Alula Frezghi

U.A.E. Sent ‘Desert Wolves’ to Help Sudanese Militia Accused of Genocide nytimes.com/2026/11/05/world…

The facts are neither ambiguous nor disputed. Since October 2023, the pursuit of “sovereign access to the sea” through threats of force, territorial claims, military mobilization, and subsequent operational actions has constituted a direct challenge to the fundamental principles of the international legal order. Such conduct stands in clear contradiction to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and violates the customary international law principles of sovereignty, non-aggression, and inviolability of borders. The cumulative pattern of declarations, military preparations, and explicit war aims leaves little doubt as to the nature of the threat. The international community, and particularly the UN Security Council, bears a legal and moral responsibility to condemn such actions unequivocally and to take preventive measures consistent with Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter to preserve peace, deter aggression, and uphold the rules-based international order. #UNCharter #Article2_4 #InternationalLaw #TerritorialIntegrity #StateSovereignty #NonAggression #CollectiveSecurity #RuleOfLaw #PeaceAndSecurity #UNSecurityCouncil #HornOfAfrica #RedSeaSecurity #Eritrea #PreventAggression @RedSeaBeacon

THE HORN OF AFRICA: ERITREA’S SOVEREIGNTY MUST NOT BECOME THE PRICE OF ETHIOPIA’S MARITIME AMBITIONS German politician Jan van Aken, a member of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned that escalating tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea risk triggering a wider regional conflict. His warning deserves serious international attention, particularly as geopolitical competition intensifies around the Red Sea. Several fundamental issues stand out: ERITREA’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RED SEA Ethiopia’s renewed demands for maritime access have become a serious source of regional tension. Eritrea is a sovereign coastal state with internationally recognized territory, an extensive Red Sea coastline and established maritime rights. Its sovereignty is not negotiable, and its territorial integrity cannot be subordinated to the strategic or economic ambitions of a landlocked neighbor. Ethiopia’s commercial interests in maritime access are legitimate subjects for peaceful negotiation. They do not create territorial entitlements, historical claims or a legal justification for military coercion. THE GEOPOLITICAL CONTEST FOR THE RED SEA The growing involvement of external powers, including the UAE and Saudi Arabia, illustrates how regional rivalries are increasingly intertwined with the strategic competition surrounding the Red Sea. Eritrea’s coastline, particularly its ports of Massawa and Assab, occupies an important position in this evolving geopolitical landscape. The Horn of Africa cannot become an arena in which external powers advance their strategic interests at the expense of regional sovereignty and stability. THE HUMAN COST OF ANOTHER WAR The devastating 2020–2022 Tigray conflict demonstrated the enormous human, political and economic consequences of regional warfare. Renewed confrontation between Eritrea and Ethiopia threatens to reopen old wounds and expose millions of civilians to another cycle of instability. Preventing another war is an international responsibility, not merely a diplomatic preference. INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE PRETORIA AGREEMENT Van Aken’s criticism of Germany and other international actors for failing to ensure meaningful implementation of the November 2022 Pretoria Agreement raises an important question: why does international diplomatic pressure so often intensify during crises but diminish when accountability and implementation become necessary? Peace agreements require sustained commitment, political accountability and respect for the sovereignty of neighboring states. DIPLOMACY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SOVEREIGN EQUALITY The fundamental principle is straightforward: maritime access cannot be obtained through threats, territorial revisionism or military intimidation. Eritrea’s sovereignty is protected by international law, and the territorial integrity of every state in the region deserves equal respect. The Red Sea is a shared international maritime corridor, not an instrument for territorial expansion. Its security depends on cooperation among littoral states, respect for established borders and arrangements negotiated on mutually agreed terms. ERITREA’S POSITION IS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO REGIONAL PEACE. SOVEREIGNTY IS THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH REGIONAL PEACE MUST BE BUILT. The international community must act before diplomatic confrontation becomes military escalation. Germany, the European Union, the African Union, the United Nations and the wider international community must apply international law consistently, reject coercive maritime ambitions and defend the territorial integrity of sovereign states. The Horn of Africa does not need another war. It needs respect for sovereignty, responsible diplomacy and a regional order founded on international law rather than expansionist ambition. @AmbStesfamariam @AuswaertigesAmt @eu_eeas @Bundestag @CDU @spdbt @dieLinke @jan_vanaken @AUC_PAPS @UNSC_Reports @UN @Chinamission2un @franceonu @RussiaUN @UKUN_NewYork @USAmbUN

Ein stabiles Horn von Afrika lässt sich weder durch eine selektive Auslegung der Souveränität noch durch das Erheben der Interessen eines Staates über die Rechte anderer sichern. Dauerhafter Frieden erfordert eine regionale Ordnung, die fest auf den Prinzipien der souveränen Gleichheit, der territorialen Unversehrtheit, des gegenseitigen Respekts und der strikten Einhaltung des Völkerrechts gründet. Bestrebungen zur Wahrung der Stabilität müssen daher Zwang, unilaterale Ambitionen und jeden Versuch, politische Realitäten auf Kosten von Nachbarstaaten neu zu gestalten, entschlossen zurückweisen. Der Weg zu echter Stabilität liegt nicht in der strategischen Duldung destabilisierenden Verhaltens, sondern in der Aufrechterhaltung der regelbasierten Ordnung gemäß der UN-Charta – um Sicherheit, Würde und Unabhängigkeit aller Nationen gleichermaßen zu schützen. @RedSeaBeacon @AmbStesfamariam @hawelti @sec_council #HornOfAfrica #InternationalLaw #Sovereignty #TerritorialIntegrity #RegionalStability #UNCharter @shabait #PeaceAndSecurity #MutualRespect @Eritrea_UN

Eritrea's sovereignty is not a succession question. Its national future is not a political experiment. And its destiny is not for Horn Review to write.

The statements compiled by Shabait expose a pattern of rhetoric that the international community can no longer afford to dismiss as political theater. When Ethiopian political leaders, senior military commanders, and government officials openly speak of taking Assab, question Eritrea’s very independence, and invoke the use of force, they cross a dangerous line from diplomatic grievance into explicit intimidation. These are not careless words. They are declarations that challenge the foundations of the international order itself.Ethiopia’s landlocked status does not confer a single legal, historical, or moral claim to Eritrean territory. No nation acquires rights over another state’s land because of economic ambition, geographic inconvenience, or nostalgic visions of past empires. Eritrea’s sovereignty is not conditional, negotiable, or subject to Ethiopian approval. It was secured through immense sacrifice, affirmed by international law, and recognized by the world.Assab is not a prize to be seized, leased through coercion, or reclaimed through historical revisionism. The Red Sea is not Ethiopia’s inheritance. The era in which powerful states could justify territorial ambitions through entitlement and intimidation belongs in the past, not the twenty-first century.Under the UN Charter, sovereignty and territorial integrity are inviolable principles, not bargaining chips for regional strongmen or expansionist projects. Any narrative that normalizes threats against Eritrea’s borders should be recognized for what it is: a direct challenge to international law and a reckless invitation to instability in one of the world’s most fragile regions.Peace will never be built on demands backed by threats. Stability will never emerge from maps redrawn by pressure. The only legitimate path forward is absolute respect for Eritrea’s independence, full recognition of internationally recognized borders, and the unequivocal rejection of any rhetoric that seeks to place another nation’s sovereignty up for debate. @hawelti @AmbassadorEstif @AmbStesfamariam @EmbassyEritrea @hadnetkeleta #Eritrea #Ethiopia #Assab #RedSea #Sovereignty #TerritorialIntegrity #InternationalLaw #HornOfAfrica #UNCharter @US_SrAdvisorAF @ForeignPolicy @Eritrea_UN @UNDPPA @UNDPEritrea

Eritrea's sovereignty is not a subject for negotiation. Any genuine effort by China, Russia, the African Union, or other international actors to de-escalate tensions in the Horn of Africa is welcome. Peace and stability serve the interests of all peoples in the region. However, lasting peace cannot be built on ambiguity, revisionism, or unaddressed threats. For nearly three years, senior Ethiopian officials, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, have repeatedly advanced narratives that directly call into question Eritrea's sovereign rights and territorial integrity. These statements have not been isolated remarks or media speculation. They have been delivered in official forums, before parliament, and to the Ethiopian public. Claims questioning how Assab became part of Eritrea, assertions that Ethiopia's border extends to the Red Sea, and arguments that a nation of over 120 million people cannot remain constrained by geography have created deep concern throughout Eritrea and beyond. No sovereign nation can be expected to ignore repeated public declarations that appear to challenge internationally recognized borders. No responsible government can dismiss rhetoric that normalizes territorial claims against a neighboring state. Such statements undermine trust, inflame tensions, and create the very instability that diplomats now seek to contain. The issue is therefore not Eritrea's willingness to engage in dialogue. The issue is whether the Ethiopian leadership is prepared to unequivocally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. There can be no meaningful negotiations while narratives that implicitly or explicitly question Eritrea's sovereignty remain in circulation. Before any serious political process can begin, Ethiopia must clearly and publicly reaffirm its recognition of Eritrea's internationally recognized borders, renounce any territorial claims, and abandon rhetoric that fuels expansionist ambitions and regional instability. Peace requires trust. Trust requires clarity. Clarity requires an unambiguous commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law: sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference. Eritrea does not seek confrontation. Eritrea does not threaten its neighbors. Eritrea asks only that the same respect for sovereignty demanded by every independent nation be extended to the Eritrean people and the Eritrean state. Until that principle is accepted without qualification, the root cause of the current tensions will remain unresolved, and no amount of diplomatic engagement will substitute for the fundamental requirement of mutual respect between sovereign nations.

THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROFESSOR AL MARIAM CHOOSES TO OMIT: ERITREA SHELTERED ETHIOPIAN SOLDIERS WHEN THEY NEEDED HELP The attempt to portray President Isaias Afwerki and Eritrea as the existential enemy of the Ethiopian soldiers stationed in Tigray is contradicted by an extraordinary historical acknowledgment made by Ethiopia’s own Prime Minister. Let us return to November 2020. Following the TPLF’s attack on the Ethiopian National Defence Force’s Northern Command during the night of November 3–4, Ethiopian soldiers escaped the unfolding military crisis and crossed into neighbouring Eritrea. What happened next is a matter of public record, not speculation. On November 30, 2020, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed addressed the Ethiopian Parliament and publicly expressed his gratitude to the Eritrean government and people for receiving those soldiers. Abiy explained that the fleeing Ethiopian servicemen arrived hungry and inadequately clothed. Eritrea welcomed them, provided clothing, food and water, and offered them shelter. The soldiers regrouped on Eritrean territory before returning to the battlefield. The Ethiopian News Agency reported Abiy’s acknowledgment. The Ethiopian Embassy in Washington subsequently published its own account confirming that Eritrea had sheltered the soldiers and provided them with warm care. Think about the historical significance of that acknowledgment. These were not Eritrean soldiers. They were Ethiopian servicemen who had been attacked by forces of their own countrymen. They crossed an international border in a moment of military crisis and were received by the neighbouring country whose president Professor Alemariam now attempts to portray as their principal enemy. Eritrea did not turn them away. It did not abandon them to their circumstances. It provided refuge, clothing, food, water and assistance in regrouping. Abiy himself acknowledged this before the Ethiopian Parliament and the Ethiopian public. The question, therefore, is straightforward: How does Professor Al Mariam reconcile his portrayal of President Isaias Afwerki as an existential threat to these Ethiopian soldiers with the documented fact that Eritrea received, sheltered and assisted those very soldiers when they were fleeing the Northern Command crisis? There is another historical detail worth remembering. Abiy’s November 30 parliamentary acknowledgment was not an isolated diplomatic courtesy. It was a public expression of gratitude for assistance that his government considered consequential during an exceptionally difficult military crisis. Professor Al Mariam account devotes considerable attention to the suffering of Ethiopian soldiers. Their sacrifice deserves historical recognition. But historical recognition cannot be selective. Eritrea’s documented humanitarian assistance to those soldiers belongs in the same historical record. Nor does acknowledging this assistance require overlooking subsequent allegations concerning Eritrean military conduct in Tigray. Those allegations deserve their own evidence-based examination. They cannot retrospectively erase what Abiy publicly acknowledged on November 30, 2020. A historian’s responsibility is to examine the complete record, not select the episodes that reinforce a preferred political narrative. Professor Alemariam, the historical record contains an inconvenient question for your argument: Why does your portrayal of Eritrea omit the very assistance that Ethiopia’s own Prime Minister publicly acknowledged and thanked Eritrea for providing? History is not served by selective remembrance. And the public record does not disappear simply because it complicates a political narrative.