I recently submitted this article to a major Ethiopian media outlet, recognizing its wide circulation, which could help reach a wider Ethiopian audience and tackle the myriad disinformation and misinformation afflicting our southern neighbors. I was not shocked by their refusal, but by their reasoning. The media outlet explained that it “prohibits providing a platform for content that could harm Ethiopia’s national interest.” The platform recognized Ethiopia’s right to (sovereign) access the sea, which Ethiopian officials have consistently pursued through peaceful and constructive negotiations. I leave it to the reader to judge if Ethiopia’s national interests are ill-served by this article and if engaging the platform was wasteful.
How and why was Ethiopia motivated to claim Eritrea in the 1940s? Was it Hailesilase’s first target? What was John Spencer’s role in this? Where have we seen this “give-and-take” idea before? Where will the daily saber-rattling by the Ethiopian regime and its supporters take the country and the region at large? The article, a condensed translation of the original Tigrigna article “ሃንቅሃንቃ ባሕሪ – ዛንታ በዓቲ ‘ኣለጎሪ’, will chronologically cover these topics.
Plato’s allegory of the cave portrays mentally conditioned prisoners, shackled at neck and ankle, held captive inside a cave while a bonfire burns behind them in the middle of it. The prisoners cannot see anything beyond the shadow on the wall in front of them that is created by the fire’s flickering reflection. As a result, they perceive this shadow as the entirety of existence. Like the prisoners in Plato’s cave, several Ethiopian pundits, political groups, and their adherents remain imprisoned by the delusional agenda that owning a sea coast will solve the country’s economic and geopolitical issues.
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to urge these category of Ethiopians to courageously challenge the learned history and narratives that have been ingrained in them. It is a gentle reminder for them to recognize and reject the misguided ambition that has plunged their fertile land into the swamp of poverty for way too long.
The September 1991 edition of the “Harbegna” (i.e. “Patriot”) magazine aptly captured Eritrea’s enduring belief in cooperative partnerships. In an article titled “Interview with comrade Isaias Afwerki”, the magazine asked about future relations with neighboring countries. Isaias Afwerki, the then Secretary General of Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and current President of Eritrea, explained that “with Ethiopia and Sudan, for example, we can fight external pressures and conspiracies together, cooperate in capital investment through joint programs, use each other’s resources to eradicate external dependence. Therefore, instead of just arranging our own, separate programs, it is undoubtedly better to work by charting programs with extensive and far-reaching implications. Our thinking must also broaden on par with this level. This may have previously existed only as an idea. However, I think it is important to have keen awareness and understanding of it now as it is heading towards becoming a reality.”
Based on this prudent principle, the Eritrean government closed shut the past dark history of oppression and massacres, without demanding any compensation or apology from the Ethiopian Government and allowed Ethiopia to use Eritrean ports under preferential terms in the early years of independence. This stance did not change even after the post-independence invasions. On March 24, 2000, in the middle of war, Eritrea opened its Assab port for use by the international aid effort that was mobilized to feed a large section of the Ethiopian population. But Ethiopian authorities rejected the humanitarian offer.
Ethiopian leaders, unfortunately, have not availed themselves of Eritrea’s good neighborliness. A 2024 strategy document released by the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) under the title of “The Grand Strategy of Two Waters” confirmed Eritrean ports are indeed open for Ethiopian use. This document admitted “since our relations normalized in 2018, the Eritrean side demonstrated a desire to resume port services. However, this is not sustainable. In summary, internal and external factors have constrained Ethiopia’s aspirations of port ownership.” The document argued that these “obstacles” cannot be overcome “unless Ethiopia ignores international and regional laws, including its neighbors’ territorial integrity and sovereignty, it will not succeed to own its own ports”.
These days, as before, some Ethiopian elites and others within the ruling party are planting seeds of hatred and protracted hostility that will deprive the Horn of Africa peace for generations to come. Armed with the evil slogan used to agitate for war “where there is hunger, the law is of no avail,” they are trumpeting mendacious propaganda ad-nauseam to enable their expansionist political discourse garner the desired attention they so believe. It’s claimed that Ethiopia’s population-driven economic crisis was caused by the lack of a sovereign sea outlet that it “had owned but lost”. The last assertion is patently false. And, international law does not recognize population size or economic “need” as legitimate basis factors for gaining sovereign access to the sea. If that was the case, it would open a Pandora’s Box of territorial disputes globally.
In a speech to the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had the temerity to justify his expansionist plans by claiming that “Ethiopia has a natural right to have a sovereign gateway to the Red Sea… the Red Sea is Ethiopia’s natural border and that this is supported by historical, geographical, racial, ethnic and economic arguments. Moreover, for Ethiopia, not directly owning an outlet in the Red Sea is a matter of existence.”
Suddenly, taking their cue from the Prime Minister and discarding their previous praise of Eritrea as their sole “friend during the hard times”, the regime’s propagandists began unleashing venomous barrage of attacks against Eritrea’s independence and sovereignty.
Whenever this undying expansionist ambition is raised in Eritrea, there is a widespread view that all arguments made by Ethiopia are illegitimate and therefore it is pointless and a waste of time to entangle oneself in their ridiculous agenda. However, it is important to tirelessly repeat the obvious and objective truth to refute their lies from misleading especially the Ethiopian people.
Going back in time, Ethiopia reached the Red Sea coast for the first time in its history in 1952, after illegally annexing Eritrea under the guise of a “Federation” endorsed by foreign superpowers. For 39 years, until 1991, it violently controlled the coast through reign of terror and widespread massacres.
Ethiopia during the 20th century
In the beginning of the 20th century, when the whole of Africa came under European colonization, Robert Pete Skinner, the United States Consul General in France, established an office in the port city of Marseille. The American diplomat was captivated by the bountiful raw materials being transported to this city bustling with commercial activities. Hence, he set out to undertake further research on the source. As he observed the variety of supplies being unloaded from the ships, he realized the significant amount of profit Europe was collecting from its exploitation and plundering of Africa’s resources. It was then that he schemed to make his country a beneficiary of this blessing.
Until this period in time, the United States had shown little interest in Africa. That is why Robert Skinner repeatedly messaged his government, doing his utmost to draw attention to, and capitalize on, the potential of this rich continent.
There were two points that motivated his country’s effective use of Ethiopia as the gateway to enter Africa. The first was that Ethiopia (then called Abyssinia) was the only African territory that had not fallen under European colonial rule and was thus unrivaled while the second being that the recently crowned emperor was eager to establish trade relations with foreign powers. Also at that time, the United States was beginning to change its isolationist stance. President William McKinley, before his assassination, had said that “indeed, the politics of isolationism is no longer viable for us, neither do we desire it.”
Inspired by this policy change and on the basis of the scheme he designed, Skinner endeavored hard to establish contact with Ethiopia, which he dubbed as “the country chosen to play a major role in Africa’s future”. As a result of his efforts, President Theodore Roosevelt allowed Skinner to himself lead a delegation and visit the emperor. It was after this visit that the United States established official diplomatic relations with the Abyssinian kingdom and signed various trade deals (Ruth Simon, Ethiopia: Kabey Nabey). As an outcome of this contact, Addis Ababa became the location of the first American consulate in Africa in 1903. Thereafter, the belief that the only way to secure US interests in Africa in general, and in East Africa in particular, was by placing Ethiopia at the center of this strategic network of interests, became ingrained in the thinking of US politicians and policy pundits. That is why Ethiopia was chosen as the anchor country in the region. But in order for Ethiopia to fulfill its chosen mission of protecting American interests, there must be a “clientele regime” in the country. That is what happened.
“Through Eritrea, to the sea” John Spencer
In modern Ethiopian history, initiatives and conspiratorial schemes to attain a sea outlet began during the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie. At that time, Ethiopia’s focus was on ports belonging to three different countries. The port of Zeila in Somalia; the port of Djibouti; and the Eritrean ports of Assab and Massawa. When Emperor Haile Selassie set his eyes on these four ports, he was not trying to reclaim what he lost, rather he was vying to attain what he previously never had.
This is where the truth begins. The port of Zeila was the primary focus of the Emperor’s attention. However, the Emperor’s adviser, John Spencer, in his personal memoir “Ethiopia at Bay: A Personal Account of the Haile Selassie Years”, documented in detail (from p. 141) that since the port was under British rule and Britain being a close ally of the United States, he advised the emperor that pursuing the port of Zeila would be viewed as open hostility towards Britain and therefore impossible to execute.
The Emperor then turned his attention towards the port of Djibouti. Again, the advisor rendered the Emperor’s ambitions as unwinnable on the grounds that this would cause trouble with France, which ruled Djibouti and was one of the main allies of the United States. After that, it was the advisor that made a proposal.
After World War II ended with victory for the Allied forces and the defeat of Italy, Eritrea and Somaliland came under British military rule while Ethiopia regained its independence under Emperor Haile Selassie. Keenly aware of the prevailing circumstance, John Spencer took advantage of this opening to turn the emperor’s attention to Eritrea to quench Ethiopia’s thirst for ports and sea outlet. Emperor Haile Selassie had concerns and asked if “it was possible to annex Eritrea” since it was under the British military administration at the time. Whatever trick he had up his sleeve, John Spencer reassuringly dispelled the emperor’s concerns by saying, “don’t worry about it; just leave it to us. The US government will prepare a plan to realize this goal.” Thereafter, Emperor Haile Selassie, convinced by John Spencer’s advice, turned his full attention towards Eritrea for the realization of his ambitions.
Following the defeat of Italy, the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 was signed to determine the fate of the former Italian colonies – Eritrea, Libya and Somalia. The Treaty entrusted the Allied powers (USA, UK, France, and Soviet Union) to decide the future of the Italian colonies within one year. If they could not agree, the matter was to be referred to the UN General Assembly (Alemseged Tesfai, An African People’s Quest for Freedom and Justice, p. 101).
The British proposed to partition Eritrea with the western parts going to Sudan and the highlands and coastal areas awarded to Ethiopia. The US oscillated but ultimately proposed Eritrea to form a full union with Ethiopia. France proposed that Eritrea remain under Italian trusteeship while the Soviet Union supported international trusteeship. As they could not agree on the future of Eritrea, the matter was referred to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1948 as previously agreed. It’s to be noted here that Ethiopia supported the British partition plan when full ownership seemed unlikely to succeed (Alemseged Tesfai, An African People’s Quest for Freedom and Justice, p. 122-123). Eventually, through the 1950 UNGA decisions, Libya and Somalia were granted independence while Eritrea was forced into a dubious “federation” with Ethiopia.
It was the US that hatched and sponsored this so-called “federation” with the dual aim of realizing imperial Ethiopia’s sea ambition and guaranteeing US strategic and security interests in the Red Sea. Indeed, recently declassified documents of the US State Department’s Office of the Historians, titled “Disposition of the former Italian Colonies”, clearly spell out the true objective of the Federal Act. The memorandum prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated “as to the nature of the rights in Eritrea, the Joint Chiefs of Staff would state categorically that the benefits now resulting from operation of our telecommunications center at Asmara—benefits common and of high military importance to both the United States and Great Britain—can be obtained from no other location in the entire Middle East-Eastern Mediterranean area. Therefore, United States rights in Eritrea should not be compromised.”3 Instead, the Eritrean people’s rights were sacrificed!
Support for Ethiopia, “the strategic ally”, took precedence over Eritrea’s legitimate rights of self-determination. And it was substantial support given by the US government infiltrated platforms that availed it opportunities to influence the process. For instance, Edward Mulcahy was an American diplomat who served as the consular officer in Eritrea from December 1949 till 1952. In a 1989 interview with journalist Charles Stuart Kennedy, Mulcahy notes that he had been assigned to Asmara just as “the UN Commission of Inquiry, on which we were not represented, was going out to recommend to the General Assembly what the future of Eritrea should be. They wanted me to get out there and keep Washington informed on a daily basis, if possible, what the tilt of the report or recommendations of this UN Commission of Inquiry would be. It consisted of South Africa, Burma, Guatemala, Norway, and a number of people from the secretariat, including two Americans. I lived in the hotel, the principal hotel, where they lived and saw them at practically all meal times and entertained them over at the small military base, then called Radio Marina.”4 Reading between the lines, it is not difficult to imagine the level of influence Mulcahy’s relationship with the Commission had on the latter’s report and recommendations.
Federation Decision: Pre-annexation of Eritrea
Emperor Haile Selassie had worked hard on the diplomatic front to convince the vital importance of Eritrean ports for Ethiopia’s economic sustainability. Ironically, Ethiopia and the UK also promoted the false narrative that Eritrea was not viable economically as an independent nation. But how is a non-viable Eritrea supposed to ensure the survival of Ethiopia? The Pakistani representative at the UN Political Committee, annoyed by this bold lie, retorted “if, as the British delegation was claiming, Eritrea was poor, destitute and a hopeless ruin, would Britain be justified in asking Ethiopia to carry such a heavy burden” (Alemseged Tesfai, An African People’s Quest for Freedom and Justice, p. 128). The UK, of course, systematically dismantled the Eritrean economy to create facts on the ground for non-viability. Overall, the UN system’s failure to duly consider Eritrea’s inalienable right of decolonization and the prevailing Eritrean nationalism ended up costing both Eritrea and Ethiopia immeasurable destruction of lives and property.
During the federation period, Ethiopia’s gradual abrogation of the federation and the failure of the United Nations to handle the matter properly fueled Eritrean protests. To contain these protests, the Emperor began to take brutal measures, leading the Eritrean youth to conclude that overcoming the harsh repression through peaceful means was futile. As a result, they launched an armed struggle on September 1, 1961, one year before Ethiopia officially annexed Eritrea on November 14, 1962.
In 1910, when Menelik invaded and conquered vast areas, Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia) took its present-day geopolitical structure and international borders. Eritrea was already a country, founded in 1890, some 20 years ahead of Abyssinia. Exactly 10 years after Menelik’s conquests, on September 28th, the Kingdom of Abyssinia became the first African state to join the League of Nations upon its establishment in 1920. Later, the name of the country was changed to Ethiopia.
Mengistu Hailemariam’s escape
As the Eritrean revolution strengthened, various Western and Ethiopian intellectuals, in their campaign to secure their geostrategic interests and paint the struggle as an isolationist movement, worked hard promoting the Eritrean struggle as a question of “secession” and not self-determination. To this day, there are many who try to promote this false narrative. As a result, the Eritrean struggle was misrepresented in the collective memory of many segments in Ethiopian as a separatist movement. It was cast in such light as to even be stigmatized by Africans and was made to appear more complicated. Because the struggle was against the Ethiopia that’s adorned with the “symbol of ancient civilization and free Africa” image.
Privately, however, even American diplomats acknowledged the Eritrean struggle as being for self-determination and decolonization. For instance, Ambassador Keith Wauchope, who served as Deputy Principal Officer at the US Consul in Asmara from 1975-1977, lamented that “we had forgotten some of our basic values. After all, the Eritreans were fighting for self-determination, it was their country, and they had been betrayed by the West…We saw American-made aircraft dropping American bombs on the Eritreans.”5
US support of successive Ethiopia regimes, however, never changed. Ambassador Larry Williamson, who served as Acting Director of East African Affairs from 1980-82, brought up Irv Hicks to underscore the degree of attention and care the United States extended to Ethiopian regimes, not the people! When Irvin “Irv” Hicks Jr was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (1989 to 1991), the defeat of Mengistu Hailemariam became certain. At that point, on behalf of the US government, Hicks brokered asylum for Mengistu Hailemariam with Zimbabwe. In spite of the strained relations, Hicks flew to Addis Ababa and told Mengistu “we can get you and your family and anybody else you want to take out of here, but you’ve got to get out now before the fighting starts because we can’t stop that”.6
Williamson, underscoring Mengistu’s quick acceptance of the escape plan, recalls that “Mengistu gave it about the same consideration that I gave the assignment to London, and we got some unknown aircraft into the airport, packed that whole bunch in, sent them south.” Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam faced no consequences despite deceiving the Ethiopian people and committing gross war crimes against the Eritrean people. Indeed, Ethiopian leaders have caused their country and people pay a heavy price in pursuit of unattainable dreams—and when approaching total failure, they prioritize themselves over the people.
Ethiopian writer Laureate Tsegaye Gebremedhin, in the “The Language of Tears and the Deception of History” chapter of his “Ethiopia: History or Myth?” book, states that the country’s leaders, starting from emperor Haile Selassie up to the present times, feigned concern for the nation while in truth, they cared only about preserving their own power. When Haile Selassie was overthrown, as he was taken to prison accompanied by escorts, he is known to have lamented “Oh Ethiopia, did we really harm you? Did we not truly toil for you?” Similarly, Mengistu recounts in his memoir how, upon seeing his army scatter in the final hours, he “curled up on a rock and washed my face with tears.” If they indeed had truly learned from the results of their wild dreams, then, it would have been a profound confession and a valuable lesson for future leaders. Alas, Ethiopian leaders only realize it when they’re overwhelmed and scattered like bees.
After the Derg army was routed and pushed out of Eritrea, Joseph P. O’Neill observed the 1993 referendum as he was the Chargé d’Affaires at the US Embassy in Asmara from 1992 to 1993. Recounting his observation, he affirmed “the referendum went off flawlessly. I was involved, the United Nations, everybody was involved. Flawless. No cheating, no nothing. It just went well”. Some weeks after this, not very far after, the United Nations ascertained the referendum was “Completely clean. We believe the referendum was free and fair.”7
Fallacy of the Dream
Talk of “Ethiopia is not a distant country from the Red Sea. It is a country of the Red Sea, perhaps it is 30, 40, 50, 60 kilometers away from the sea” has become a familiar refrain adding flavor to official statements and media headlines. It is claimed that Ethiopia was separated from the coastline by only a few kilometers due to the actions of powerful countries. It concludes that “the root cause of the multitudes of problems in Ethiopia is because the country is detached from the Red Sea”. This statement needs to be corrected. Ethiopia was not separated from the coastline by a few kilometers due to the actions of superpowers, but it temporarily occupied and exploited the Eritrean sea coast for nearly 39 years through an unjust decision conspiratorially orchestrated by its powerful allies.
The rhetoric that some Ethiopian intellectuals are currently repeating originate from the 2024 IFA guidelines document on expansionist and invasion plans. Totally failing to reflect the country’s real circumstances, it advised that, in the pursuit of sovereign sea outlet, the only viable path is to create a new point of contention. For there is no provision in international law supporting the existing argument8 where coastal countries have never denied Ethiopia transit rights. Ethiopia utilized Eritrean ports until 1998 on the basis of bilateral arrangements but itself shifted to Djibouti after the 1998-2000 conflict, a “strategic choice” made by Ethiopia and not due to an obstruction by Eritrea.
Undeniably, access to the sea is of economic importance to any landlocked country. But portraying it as an “existential threat” is recipe for perpetual war as it is untrue. Moreover, when a recognized legal framework for transit exists, their howl of “existential threat” is code for territorial ambitions. The real threat to Ethiopia’s existence lies in its policies of internal ethnic discordance and violent expansionist aspirations. Unless Ethiopian politicians abandon the unattainable dream of owning the Eritrean coastline, clearly the threats to Ethiopia’s existence and survival as a nation will only grow and bear dangerous consequences.
Deja Vue of the Give-and-Take Ideology
It is not difficult to see the uncanny similarity between the recent “give-and-take” proposal and the 2004 “give-and-take” proposal put forward by the then EPRDF government. They amount to an invitation for war while professing a desire for peace. They resemble a political theater where diplomacy becomes the continuation of war by other means. But who can this deceive or convince? Certainly not the people of Eritrea, whose long political experience makes them immune to such childish rhetoric.
Much like the current narrative, the 2004 “give-and-take” peace proposal was issued as a public relations drama and to confound its non-acceptance of the EEBC decision. At the time, the newspaper “Weyin” interviewed the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in connection with the “peace proposal”. Referring to the peace bill presented by the PM and approved by parliament, the journalist noted it “has caused confusion. Some interpret it as giving up Badme to gain Assab. Others argue that this give-and-take approach is flawed and should be rejected”. Hence, the journalist asked, “what exactly does ‘give-and-take’ mean anyway?”
Prime Minister Meles replied, “regarding the border issue, we accept the Boundary Commission’s decision in principle and aim to resolve it through the framework of give-and-take. In terms of negotiations for good neighborliness, it involves addressing the root causes of the conflict separately, within the same give-and-take principle…We have put forth that these should be resolved and implemented through negotiated give and take in a way that ensures mutual benefit, which I believe is a right choice.”
Setting aside former PM Meles Zenawi’s convoluted response, the “give-and-take” proposal revolves around Eritrea’s sovereign territories. Despite the final and binding EEBC ruling, the so-called peace proposal offered Eritrean territories under forceful Ethiopian occupation but legally awarded to Eritrea as a bargaining chip in exchange for other Eritrean sovereign territories. Besides supporting Ethiopian leaders’ agenda, the parallel undue pressure from some guarantor countries to “create a platform for dialogue and talk to each other” was intended to take measures that challenged Eritrea’s sovereignty and to further prolong and complicate the crisis.
Today, it is much the same. The Prosperity Party-led government has plunged the country into heightened ethnic tensions, severe economic problems, growing instability and a deep socio-political crisis. While lawlessness prevails across the country and public confidence in the federal government continues to evaporate, it has become common to throw around naïve remarks such as “we have no intention of invading what isn’t ours; we’re simply saying, give us access to the sea and we’ll share our resources with you”. But sovereignty is not a commodity that can be sold or exchanged however. It is the worst absurdity to justify this ridiculous “proposal” of exchanging sovereignty for commercial businesses by arguing “what’s wrong with us dreaming of the sea right in our noses while people dream of reaching Mars?”
The purpose of all this hallucination is clear: rather than addressing the pressing internal crises in Ethiopia that urgently demand solutions, it seeks to externalize the issue and redirect the Ethiopian people’s attention toward an unattainable fantasy. However, the Ethiopian people see right through these bogus tactics as they recognize that the main objective of the campaign was to divert their attention in an attempt to prolong the Prosperity Party’s grip in power and exploitation.
Conclusion
Once again, there are calls for “dialogue”. But dialogue about what exactly? There is no need to establish a “dialogue” forum regarding “sovereign sea access”. Indeed, Ethiopia’s quest for sovereign ownership of Eritrea’s sea coast cannot be entertained by Eritrea. Statements such as “it is no longer blasphemy to raise the question of sovereign maritime ownership” are aimed at legitimizing expansionist ambitions and inflaming the emotions of the Ethiopian people. Fundamentally, any party that sets aside acceptable international law and issues statements that violate and sidestep the sovereignty of another country does not have a right to then issue calls for “dialogue”.
Analysts predicting “tensions are rising, the cloud of war looms over the Horn…If the inevitable war breaks out, history shows the region will face an unprecedented crisis…Intervene now and avert war while it’s still possible” are currently getting media attention. The goal is to create fear and ultimately pressure the Eritrean side to unfair negotiation terms. It lacks serious understanding of the Eritrean psyche. On the other hand, ploys grounded on purported historical and cultural connections, beyond challenging Eritrea’s sovereignty, are also attempts to redraw Africa’s colonial boundaries. These tactics will only have detrimental outcomes to the whole Ethiopian population.
Questions abound about the saber rattling. Who is driving Ethiopia’s push to the Red Sea? Whose ultimate opportunistic benefits are served by external forces rushing to create various alignments to destabilize the Red Sea? Where will this port imperialism project of certain Gulf nations lead and how is it further entangling the situation in our region? Where is the constant scapegoating of Eritrea for its principled stance and positions headed? Only time will reveal the outcome. We shall see who will be intimidated, terrorized or even be forced to abandon foundational principles through these constant drumbeats of “come to the negotiating table or else” shrills.
In conclusion, ever since Eritrea and Ethiopia established relations at state level, the cause for strained relations has been the violation of Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. There can be no dialogue on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea! Besides, who will talk to whom, and what will the talks cover? Before talks can take place, there are the preconditions of respect for sovereignty and officially rescinding and apologizing for earlier irresponsible statements and wild claims. This is a critical factor not only for talks, but also for normalizing relations that would herald mutual trust, peace and collective prosperity in our region.
Footnotes/references
- “Ethiopian refusal to use ports treat to aid: UN”, https://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopian-refusal-use-ports-treat-aid-un
- Professor Faisal Roble: https://x.com/faisalroble19/status/1824126172244087141?lang=ar-x-fm
- “Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense (Forrestal)”, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v03/d587
- Charles Stuart Kennedy interview with Ambassador Edward W. Mulcahy, https://adst.org/OH%20TOCs/Mulcahy,%20Edward%20W.toc.pdf
- “Interviews with US Diplomatic Officers Who Served in Ethiopia 1947 – 2002”, https://www.mediafire.com/file/xrdbbp6tkxoimao/Interviews+with+US+officials+who+served+in+Ethiopi++Country+Reader+1947-2001.pdf/file
- “Interviews with US Diplomatic Officers Who Served in Ethiopia 1947 – 2002”
- “Interview with Joseph P. O’Neill”, Library of Congress, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/mss/mfdip/2004/2004one01/2004one01.pdf
- Professor Faisal Roble, https://x.com/faisalroble19/status/1824126172244087141?lang=ar-x-fm
English