Political Rudeness of the Highest Order

Abiy’s Insults, Ethiopia’s Red Sea Access Gambit, and the Assault on Eritrean Sovereignty, UN Charter and African Principles

The Context: International diplomacy is built on a foundation of respect, even between adversaries. While states may disagree vehemently on policy, the expectation is that their leaders will conduct themselves with a modicum of decorum and professional courtesy, particularly when addressing legislative bodies or the international community. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s slew of insults and disrespectful language directed against the Eritrean people, delivered, in his official capacity, in a parliamentary speech, are far more than a “political rudeness.” They represent a fundamental and severe violation of international diplomatic parlance and norms. Such rhetoric is not conducive to peace, stability, or constructive relations. Instead, it breeds resentment, fuels hostility, and fundamentally undermines the principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are essential for harmonious international and inter-African relations. It sends a chilling message that words can be wielded as weapons, with potentially devastating consequences for an already fragile region. The international community, and especially the African Union, should unequivocally condemn such behavior to uphold the standards of responsible statecraft and protect the dignity of all peoples.

Moreover, the recent series of  pronouncements by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration, including his latest parliamentary speech, implying a potential re-evaluation of Eritrea’s sovereign status in pursuit of sea access, are not merely diplomatic missteps; they represent a dangerous flirtation with international lawlessness, a profound rejection of reasoned statecraft, and a direct challenge to the foundational principles of the African Union and the UN Charter. This rhetoric, coupled with flawed justifications, has ignited profound apprehension, particularly within Eritrean, both at home and in the diaspora, and demands a careful examination of its historical context, legal implications, and potential ramifications for regional and global stability.

A Betrayal of Alliance and a Violation of Diplomatic Conduct

The Eritrean people’s enduring, often unreciprocated, sacrifices for the stability of Ethiopia are an undeniable historical fact. From paving the way for Ethiopia’s post-Derg transition to intervening in the recent Tigray War to safeguard the federal government, Eritrean blood and resources have been repeatedly expended. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s current rhetoric, combining alleged insults with aggressive territorial claims, therefore transcends mere “political rudeness.” It represents a profound act of historical revisionism, a severe diplomatic breach, and a deep moral betrayal that risks plunging the Horn of Africa back into conflict, all while disrespecting the heavy price paid by the Eritrean people for regional stability. Hence, to now articulate designs on Eritrean territory, even in the abstract, and to allegedly disrespect the Eritrean people, constitutes a flagrant disregard for diplomatic reciprocity and basic international courtesy. It undermines any potential for future cooperation and erodes trust, which is the bedrock of stable interstate relations.

Sovereignty: The Immutable Cornerstone of the International System and African Unity

The principle of state sovereignty is not just a legal concept; it is the very foundation upon which the modern international system is built. Enshrined in the United Nations Charter and countless treaties, it dictates that each state possesses exclusive jurisdiction over its territory and internal affairs, free from external interference. Eritrea’s sovereignty was hard-won through immense sacrifice and is unequivocally recognized by the global community, stemming from its independence in 1993. Any attempt, rhetorical or otherwise, to unilaterally “revoke” or challenge this recognition is not merely a diplomatic misstep; it is a direct assault on the fundamental principles governing global order and, crucially, the core tenets of African unity and stability.

The African Union’s Foundational Principles: Upholding Borders and Sovereignty

The African continent’s history of colonialism and arbitrary border demarcation led to a profound commitment by African leaders to uphold existing borders to prevent endless conflict. This commitment is explicitly enshrined in the constitutive acts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and its successor, the African Union (AU).

• Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: This cardinal principle, as clearly stated in Article 4(b), adopted by the OAU in 1964 and maintained by the AU, stipulates that colonial administrative boundaries existing at the time of independence should be recognized as international frontiers. It was a pragmatic decision to avert a continent-wide scramble for territory. Eritrea’s independence and its recognized borders with Ethiopia fall squarely within this framework, confirmed by the Algiers Agreement and international arbitration.
• Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: The AU’s Constitutive Act explicitly calls for “respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and political assassinations, acts of terrorism and subversive activities” and, critically, per Article 4(f), “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each Member State and its inalienable right to an independent existence.”
• Non-Interference: The AU strictly adheres to the principle of non-interference by any Member State in the internal affairs of another. Ethiopia’s statements directly contradict this.

Ethiopia, as a founding member of the OAU and a prominent member of the AU, is bound by these principles. To challenge Eritrea’s sovereignty is to undermine the very framework that has sought to ensure peace and stability in post-colonial Africa.

How African States Are Formed and Recognized

African states, including Eritrea, primarily gain and maintain their internationally recognized status through:

• Decolonization and Independence: Most African states emerged from colonial rule with borders inherited from their colonial masters, which were then internationally recognized under the uti possidetis juris principle.
• Self-Determination: In specific cases, like Eritrea, a former Italian colony and later illegally annexed by Ethiopia, independence was achieved after a struggle for self-determination against an occupying state (Ethiopia in this case). This process culminated in a referendum, overwhelmingly endorsing independence, followed by widespread international recognition (including by Ethiopia itself, the OAU/AU, and the UN). This was a deliberate and internationally supervised process that created a new, sovereign state with defined borders.
• There is no legitimate mechanism within the AU or international law for a Member State to unilaterally “revoke” the sovereignty of another, particularly one formed and recognized through such a clear and legitimate process.

Flawed Justifications: A Dangerous Departure from Reason and Law

Beyond the direct challenge to sovereignty, the Ethiopian side appears to be advancing deeply flawed arguments to justify its demands, notably the “we are many, so we must have sovereign access to the sea” type of argument. This line of reasoning is not only illogical but also incredibly dangerous:

• The “Population Size” Fallacy: The argument that a nation, by virtue of its large population, automatically has a sovereign right to another nation’s territory or resources is utterly baseless in international law and ethics. National borders and sovereign rights are not determined by demographic figures. If this were accepted, populous nations globally could lay claim to the territories of smaller neighbors, leading to endless conflict and instability. India could claim parts of Bangladesh, China parts of its smaller neighbors, and so on.
• The Resource Envy Analogy: This “population size” argument is precisely akin to saying, “There is a lot of oil in Country X, therefore Country Y (which is larger or needs it more) should own it.” Or, “Country Z has abundant fertile land, and we are food-insecure, so we should annex their farms.” This is a profoundly dangerous reassertion of the most predatory forms of international relations, where a state’s wealth or geographic advantage becomes a justification for its seizure by another.
• Rejecting the Rules-Based Order: Such arguments fundamentally reject the rules-based international order that emerged after centuries of devastating conflicts. This order emphasizes negotiation, respect for treaties, and peaceful resolution of disputes, rather than justifications based on perceived “needs” or demographic might.

The Non-Existence of Precedent: Why “Revoking Sovereignty” is a Dangerous Fantasy

The concept of one state unilaterally “revoking” the sovereignty of another internationally recognized, functioning state in peacetime is, in essence, a legal and historical non-starter. It simply does not exist as a legitimate mechanism within modern international law.

Let’s dissect why this notion is so profoundly flawed:

• Post-Westphalian Order: The international system, solidified after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and rigorously reinforced post-World War II, is predicated on the equality and sovereign independence of states. To allow one state to “revoke” another’s sovereignty would shatter this order entirely.
• UN Charter and Non-Intervention: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(7) emphasizes the principle of non-intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. “Revoking sovereignty” is the ultimate act of intervention and a direct violation of these core tenets.
• No Legal Basis for Unilateral Revocation: A state’s recognition of another’s sovereignty is a political and legal act. While recognition can be withdrawn in very specific and rare circumstances (e.g., if a state ceases to exist or undergoes a fundamental, illegitimate transformation), it cannot be unilaterally “revoked” by a single state simply because it desires another’s territory or resources. Such an act would be legally null and void in the eyes of the vast majority of international actors.
• Historical “Precedents” are Illegitimate Acts: When states have historically lost their sovereignty against their will, it has invariably been through:

• Conquest and Annexation (Illegal since WWII): In the pre-UN era, powerful nations would conquer and absorb weaker ones. This is now unequivocally illegal under international law. Ethiopia’s recognition of Eritrea’s sovereignty was a sovereign act itself; it cannot be undone through force or unilateral declaration.
• Colonialism: The subjugation of territories as colonies, an era largely repudiated by international law and decolonization movements.
• Dissolution of Larger Entities: The breakup of empires or federations (e.g., Yugoslavia, USSR) led to the emergence of new sovereign states, not the revocation of existing ones by external powers.

Therefore, any attempt by Ethiopia to “revoke” Eritrea’s sovereignty would not only lack any legitimate historical precedent but would also be a flagrant and unprecedented violation of contemporary international law. It would be an act of profound international lawlessness, inviting universal condemnation and severe repercussions.

The Peril for Small Nations: A Slippery Slope to Anarchy

This is where the true danger of Ethiopia’s rhetoric becomes starkly apparent. If the international community, and particularly the African Union, were to tolerate, or worse, implicitly endorse, the idea that a larger or more powerful nation could unilaterally “revoke” the sovereignty of a smaller, recognized neighbor for its own strategic interests (like sea access) or based on flawed justifications like population size, the entire fabric of global security would unravel.

• No Small Nation is Immune: Such a precedent would send a chilling message to every small nation around the world. Their existence and territorial integrity would suddenly become contingent upon the whims, geopolitical desires, or demographic arguments of their larger, more powerful neighbors. The protections offered by international law and African regional frameworks would become meaningless.
• A Return to “Might Makes Right”: It would signify a dangerous regression to an era where “might makes right,” where international law is subservient to raw power politics and territorial aggrandizement. This undermines decades of effort to build a rules-based international order designed precisely to protect weaker states from stronger ones.
• Global Instability: Such an act would not only destabilize the Horn of Africa but would also create a ripple effect of insecurity worldwide. Every border and every resource would potentially be called into question, leading to a cascade of conflicts as nations, both large and small, reassess their vulnerabilities and strategic objectives.

Implications of Such Actions

Should Ethiopia attempt to act on such pronouncements, the implications would be catastrophic:

• Regional War and Instability: Any attempt to militarily enforce a claim to Eritrean territory would inevitably lead to a full-scale war between two already heavily militarized nations. Such a conflict would draw in other regional actors, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and further destabilize the Horn of Africa, a region already prone to volatility.
• International and African Condemnation and Isolation: The international community, including the African Union, United Nations, and major global powers, would almost certainly condemn any unprovoked aggression or attempt to violate Eritrea’s sovereignty. Ethiopia would face severe diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and potential legal action. Its credibility on the international and African stages would be irrevocably damaged.
• Economic Ruin: Both Ethiopia and Eritrea, already facing significant economic challenges, would be plunged into deeper economic crises. The costs of war, disruption of trade, and international sanctions would devastate their development prospects for generations.
• Humanitarian Catastrophe: Conflict would inevitably lead to mass displacement, loss of life, and a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions, placing an unbearable burden on international aid agencies.
• Undermining the African Union and Regional Integration: Such an act would fundamentally undermine the principles of non-interference and respect for existing borders, which are cornerstones of the African Union’s charter. It would severely damage efforts towards regional peace and integration, especially coming from such a historically significant member state.

The Desire for Sea Access: A Wishful Aspiration, Illegitimate Methods

Ethiopia’s aspiration, but a wishful aspiration nonetheless, for direct sea access is understandable from a geopolitical and economic perspective. As a landlocked nation with a large and growing population, secure and efficient access to maritime trade routes might be a strategic imperative. However, this aspiration cannot and must not come at the expense of another nation’s sovereignty or through threats of force, nor can it be justified by fallacious arguments about population size or inherent “need.”

The only legitimate pathways for Ethiopia to gain more favorable sea access are through:

• Bilateral Negotiations and Agreements: Constructive dialogue with Eritrea (and other coastal states like Djibouti and Somalia) to negotiate access agreements, port usage, and transit facilities. These must be mutually beneficial and respect the sovereignty of all parties.
• Economic Cooperation and Investment: Investing in infrastructure and logistics in neighboring countries to facilitate trade and create shared economic benefits.

Conclusion

The recent rhetoric from Ethiopia regarding Eritrea’s sovereignty, buttressed by profoundly flawed justifications, is not only deeply troubling but also profoundly dangerous. It represents a significant departure from diplomatic norms, a potential betrayal of a recent alliance, and a direct challenge to the fundamental principles of international law, African unity, and reasoned international relations. The notion of “revoking” a recognized state’s sovereignty is a legal and historical absurdity, a perilous fantasy that, if pursued, would unleash a torrent of catastrophic consequences for both nations and the wider Horn of Africa.

Responsible statecraft demands adherence to international law, unwavering respect for sovereign borders (especially those enshrined by African foundational principles), and the pursuit of national interests through peaceful negotiation and mutually beneficial cooperation, not through belligerent pronouncements or specious arguments that destabilize an already fragile region. The international community, with the African Union at the forefront, must unequivocally reaffirm Eritrea’s sovereignty and impress upon Ethiopia the severe implications of pursuing such a reckless path. The long-term stability and prosperity of the Horn of Africa, and indeed the integrity of the international and African systems, depend on it.