Ethiopia and Eritrea: Navigating the Shadows of Diplomacy and National Interest
The Ethio-Eritrea relationship, marked by historical intricacies and political complexities, has seen its fair share of challenges. Delving into the role of the late Meles Zenawi, former Prime Minister of Ethiopia, this article explores the intriguing dynamics that have shaped the narrative of Aseb and the aftermath of the Algiers Agreement.
During his tenure as the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi took a stance that seemed contradictory. Despite being perceived as a leader safeguarding Ethiopia’s interests, his public declaration that “Aseb is Eritrean” raised eyebrows and generated confusion.
Dr. Yacob Hailemariam, a discerning scholar and retired professor of business law at Norfolk State University, as well as a former Senior Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and an elected member of the 2005 Ethiopian parliament, posits that Meles, rather than prioritising Ethiopian interests, assumed a role more akin to an ambassador for Eritrea during this crucial period.
Hailemariam’s scrutiny of the Algiers Agreement reveals a profound concern—the accord seems rooted in colonial treaties that lost their validity after Italy’s defeat in World War II. A critical point of contention is Aseb, part of the autonomous Afar region when Eritrea gained independence.
The Afar community, residing together for generations, found itself divided between Ethiopia and Eritrea due to misrepresented decisions made during the TPLF rule, characterised by an anti-unity political approach. The regime pursued a sea outlet for its ethnic Tigray, bordering Eritrea to the south, while simultaneously denying Ethiopia’s direct access to the seaport at Aseb. Hailemariam raises a critical question about the then-prime minister’s ultimate intention—why did he implicitly advocate for a sea outlet for Tigray while denying the same to Ethiopia?
A striking revelation emerges from Dr. Hailemariam’s analysis—Ethiopia, both politically and legally, was not adequately represented in the Algiers Agreement. This raises questions about the agreement’s legitimacy and its implications for Ethiopia’s national interests. The absence of Ethiopia’s active participation in the negotiations calls into question the fairness and equity of the accord.
Ethiopia’s current Prime Minister, Abiy, recently highlighted the pressing issue of securing access to the Red Sea and the essential need for ports in his landlocked nation. His concern stems from Ethiopia’s rapid economic growth and expanding population, making it a standout among landlocked countries, particularly in terms of population size.
Abiy underscores that without accessible ports for both domestic and foreign trade, Ethiopia faces severe consequences in supporting its burgeoning population. This becomes a matter of paramount importance, prompting Abiy to stress the necessity for thorough discussions, domestically and with neighbouring leaders. He aims to forge enduring solutions that ensure peace and prosperity for both current and future generations.
To address this challenge, Ethiopia has proffered lucrative business proposals, proposing a trade-off of existing assets like a share from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) or a stake in the esteemed Ethiopian Airlines, in exchange for a reliable and sustainable seaport.
Hailemariam emphases that these two nations are strongly bound together inseparably. He strongly argues that fighting is not a solution. The Ethiopians and Eritreans share a true brotherhood, and any form of war is unnecessary and should be avoided. Instead, deep thought and thorough consultation at both people-to-people and government-to-government levels are crucial to lasting peace and prosperity for the people of both nations. Eritrea’s ownership of a vast seaport is meaningless unless it is utilised.
As we reflect on TPLF’s perplexing stance and the aftermath of the Algiers Agreement, the narrative becomes clearer. Ethiopia’s quest for a sea outlet was side-tracked, and Aseb, a historically significant port, became a point of contention rather than cooperation. Dr. Yacob Hailemariam’s insights shed light on the unseen divides and questionable diplomatic decisions that have shaped the Ethio-Eritrea relationship.
In conclusion, navigating the shadows of diplomacy and national interest requires a nuanced understanding of historical intricacies and political motivations. The unresolved questions surrounding Aseb and the Algiers Agreement serve as a reminder that true diplomatic success requires equitable representation, transparency, and a commitment to the long-term interests of both nations. As Ethiopia and Eritrea continue their journey towards lasting peace and cooperation, addressing these historical shadows and heeding Hailemariam’s plea for thoughtful diplomacy will be critical for forging a future built on trust, mutual respect, and shared prosperity.
Various arrangements and methods exist through which landlocked nations secure access to the sea. Bolivia, for instance, lost its sea access in the late 19th century and has engaged in diplomatic efforts to negotiate sea access and has been successful. Switzerland is another landlocked country, however, it has access to international waterways through navigable rivers and lakes. Additionally, Switzerland has agreements with neighbouring countries for maritime trade. Paraguay, though landlocked, also has access to the Atlantic Ocean through the Paraguay River and the Paraná River.
Furthermore, landlocked countries can enter into lease agreements with coastal countries for the use of port facilities. For example, they can pay a fee to use the port for a specified period. Additionally, customs unions or economic communities can be created to facilitate trade and access to the sea. Member countries can benefit from shared infrastructure and trade facilitation measures, which can make it easier to move goods to and from the coast.
Bilateral or multilateral negotiations between countries can lead to unique arrangements tailored to specific needs, similar to the above proposal of Ethiopia. By finding creative diplomatic solutions, both landlocked and coastal nations can address their economic and strategic concerns.
These examples underscore the importance of diplomatic negotiations in finding viable solutions to the unique challenges faced by landlocked countries. As Ethiopia explores avenues for sea access, these historical precedents offer valuable insights into the diplomatic strategies that can pave the way for a prosperous future.
If you find this article enlightening and thought-provoking, we kindly invite you to share it. and also actively engage with its content and share your valuable insights. Your opinions, thoughts, and questions are vital to fostering a meaningful dialogue on this critical topic.
Let’s come together to foster a stronger, more united prosperous two brotherly nations!
Thanks for your engagement and support!
