Addissu Admas’ article (read here), “Building a Durable Accommodation with Eritrea,” presents a compelling and urgent argument for diplomatic negotiations between Ethiopia and Eritrea over access to the Red Sea. The strength of this piece lies in its historical depth, logical reasoning, and pragmatic approach to a contentious geopolitical issue that threatens regional stability

 

 The author meticulously traces the colonial origins of Eritrea’s coastline, highlighting how arbitrary borders imposed by Italy have left Ethiopia landlocked. This framing is crucial because it underscores that Ethiopia’s demand is not expansionist but rooted in historical continuity, economic necessity, and sovereign rights.

 

Admas firmly opposes war as a solution, recognizing that conflict would be catastrophic for both nations. Instead, he advocates for negotiation under international mediation (UN/AU), which demonstrates a rational and ethical stance. His comparison to the Danzig Corridor is particularly insightful, offering a historical precedent for peaceful territorial accommodations.

 

The article convincingly argues that Eritrea stands to gain economically from leasing Assab to Ethiopia, given Djibouti’s current dominance in handling Ethiopian trade. The proposal is not one-sided but suggests mutual benefits—something Eritrea’s leadership should consider if economic growth is a priority.

 

The author rightly points out the injustice of a nation of 120+ million people being held hostage by Eritrea’s refusal to negotiate. Ethiopia’s security concerns, particularly regarding naval defense, are legitimate in an era of increasing Red Sea militarization (e.g., UAE, Turkey, and Saudi bases in the region).

 

While the article is persuasive, it could address Eritrea’s perspective more thoroughly. President Isaias Afwerki’s regime thrives on isolationism and distrust of Ethiopia, shaped by decades of war. A durable solution must also consider Eritrea’s security paranoia—how can Ethiopia assure Asmara that leased territory won’t become a Trojan horse?

 

Additionally, the Somaliland MoU reference is risky—Eritrea may view this as Ethiopia’s “expansionist blueprint,” undermining trust. Instead, the focus should be on exclusive economic incentives, such as joint port management, infrastructure investments, or even shared naval facilities under AU oversight.

 

The final verdict …a  Necessary Call for Diplomacy

 

Admas’ article is a timely, well-reasoned appeal to avoid another catastrophic Horn of Africa war. His arguments are rooted in historical fairness, economic logic, and strategic necessity, making a strong case for why Eritrea must come to the table. However, success will require confidence-building measures, international guarantees, and creative compromises—not just historical analogies.

 

The alternative—continued stalemate—only fuels instability. As the Red Sea becomes a global flashpoint, Ethiopia cannot afford indefinite dependency on Djibouti, and Eritrea cannot afford perpetual hostility with its largest neighbor. Negotiation is not a choice; it is an inevitability. The only question is whether both nations will act before or after another avoidable war.