Mohamud A. Ahmed – Cagaweyne
History often returns not as a messenger of wisdom but as an echo that forces nations to revisit the ghosts they once buried. Between the highlands of Ethiopia and the coastal winds of Eritrea lies a silence so heavy that it seems to breathe. It is a silence that remembers the thunder of artillery, the shouts of retreat, and the fragile peace that followed, only to dissolve again in suspicion. Today, the two nations stand before the same abyss that once swallowed their hopes. The air between them is thick with pride and paranoia, and the region watches anxiously, knowing that one miscalculation could again plunge the Horn of Africa into turmoil.
Ethiopia’s geography has always been its paradox. It is a country abundant in rivers yet denied the sea, rich in history yet haunted by the memory of loss. When Eritrea gained independence in 1993, Ethiopia’s heart lost its maritime pulse. Since then, a land of more than one hundred million people has lived tethered to a single artery through Djibouti, a lifeline that is both vital and vulnerable. The yearning for sea access is not a symptom of arrogance but an expression of survival. It is the cry of a civilization that knows prosperity cannot flourish in isolation.
In his recent address before the House of People’s Representatives on October 28, 2025, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed spoke with the gravity of a leader confronting destiny. He stated that Ethiopia’s right to the Red Sea is legal, historical, geographical, and economic, and that no nation of over one hundred million can remain indefinitely landlocked. His tone was calm but resolute, more reflective than rhetorical. It was a plea for understanding and a declaration of necessity. Ethiopia, he made clear, seeks not conquest but continuity, not dominance but dignity.
This vision of maritime reclamation did not arise suddenly. It has been part of Ethiopia’s consciousness for decades. On Tikimt 19, 2018, in the Ethiopian calendar, corresponding to October 29, 2025, in the Gregorian calendar, Ambassador Jemal Beker spoke with equal conviction at the Federal Media Commission in Addis Ababa. “Bahir Gate is crucial for the movement to ensure prosperity,” he declared. He reminded the nation that thirty years earlier, through the combined conspiracy of internal and external forces seeking to weaken Ethiopia, the country lost its sea gate. He urged that this historical mistake must be corrected through the peaceful principle of give and take, asserting Ethiopia’s legal, historical, and natural rights to maritime access.
Ambassador Jemal cited the United Nations Sea Use Agreement to affirm that geography should never determine the fate of nations. He warned that Ethiopia’s lack of direct access to the sea inflates trade costs, restricts sovereignty over imports and exports, and discourages foreign investment. “The owner of the Ethiopian sea gate is crucial for the movement to ensure prosperity,” he repeated, emphasizing that maritime access would benefit not only Ethiopia but the region and the international community. He envisioned cooperation rather than confrontation and urged the continuation of dialogue with neighboring states. “Just as we built the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam together,” he said, “we must unite to achieve the issue of the sea gate.” His speech ended with a spiritual tone. “In the lordship of Jonah,” he concluded, “let us each do our part.”
The statements of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Ambassador Jemal Beker are connected by both purpose and principle. They form a single thread in the national fabric of Ethiopia, binding history to hope. They articulate a vision of a nation seeking survival rather than supremacy and partnership rather than plunder. Ethiopia’s maritime aspiration is therefore not an act of ambition but of restoration. It is not about borders; it is about equilibrium. The greater question that remains is whether the region possesses the wisdom to make this pursuit peaceful.
Eritrea, shaped by decades of sacrifice, guards its sovereignty with near-religious devotion. Every grain of its coastline is sanctified by blood and memory. Any mention of Ethiopia’s maritime aspiration triggers deep ancestral fears, fears that once served its survival but now threaten its stability. In Eritrea’s worldview, preemption means protection. In Ethiopia’s reasoning, access implies endurance. Between these two interpretations stands the invisible wall of mistrust that has kept both nations prisoners of their past.
Power without wisdom consumes itself. Ethiopia’s rising strength must be tempered by restraint, and Eritrea’s vigilance must be guided by prudence. Leadership requires not impulse but proportion, not reaction but reflection. Eritrea’s alleged involvement with proxy actors within Ethiopia, if proven, would represent not foresight but folly. Proxy politics are not tools of security; they are symptoms of fear.
Ethiopia has both the right and the responsibility to defend its sovereignty. No nation can remain passive while others attempt to destabilize it. Yet true strength lies in restraint. The greatest power of a state is not in its capacity to destroy but in its ability to prevent destruction. A port captured through war becomes a wound that bleeds prosperity for generations. The mightiest empires have fallen not through defeat but through the arrogance of their certainty.
War is the mathematics of ruin. It begins with pride and ends with pain. Should Ethiopia and Eritrea allow anger to govern their choices, the Red Sea would cease to be a route of commerce and become a river of sorrow. Their currencies would collapse, their people would flee, and their economies would dissolve in smoke. The humanitarian cost would surpass imagination. The Horn of Africa, already fragile from drought and conflict, would fracture beyond repair.
The Red Sea’s strategic importance ensures that no war there would remain regional. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye would all be drawn in, each pursuing its own calculus. The region would become another chessboard where external powers play for influence and local lives pay the price. The sea that carries oil and trade would carry grief instead.
Restraint, therefore, is the highest form of power. Ethiopia’s greatest strength lies not in its arsenal but in its moral clarity. It must show the world that its patience is not weakness but principle. If Eritrea continues to interfere, Ethiopia must respond through lawful, measured, and intelligent means. Diplomacy, intelligence, and strategic containment are the new instruments of survival. The purpose of defense is not retaliation but deterrence.
Eritrea must also reimagine its identity. Isolation is not independence. Suspicion is not security. A nation cannot thrive by erecting walls around its fear. By destabilizing its neighbor, Eritrea destabilizes itself. Its ports can be more than symbols of defiance; they can become corridors of opportunity. The relevance of Eritrea in the future will not depend on its tanks but on its trade. The strength of its sovereignty will be measured not by its silence but by its dialogue.
In this larger reflection, the argument of Professor Teshome Abebe in his recent Borkena article titled “Unlocking Prosperity” appears prophetic. He called for unity, institutional integrity, and a moral awakening within Ethiopia. His piece came at the right moment and with the right message. While his writing illuminated the keys to prosperity, this reflection turns to what may go wrong if reason falters. Where his vision focuses on unlocking potential, this one warns against the collapse of prudence. Together, they offer two paths before Ethiopia and Eritrea: one of renewal and one of regret.
Eritrea needs the golden number of Ethiopia’s one hundred and twenty million people. Without them, its ports will never fulfill their promise. Ethiopia, in turn, needs the ports that lie along Eritrea’s coast. The question is not who possesses more strength but who can perceive the hidden value of cooperation. Each holds what the other lacks. If they fight, they will bury their fortune beneath the sands. If they cooperate, they will build a bridge between two destinies and turn geography into opportunity.
The Horn of Africa stands at a defining threshold. The sea that once divided Ethiopia and Eritrea can become the water that binds them. A new Red Sea Compact rooted in equality and economic interdependence could turn suspicion into partnership. Ethiopia’s need for maritime access can be fulfilled through dialogue, while Eritrea’s sovereignty can remain intact. Shared investments in energy, infrastructure, and trade could turn yesterday’s wounds into tomorrow’s wealth.
Kenya, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia may serve as helpful facilitators in this process. Kenya brings regional credibility, Türkiye diplomatic balance, and Saudi Arabia strategic influence across both shores of the Red Sea. Yet the most meaningful peace will not come from external mediation but from internal maturity. Only Ethiopia and Eritrea can silence the echoes of the past and compose the harmony of their future.
If Eritrea ceases interference and Ethiopia exercises restraint, both will prosper. Ethiopia will gain its maritime lifeline through peace, and Eritrea will regain its economic relevance through partnership. This is not idealism. It is logic. Cooperation multiplies what conflict divides. The arithmetic of peace always yields a higher sum.
True leadership is measured not by the wars one wins but by the crises one prevents. The greatness of a nation lies not in the noise of its victories but in the silence of its wisdom. Ethiopia and Eritrea stand before history’s quiet judgment. Pride may offer satisfaction, but wisdom offers survival.
Peace does not mean surrender. It means endurance. Prosperity does not mean compromise. It means confidence. The time has come to replace rivalry with realism and suspicion with imagination. The Horn of Africa deserves leaders who can see beyond fear and shape history with foresight.
In the end, the Red Sea will not remember their speeches but their choices. The waves will wash away words, but not consequences. The world will not ask who owned the port, only who preserved the peace. Ethiopia and Eritrea can continue to reflect each other’s fears, or they can face each other with light. The sea is vast enough for both to dream. Whether they rise together through reason or sink separately in pride will define not only their future but the destiny of the entire region.
In the mathematics of destiny, arrogance divides, wisdom multiplies, and peace remains the only equation that guarantees prosperity.
Mohamud A. Ahmed – Cagaweyne is a columnist,Political Analyst and Researcher
Greenlight Advisors Group in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. He can be reached at : 251 900 644 648
By same author : The Century is Theirs: Why ONLF Must Choose Dr. Abiy Ahmed Over Geopolitical Gambits and Embrace a Future of Influence
__
Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/
Borkena Ethiopian News Youtube Channel
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit Press Release, send submission to info@borkena.com
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.
Suppose two well-armed hooligans [with financial backers] enter your compound, occupy your front yard, and camp there. What would you do?
a). Would you evict them by all means and take back your front yard?
b). Would you say “God bless you! Take it! It’s all yours!”?
c). Would you be scared of their guns, backers, etc. and beg them to use it for a user fee?
d). Would you say “Have it since Dr. X, Prof. Y, etc. said it’s yours, not mine!”?
For roughly a year now, there has been a recurring public discourse from Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration concerning Eritrea, which many observers interpret as a strategic maneuver. This narrative appears to be largely influenced by the substantial internal pressures and domestic challenges the government is reportedly facing, particularly from groups such as Fano and the OLF. It is widely speculated that these public pronouncements, which at times hint at a potential re-evaluation of relations or even a confrontational stance with Eritrea, serve to divert public attention from pressing internal issues and perceived governmental setbacks. Furthermore, these statements are often seen as an attempt to project an image of strength and decisive leadership, aiming to bolster national confidence and redefine political narratives amidst a complex domestic landscape. This sustained rhetoric has prompted considerable discussion regarding its underlying objectives and long-term implications.