A Covenant of Blood: The Moral and Practical Case for the Equal Ownership of Eritrea’s Land, Sea, and Subcontinental Resources

23/07/2026 03:21 AM

A COVENANT OF BLOOD:
The Moral and Practical Case for the Equal Ownership of Eritrea’s Land, Sea, and Subcontinental Resources.

by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam

Introduction

The birth of Eritrea as a sovereign state was not a gift of diplomatic stroke, a colonial inheritance, or a mere byproduct of administrative withdrawal. It was a nation forged in a thirty-year crucible of fire (1961–1991), characterized by a level of collective sacrifice that has few parallels in modern African history. This struggle was not a series of disconnected regional uprisings, but a unified national movement where the "blood-tax" was paid equitably by every ethnolinguistic group and every geographic region. From the rugged peaks of the central highlands to the scorched coastal plains of the Red Sea, the soil of Eritrea has been consecrated by the intermingled blood and buried remains of martyrs from all walks of life. I argue that this collective sacrifice

A Covenant of Blood: The Moral and Practical Case for the Equal Ownership of Eritrea’s Land, Sea, and Subcontinental Resources. by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam.

creates a moral "commonwealth" where the right to the land - including the resources deep underground, on the surface, and along the coast - is a birthright held equally by all Eritreans, regardless of their ethnic or regional origin.

However, the post-independence era did not deliver the justice and rule of law that the liberation generation envisioned. Instead, the country fell into the grip of a pathocratic and authoritarian regime that has systematically dismantled the social contract. In the resulting political vacuum and the legitimate frustration against centralized tyranny, exclusionary narratives have begun to take root within some segments of the opposition. These groups advocate for ethnic or geographic federalism, asserting that land and natural resources - such as the maritime riches of Dankalia or the mineral wealth of the lowlands, or the waters of the highland - belong exclusively to the "indigenous" local ethnic groups of those specific regions. Proponents of this view, for instance, claim that the resources of the Afar region should be the sole purview of the Afar people, effectively disenfranchising the rest of the Eritrean populace from their own national territory.

In this essay I argue that such a fragmentation of ownership is both morally indefensible and practically ruinous¹. I posit that because the liberation of every square inch of Eritrea, including Dankalia, Semhar, Barka, and the highlands, was achieved through the unified struggle of all nine ethnolinguistic groups, no single group can claim exclusive ownership over any part of the national territory. To do so would be to retroactively negate the sacrifice of those who fell far from their ancestral homes to ensure that every part of Eritrea was free. The solution to current injustices and the path to a stable post-Issaias Eritrea lies not in the ethnic partitioning of resources, but in a consociational democracy. This model ensures the devolution of power to the lowest levels of local government and guarantees equitable distribution of national wealth, while maintaining the framework of an indivisible national sovereignty. Ultimately, the land belongs to all Eritreans, and its bounty must serve the collective dignity of the nation for which so many paid the ultimate price.

The Moral Foundation: The Indistinguishable Sacrifice and the Covenant of Blood

The most potent moral argument for the universal ownership of Eritrean land resides in the unique and totalizing nature of the Eritrean struggle for independence (1961–1991). Unlike many anti-colonial movements that were fractured along tribal or sectarian lines, or those that resulted in a peaceful transfer of power, the Eritrean revolution demanded the total mobilization of the nation’s human capital. It was a thirty-year odyssey that forged a national identity through the systematic contribution of all nine ethnolinguistic groups. I posit that this period established a "moral economy of sacrifice," where the "blood-tax" paid by the citizenry serves as the ultimate title deed to the national territory. During the liberation era, there were no separate movements fighting to liberate only Dankalia, Semhar, Barka, or the highlands; rather, Eritreans from every village and clan joined a singular, unified national front(s) to liberate every inch of the country as an indivisible whole.

The physical reality of this sacrifice is etched into the very topography of the nation. From the scorched, salt-crusted plains of the Afar coast to the rugged, mist-covered heights of the Sahel, and from the western lowlands of Barka to the southern plateaus of Serae and Akkele-Guzay, the blood of Eritreans has been spilled without distinction. In the trenches of Nakfa, the massacres of She’eb, and the final battles for Massawa and Asmara, highlanders and lowlanders, Christians and Muslims, and men and women from all nine ethnic groups fought side-by-side. They were buried in common graves, their remains intermingling with the soil until they became biologically and spiritually inseparable from the land itself. Today, it is impossible to identify or distinguish whose blood nourishes the earth or whose bones lie beneath the ground where Eritreans now walk and work. This creates a "covenant of blood" that transcends any narrow, ancestral, or localized claim to land.

Consequently, to argue now that specific regions belong exclusively to the ethnic groups currently inhabiting them - such as the claim that Dankalia belongs only to the Afar, or the highlands belong to the highlanders - is a moral fallacy. To assert such exclusivity is to retroactively disenfranchise the tens of thousands of non-Afar Eritreans, for instance, who fought and died to ensure that the Red Sea coast remained an integral part of a free Eritrea rather than a province of an expansionist neighbor. If a martyr from the highlands gave their life in the trenches of the Danakil Depression, their sacrifice grants their descendants an eternal moral stake in that soil. I argue that the land of Eritrea is a "collective heritage" precisely because the price for its liberation was paid in a "collective currency" of life and limb that knew no ethnic boundaries.

Furthermore, this moral foundation dictates that the rights of citizenship - including the right to live, work, and benefit from resources - must be uniform across the entire geography of the state. If the sacrifice was national, the dividends must be national. To retreat into ethnic or geographic federalism is to betray the intent of the liberation struggle, which sought to create a home for all Eritreans, not a patchwork of exclusive ethnic enclaves. True justice in a post-Issaias Eritrea does not lie in partitioning the land according to linguistic lines, but in honoring the indistinguishable sacrifice of the martyrs by ensuring that every Eritrean, regardless of their origin, has an equal claim to the bounty and the beauty of their common motherland.

The Practical Fallacy of Ethnic Federalism: Economic Integration and National Viability

Beyond the profound moral dimension of sacrifice, the practical implications of adopting "ethnic ownership" of land are potentially catastrophic for the future of Eritrea as a developing nation-state. Ethnic federalism, as observed in various regional contexts, does not merely decentralize administration; it fundamentally transforms fluid administrative boundaries into rigid, exclusionary "ethnic frontiers." This shift often catalyzes a zero-sum competition for territory, leading to internal displacement, "ethnic cleansing" in pursuit of resource hegemony, and a state of perpetual communal conflict. I argue that the attempt to delineate land based on ethnic exclusivity ignores the historical and demographic fluidity of the Eritrean people and risks institutionalizing the very divisions that the liberation struggle sought to overcome.²

In the specific context of Eritrea, the claim that regional resources - such as the marine life of the Red Sea coast or the potash deposits deep underground in the Danakil Depression or the water that flows from the highlands - belong solely to "indigenous" local groups is a fallacy that ignores the economic reality of modern statehood. A nation-state functions as a singular, integrated economic unit. The immense capital and technical infrastructure required to extract and export coastal or subcontinental resources are rarely the product of a single locality; they are funded by the collective national treasury, supported by sovereign debt guaranteed by the entire population, and maintained by a workforce and intellectual capital drawn from across the nation. To deny a citizen from the western lowlands a stake in the coastal economy, or a highlander a share in the mineral wealth of the Danakil, is to dismantle the economic synergy that makes national development possible.

Furthermore, if the logic of "local ownership" is applied consistently, it descends into a series of functional absurdities that would make a sovereign state ungovernable. If the Afar claim exclusive rights to the salt and the sea, should the inhabitants of the central highlands then charge "downstream" regions for the water that flows from the plateaus? Should urban centers, developed through national investment, be closed to those from rural areas? Such a fragmented Eritrea would cease to be a country and would instead become a collection of unviable, impoverished micro-states. These fractured enclaves would be too small to achieve economies of scale, too weak to defend their interests in the global market, and dangerously prone to manipulation and interference by predatory regional neighbors seeking to exploit internal Eritrean divisions.

Ultimately, the practical path forward for a post-Issaias Eritrea is not the partitioning of the land into ethnic silos, but the realization of a unitary state that thrives on the free movement of people, goods, and ideas. I emphasize that the state must ensure that while local communities have a voice in the stewardship of their environment, the ultimate ownership of the land and everything it contains - from the surface to the deep underground - resides in the collective body of the Eritrean people. Only through such an integrated framework can Eritrea ensure equitable resource distribution and maintain the national strength necessary to secure its sovereignty in an unstable world.

Consociational Democracy: A Synthesis of Local Stewardship and National Sovereignty

The palpable frustration of regional groups, such as those in Dankalia or the western lowlands, is both understandable and rooted in a legitimate history of grievance. For decades, the current pathocratic regime in Asmara has weaponized the concept of "national interest" as a predatory mask to facilitate the extraction of resources for the benefit of a narrow ruling elite. This centralized dispossession has systematically marginalized local communities, leaving them alienated from the very land they inhabit. However, I argue that the remedy for the failures of a corrupt, centralized autocracy is not the dissolution of national unity or the retreat into ethnic enclaves, but rather the implementation of a robust consociational democracy based on the devolution of power.

Consociationalism, as theorized by Arend Lijphart, a model of power-sharing designed for pluralistic societies, offers a framework where different groups can exercise a high degree of autonomy and participate in national decision-making without undermining the integrity of the state.³ In the context of a post-Issaias Eritrea, this would entail the radical devolution of authority to the lowest levels of local government - the weredas and villeges. This "bottom-up" approach ensures that democracy is practiced where it is most felt. Local communities should indeed be the primary stewards of their immediate environment, possessing a decisive voice in the management of local lands and coastal waters. Furthermore, a consociational framework guarantees that these communities receive a fixed, equitable share of the revenues generated from local resources to fund regional infrastructure, education, and healthcare, thereby correcting decades of economic neglect.

However, a critical philosophical and legal distinction must be maintained: stewardship is not synonymous with ultimate ownership. While local communities act as the guardians and primary beneficiaries of their regional bounty, ultimate ownership – sovereignty - must reside in the Eritrean people as a collective whole. The land, including the subcontinental minerals and the coastal shelf, is a national asset. If the "ownership" of Dankalia were restricted solely to the Afar, or Gash-Barka solely to the Kunama and Nara, the very concept of Eritrean citizenship would be hollowed out. Sovereignty is indivisible because the sacrifice that secured it was indivisible.

Maintaining universal ownership ensures that the rights of citizenship remain portable and supreme across the entire national geography. It guarantees that a citizen from the highlands of Seraye or Hamassien has the legal and moral right to start a business in the port of Massawa, and conversely, that an Afar from Dankalia has the right to farm or invest in the fertile plains of Gash-Barka. This reflects the "universal right of residency and labor" for which all Eritreans fought. To implement ethnic or geographic federalism would be to build internal walls that did not exist even during the darkest days of the liberation struggle.

By adopting a consociational model, Eritrea can harmonize the need for local empowerment with the necessity of national cohesion. This system transforms the state from an instrument of elite extraction into a guarantor of distributive justice. It honors the martyrs by ensuring that the land they died for remains a common home for all their children, managed locally with care, but owned collectively with pride. In this vision of a post-Issaias Eritrea, the wealth of the coast and the riches of the earth serve as the foundation for a unified, democratic, and prosperous future for every Eritrean, regardless of their ethnic or regional identity.

The Legal and Philosophical Evolution of the Nation-State: From Colonial Construct to Sovereignty of the People

Historically, the transition from a colonial territory to a sovereign nation-state is far more than a mere administrative transfer of power; it is a profound ontological transformation - the creation of a "commonwealth." It is a frequent critique that most African nations are "artificial" constructs, their borders drawn by European powers during the Scramble for Africa with little regard for indigenous demographics. While Eritrea’s borders were indeed delineated by Italian colonialism, the thirty-year struggle for independence performed a miracle of national alchemy: it transformed Eritrea from a mere "map" into a living "nation." I elucidate that this protracted war of liberation replaced colonial cartography with a shared history of suffering and triumph, welding nine disparate ethnolinguistic groups into a singular political community.

Philosophically, the land of a nation-state is defined as the res publica - the "public thing." In the republican tradition, the territory is not the private property of a monarch, a ruling clique, or even a specific ethnic group; it is a collective asset held in trust by the state for the benefit of the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of any state, particularly one emerging from a liberation struggle, rests on its ability to provide "distributive justice." This entails ensuring that the benefits of the land - including the minerals deep underground, the fertile soil on the surface, and the strategic resources of the coastline - are shared in a manner that reflects the underlying social contract.⁴

In the Eritrean context, the social contract is uniquely and tragically profound. The "premium" paid for the acquisition of this national estate was not capital or currency, but the lives of the youth from every village, town, and region of the country. Because this "blood-tax" was levied equitably across all ethnic and geographic lines, the "dividend" of independence must be accessible to every citizen. To argue that the resources of a specific region belong only to the local inhabitants of that area is to commit a breach of contract against the thousands of families whose children fell to liberate that very soil. I argue that the "equity" in the Eritrean state is held by every family that sacrificed a daughter or a son, regardless of where that child was born or where they are buried.

Furthermore, the evolution of the modern nation-state suggests that sovereignty is the ultimate and indivisible authority over the national territory. To fragment this sovereignty into ethnic or geographic enclaves - as proposed by advocates of ethnic federalism - is to regress to a pre-modern, tribalistic conception of territory that is incompatible with the demands of a modern democracy. If Eritrea is to survive as a sovereign entity in the twenty-first century, it must uphold the principle that the state’s resources are a national patrimony.

The path to a post-Issaias Eritrea, therefore, must be paved with a commitment to a system where the government acts as the administrator of this res publica, ensuring that development is not concentrated in one region or among one group. By implementing a consociational democracy that prioritizes equitable distribution, the nation can finally honor the philosophical intent of the revolution: to create a state that belongs to all its people, in its entirety, forever.

Conclusion: One Land, One People, One Future

The bones of Eritrean martyrs do not carry ethnic labels, nor does the soil that covers them distinguish between the blood of a highlander or a lowlander. They are buried throughout the length and breadth of the territory as a singular, silent testament to a unified goal: the creation of a sovereign home where every citizen could live in dignity and equality. To retreat into ethnic parochialism or geographic federalism now is not merely a political error; it is a profound betrayal of the very essence of the Eritrean revolution. I argue that the "blood-tax" paid by the Eritrean people over thirty years of struggle established a national commonwealth that cannot be partitioned into exclusive ethnic enclaves without violating the moral contract upon which the state was founded. The path forward for a democratic, post-Issaias Eritrea is to embrace a system where the state belongs to everyone, and where every square inch of the territory - from the crystalline depths of the Red Sea to the peaks of the central highlands, and from the surface soil to the riches deep underground - is the common property of all Eritreans.

The practical solution to the current crisis of governance is not fragmentation, but the implementation of a consociational democracy that honors the dual necessity of local identity and national equity. We must strive for a model that empowers local communities through the devolution of power to the lowest levels of government, ensuring that those who live on the land are its primary stewards and the direct beneficiaries of its development. Yet, this stewardship must exist within a framework of indivisible national sovereignty. By ensuring that the nation’s resources are used for the collective upliftment of the entire populace, while simultaneously protecting local interests from the predatory exploitation seen under the current pathocratic regime, Eritrea can finally realize the distributive justice for which so many bled.

The challenges of the post-independence era have been severe, but they do not justify the dismantling of the national vision. The struggle for democracy is the second liberation of Eritrea, and it must be conducted with the same spirit of unity that won the first. I emphasize that the legitimacy of the future Eritrean state will depend on its ability to guarantee that a citizen from Dankalia, Barka, or Hamassien, Sahel, Akele-Guzay, Serae, etc. feels equally at home in every corner of the motherland. The land is one, for it was bought with one collective life; the sacrifice was one, for it was offered by one united people; and therefore, the future must be one. In a truly democratic Eritrea, the bounty of the earth and sea will serve as the foundation for a shared prosperity that honors the past and secures the future for all Eritreans, equally and in perpetuity.

---------

Footnotes:

1. Gebre Gebremariam, "A Wrong Medicine for a Wrong Diagnosis: Beyond Geographic Federalism - Towards a Democratic, Devolved Unitary State as Eritrea's Foundation for Stability and Justice," 2025, https://eritreahagerey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Beyond-Federalism_A-Critique.pdf.

2. Gebre Gebremariam, "The Wrong Medicine for the Wrong Illness: Why Consociationalism and Devolution Surpass Geographical Federalism in Eritrea," 2025, https://eritreahagerey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Wrong-Medicine-for-the-Wrong-Illness.pdf.

3. Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977).

4. Ruth Iyob, The Eritrean Struggle for Independence: Domination, Resistance, Nationalism, 1941-1993 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Bibliography:

Works Cited and Consulted

Gebremariam, Gebre. "A Wrong Medicine for a Wrong Diagnosis: Beyond Geographic Federalism - Towards a Democratic, Devolved Unitary State as Eritrea's Foundation for Stability and Justice." EritreaHagerey, October 2025. https://eritreahagerey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Beyond-Federalism_A-Critique.pdf.

———. "Beyond the Bibliography: Why Abstract Federalism Fails the Eritrean Reality." EritreaHagerey, November 2025. https://eritreahagerey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Beyond-the-Bibliography.pdf.

———. "The Wrong Medicine for the Wrong Illness: Why Consociationalism and Devolution Surpass Geographical Federalism in Eritrea." EritreaHagerey, November 2025. https://eritreahagerey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Wrong-Medicine-for-the-Wrong-Illness.pdf.

Habte Selassie, Bereket. The Making of the Eritrean Constitution: The Dialectic of Process and Substance. Trenton: Red Sea Press, 2003.

Iyob, Ruth. The Eritrean Struggle for Independence: Domination, Resistance, Nationalism, 1941-1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.

Negash, Tekeste. Eritrea and Ethiopia: The Federal Experience. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1997.

Pool, David. From Guerrillas to Government: The Eritrean People's Liberation Front. Oxford: James Currey, 2001.

Read in PDF ብ'PDF ንምንባብ ኣብዚ ጠውቑ።

See also more articles from Dr Gebre Gebremariam:

Global Policy / መትከላት

Snitna: Code of Conduct — መርበብ ሓበሬታና ዝምራሓሉ መትከላት

ስኒትና.ኮም (www.snitna.com)፡ ነቲ ኣብ 1936 ዝወጸ መትከላት ጋዜጠኝነት (UK and Irish journalism): ከምኡውን ንመትከላት ሃገራዊ ማሕበር ጋዜጠኛታት (National Union of Journalists (NUJ)፡ የኽብር። Snitna Policy Code Asset Logo ብተወሳኺ፡ ነቲ ኣብ ዩቱብ ቻነል ዝወጽእ ሓበሬታ፡ ንመትከላት ማሕበራዊ መትከላት ዩቱብ (YouTube Community Guidelines)፡ እናኽበረ የውጽእ። ስኒትና፡ ብዝከኣሎ መጠን፡ ነዚ መትከላት'ዚን ናይ ሃገርና ኤርትራን ህዝባን ክዉንነትን ምርኩስ ገይሩ፡ ኣብ መርበብ ሓበሬታኡ ስኒትና (www.snitna.com) ክውጽእ ዝግብኦ ሓበሬታ እናመመየ ከውጽእ ይህቅንን ይጽዕርን። እዚ ስራሕዚ ምሉእ ዓወት ንክህልዎ ድማ ብዓቢኡ፡ ግቡእ ኣጠቓቕማ ተሳተፍቲን ምትሕብባርን ምስዝህሉ ኢዩ። ስለዚ፡ ነዚ መትከላት ዚ ንምኽባር ንኹሉ ተገልጋላይ'ዚ መርበብዚ ንጽውዕ። ዝኾነ ሃሳዪ ተርእዮታት ምስዘጋጥሙ፡ ቅሬታኹም ወይ ርእይቶኹም ብኢመይል ኣድራሻና ኣቢልኩም ክትልእኩልና ንላቦ። Read more

See also Related / ምስዚ ዝተኣሳሰር ሓበሬታ፡-

A COVENANT OF BLOOD: The Moral and Practical Case for the Equal Ownership of Eritrea’s Land, Sea, and Subcontinental Resources.

by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam

Snitna: Code of Conduct — መርበብ ሓበሬታና ዝምራሓሉ መትከላት

A COVENANT OF BLOOD:
The Moral and Practical Case for the Equal Ownership of Eritrea’s Land, Sea, and Subcontinental Resources.