23/04/2025
So Ethiopia’s push for Red Sea access is “existential,” but Eritrea’s reaction is a “threat”? That’s some premium-grade geopolitical spin. Apparently, maps don’t matter.
A Counter-Narrative to Neo-Colonial Framing and Selective Memory
This entire piece reeks of a narrative constructed to justify Ethiopia’s expansionist ambitions and mask Western and Gulf states’ economic and military interests in the Red Sea corridor., while presented as analytical journalism, functions more as an ideological manifesto cloaked in geopolitical anxiety. It weaponizes a selective reading of history, exaggerates Eritrea’s faults while sanitizing Ethiopia’s aggressive posturing, and ultimately reinforces the narrative architecture of international powers that view the Horn of Africa through a lens of control, not truth or justice. To challenge this narrative requires a bold confrontation with the facts.
1. Who Is the Real Regional Destabilizer—Eritrea or Ethiopia?
Mr. Ayele paints Eritrea as the “regional flashpoint,” but fails to mention that:
Ethiopia violated the Algiers Agreement (2000), which was internationally mediated and awarded Badme to Eritrea. Ethiopia refused to withdraw for nearly 18 years.
Ethiopia’s so-called “existential” Red Sea ambition, spearheaded by PM Abiy Ahmed, is de facto expansionism. Abiy publicly referred to Eritrea’s coastline as historically Ethiopian—a blatant disregard for internationally recognized sovereignty. How is that not destabilizing?
It was Ethiopia’s 2023 MoU with breakaway Somaliland, not Eritrea, that sparked a realignment of regional powers. That move directly undermined Somalia’s sovereignty and invited Egypt’s military support. Eritrea simply responded defensively.
Question: Why does the analysis excuse Ethiopia’s history of treaty violations, border provocations, and regional meddling while vilifying Eritrea for asserting its sovereignty?
2. Is Eritrea’s “Authoritarianism” Really Exceptional—or Just Uncooperative with Western Narratives?
Yes, Eritrea has a militarized governance system and strict controls—but to reduce its entire governance to “brutality” ignores context:
Eritrea emerged from a 30-year liberation war and remains in a state of suspended peace due to Ethiopia’s refusal to honor border agreements. Its governance is a wartime posture shaped by survival, not caprice.
The “human rights” narrative is selectively deployed. Ethiopia, during the Tigray War, was accused of ethnic cleansing, mass sexual violence, and starvation as a weapon. UN and Amnesty International reports implicate Ethiopian and allied forces, including drone strikes on civilians. Where is the outrage over this?
Question: Why is Eritrea’s authoritarianism condemned as exceptional, while Ethiopia’s systemic abuses are rationalized as “growing pains” or “missteps in democratization”?
3. Eritrea’s Military Posture Is Strategic Deterrence—Not Provocation
Eritrea’s Red Sea positioning gives it enormous strategic leverage. That leverage is earned, not stolen. If the U.S. or China had Eritrea’s coastline, they’d militarize it tenfold.
The so-called “missile tests” in Assab were defensive and symbolic—especially in the face of Ethiopia's open calls to reclaim port access.
Eritrea’s alignment with Iran, while controversial, is no more provocative than Ethiopia’s arms deals with Turkey, UAE, and Israel. The double standard is glaring.
Question: Why are Ethiopia’s military alliances applauded as strategic, while Eritrea’s are pathologized as “rogue” or “destabilizing”? Is this about sovereignty—or compliance?
4. Eritrea’s Conscription Is a Symptom of Regional Militarization, Not the Cause
National service in Eritrea is often criticized—yet Israel has mandatory conscription, as does South Korea. Eritrea’s program has been prolonged due to existential threats, notably from Ethiopia.
The same critics ignore Ethiopia’s repeated conscription of ethnic militias, including child soldiers during the Tigray War. Why does only Eritrea’s conscription make headlines?
Question: If security threats persist from a neighbor with 120 million people and a history of military aggression, is long-term national service a tyranny—or a rational security doctrine?
5. Ethiopia’s Economic Model Is Externally Dependent and Ethnically Fragile
Eritrea is one of the only African nations to reject IMF/World Bank loans post-independence. It paid a price, but it retained economic sovereignty.
Ethiopia, in contrast, has accrued massive external debt ($30+ billion) and is now financially entangled with UAE, China, and the West. Its economy is a bubble propped by geopolitics.
Internally, Ethiopia is imploding from within—Amhara-Fano conflicts, Oromo resistance, Tigray insurgency—yet this is barely acknowledged in Mr. Ayele’s piece.
Question: How is Ethiopia portrayed as a “diplomatic stabilizer” while engulfed in civil unrest and economic dependency?
6. Eritrea’s Vision: Self-Reliance, Sovereignty, and Strategic Leverage
Eritrea has built a foreign policy independent of Western diktats. It supports Palestine openly, rejects military bases from foreign powers, and maintains a non-aligned stance that irritates both West and East.
Eritrea's economic base, though small, is grounded in real productivity—like mining and fisheries—not foreign-funded mega-dams built on disputed rivers (GERD).
Question: Is Eritrea hated not because it’s authoritarian, but because it refuses to be a pawn?
Conclusion: Who Writes the Narrative, and for Whose Interests?
This entire piece reeks of a narrative constructed to justify Ethiopia’s expansionist ambitions and mask Western and Gulf states’ economic and military interests in the Red Sea corridor.
Eritrea is not perfect. But to reduce its geopolitical position to a rogue state narrative while glossing over Ethiopia’s internal collapses, regional provocations, and treaty violations is not journalism—it’s imperial propaganda masquerading as analysis.
Until critiques like Mr. Ayele’s start with balance and context, they should be read not as truth—but as instruments of geopolitical manipulation.
Let’s not forget: History does not belong to the powerful—it belongs to those who survive. And Eritrea has survived everything thrown at it.
