Sovereignty is Sacrosanct: Why the Nature of the Eritrean Regime Cannot Justify Ethiopian Revanchism

08/07/2026 19:36 PM

SOVEREIGNTY IS SACROSANCT:
Why the Nature of the Eritrean Regime Cannot Justify Ethiopian Revanchism

by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam

Sovereignty is Sacrosanct: Why the Nature of the Eritrean Regime Cannot Justify Ethiopian Revanchism
By Dr. Gebre Gebremariam
Scholar and Frequent Commentator on Horn of Africa Affairs

In the complex geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa, a dangerous narrative has begun to take hold - one that seeks to conflate the internal governance and external behavior of a regime with the fundamental right of a sovereign state to exist within its recognized borders. Since 2023, the administration of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in Ethiopia has pivoted toward a belligerent, revisionist rhetoric regarding the Red Sea and Eritrea’s territorial integrity.

While the regime of Issaias Afeworki in Asmara is frequently criticized for its domestic policies and regional interventions, these criticisms must never serve as a legal or moral fig leaf for Ethiopian aggression. There is a critical distinction that must be maintained: the nature of a regime is a matter of political and internal concern, but the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Eritrea are inviolable under international law. Ethiopia’s recent pronouncements do not merely target a government; they target the very existence of the Eritrean state.

The Fallacy of “Regime-Based” Aggression

The primary justification often whispered in diplomatic circles or shouted in populist rallies in Addis Ababa is that Eritrea’s “aggressive behavior” or its “unpredictable leadership” necessitates an Ethiopian “correction” of the geopolitical status quo. This is a legally bankrupt argument.

In international law, the “Clean Hands” doctrine does not apply to the right of sovereignty. A state does not forfeit its borders because its government is authoritarian or because it has engaged in regional disputes. If the international community were to accept the logic that a neighbor’s internal governance justifies territorial revisionism, the global order would collapse into a state of perpetual “might makes right.”

Abiy Ahmed’s shift from the 2018 peace deal to the current discourse on the Red Sea represents a classic revanchist agenda. It is an attempt to rewrite history and undo the settled legal reality of Eritrean independence - a status achieved through a thirty-year struggle and solidified by the 1993 UN-sanctioned referendum. Ethiopia’s recent belligerence targets Eritrea as a state, not merely as a regime.

The Dangerous Miscalculation within the Opposition

Disturbingly, this Ethiopian rhetoric has found an echo within certain segments of the Eritrean opposition camp. Driven by a deep and understandable desire to see the end of the Issaias regime, some opposition entities have fallen into the trap of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” By entertaining or even validating Ethiopia’s revisionist claims, these groups are committing a grave strategic and moral error.

As I have argued in several analyses on EritreaHagerey (eritreahagerey.com), to buy into the rhetoric that Ethiopian intervention - be it diplomatic, economic, or military - is a legitimate tool for “regime change” is to gamble with the very existence of the nation. One cannot save a house by helping a neighbor set fire to its foundations. Political change must be an internal Eritrean process. To conflate the struggle against a regime with the abandonment of national integrity is a betrayal of the generations who fought for Eritrea’s right to statehood.

Violations of International Law: The UN Charter

Ethiopia’s recent posture constitutes a direct challenge to the foundations of the United Nations. Specifically, two pillars of the UN Charter are at stake:

1. UN Charter, Article 2(4): This article prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” By framing the Red Sea as a matter of “existential” necessity for Ethiopia and signaling a willingness to use force to secure a port, the Abiy regime is in clear violation of this prohibition. Territorial integrity is not a bargaining chip for landlocked states; it is the bedrock of international peace.

2. UN Charter, Article 2(7): This article enshrines the principle of non-intervention in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. While the international community may use diplomatic and economic levers to address human rights concerns within a country, using such concerns to justify the violation of a state’s borders is a perversion of the Charter’s intent.

The African Union and the Sanctity of Borders

The African Union (AU) was founded on the principle of uti possidetis - the respect for borders inherited at independence. This was designed specifically to prevent the kind of revisionist conflict we now see brewing in the Horn.

1. AU Constitutive Act, Article 4(b): The African Union is built on the principle of uti possidetis - the respect of borders existing on achievement of independence. Eritrea’s borders are not ambiguous; they were reaffirmed as “final and binding” by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) in 2002 under the Algiers Agreement. Any attempt by Ethiopia to revisit these borders is an assault on the AU’s foundational peace and security architecture.

2. AU Constitutive Act, Article 4(f): This prohibits the “use of force or threat to use force among Member States of the Union.” Ethiopia’s military posturing and inflammatory rhetoric regarding the Eritrean coastline are a rejection of this commitment.

Target: The State, Not the Regime

It is essential to recognize that Ethiopia’s recent actions target Eritrea as a state, not the Issaias regime per se. When the Abiy administration speaks of the “injustice” of Ethiopia being landlocked or the “historical ownership” of the port of Assab, it is not attacking the policies of the PFDJ (People's Front for Democracy and Justice). It is attacking the sovereign right of the Eritrean people to their land and sea.

This revisionist path is a distraction from Ethiopia’s internal crises, but it is a distraction with potentially catastrophic consequences for the region. Exploiting the international community’s distaste for the Eritrean regime to gain sympathy for Ethiopian expansionism is a cynical ploy that must be rejected.

Conclusion: Sovereignty is Non-Negotiable

As I have argued in various contributions to Eritreahagerey, the struggle for democracy and reform within Eritrea is the prerogative of the Eritrean people. It is an internal matter that does not, and can never, grant Ethiopia the right to violate Eritrean sovereignty.

The international community, and the African Union in particular, must see the Abiy regime’s rhetoric for what it is: a dangerous violation of the UN and AU Charters. The sovereignty of Eritrea is not a gift from Ethiopia; it is a right earned through sacrifice and protected by international law. No amount of “regime-blaming” can justify the revisionist aggression currently emanating from Addis Ababa. The sanctity of borders must remain absolute, or the Horn of Africa will be plunged into a cycle of war from which it may never recover.

References

African Union. (2000). Constitutive Act of the African Union. [Article 4(b) and 4(f)].

Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). (2002). Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border between the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Gebremariam, Gebre. (2023-2026). Series of Articles on Eritrean Sovereignty and Regional Security. Eritrea Hagerey. www.eritreahagerey.com

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. [Article 2(4) and 2(7)].

United Nations Security Council. (2000). The Algiers Agreement between the Government of the State of Eritrea and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

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፡-

SOVEREIGNTY IS SACROSANCT: Why the Nature of the Eritrean Regime Cannot Justify Ethiopian Revanchism

by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam

Snitna: Code of Conduct — መርበብ ሓበሬታና ዝምራሓሉ መትከላት

SOVEREIGNTY IS SACROSANCT:
Why the Nature of the Eritrean Regime Cannot Justify Ethiopian Revanchism