerent behavior by narcissistic leaders often arises from frustration, leading to feelings of defeatism and reactions of rage. The PP leadership indeed exhibits traits associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)—a pattern marked by repeated violations of others’ rights, blatant disregard for laws and norms, and manipulative conduct. The PP’s audacious attempt to revoke Ethiopia’s previous recognition of Eritrea’s sovereignty is symptomatic of this disorder.
Ethiopia’s obsession with sea access also mirrors the PP’s warped political mentality, characterized by blame-shifting and denial of responsibility. Rather than acknowledging domestic failures, PP elites deflect blame onto “external enemies,” including Eritrea. Moreover, Nationalist sentiment—rooted in myth, antiquity, and exaggerated patriotism—is exploited to justify Ethiopia’s claims, while psychological warfare is employed to intimidate and demoralize Eritrea. In his parliamentary speech, the Prime Minister exaggerated Ethiopia’s military capacity to “unnerve the mind”—a strategy aimed at demoralizing, confusing, or coercing without firing a shot. As the saying goes, a small coin in a large jar makes the loudest noise. It is worth noting that Eritrea has not engaged in saber-rattling. Acting as a lackey for external powers, the PP has become a source of destabilization not only within Ethiopia but across the Horn of Africa.
Final Note
Ethiopia’s fixation on Eritrean sovereign territory cannot redraw international borders. Such obsession only threatens regional stability, for love—when rooted in obsession—is the most selfish of passions, denying others their right to exist as sovereign entities under the UN and AU Charters. Also, Eritrea’s restraint should not be mistaken for weakness; it is foresight and forbearance, not military pomp and caprice, that foster peace. PP leaders must realize that their greed and narcissism are already inflicting harm on Ethiopia itself. It is high time they embrace respect, peaceful coexistence, and genuine neighborliness.
