I was impressed by how skillfully Tsegaye Ararsa's legalistic framing avoids the hard realities that more than 140 million Ethiopians face when I listened to him on Tghat. Tsegaye views our country's quest for direct sea access as little more than a political ploy, a stage show put on by the current government to divert attention from internal conflict.
But as someone who is passionate about our region's long-term security and economic survival, I believe his approach to be seriously misguided, excessively scholarly, and fundamentally detached from Ethiopia's existential imperatives.
It distorts the larger geopolitical debate and unfairly delegitimizes the sincere ambitions of a large populace to reduce a crucial question of national existence to a fake political spectacle.
First, Tsegaye's claim that economic weight and demographics are "irrelevant" under international law is an example of textbook rigidity that doesn't work in the real world. It is ludicrous to argue that a nation of 140 million people, whose population is expected to increase significantly over the next several decades, should just accept its status as the most populous landlocked nation in the world without pursuing sovereign or guarantyd marine access.
For scholars who live comfortably outside, it is easy to preach about strict adherence to UNCLOS Article 125, but for the average Ethiopian, being landlocked directly translates into increased import costs, outrageous port fees in Djibouti, and ongoing economic insecurity.
The purpose of international law is to promote regional stability and benefit humanity, not to ensnare vast numbers of people in never-ending economic chains. It is not possible to reduce our economic self-preservation to a legal footnote.
Second, Tsegaye makes extensive use of the terms "imperial misadventure" and "dangerous retreat into mythic history" to describe Ethiopia's maritime ambitions.
This is a weaponized, facile label meant to put an end to any meaningful conversation before it starts.
Promoting direct, sovereign access to a port is a standard geopolitical requirement for any large Horn of Africa nation, not an attempt to reconstruct an empire from the 19th century. Ethiopia is portrayed as a natural villain when all of its geopolitical aspirations are framed as "imperial aggression," while neighboring governments and other forces actively seek to isolate and stifle its economy. Rising regional powers around the world routinely pursue a permanent, safe trade outlet; this is not an antiquated ideal.
Third, although Tsegaye contends that previous agreements and Eritrea's 1993 recognition resolved the issue permanently, geopolitics is constantly changing. There are numerous instances throughout history where the original post-divorce agreements were eventually shown to be unsustainable and had to be renegotiated in light of new circumstances.
Ethiopia became dangerously dependent on a single corridor as a result of the hasty transitional decisions taken in the early 1990s, resulting in a serious structural imbalance that has plagued the area for decades. It is competent statecraft rather than "illegal relitigation" to identify these systemic defects and work to address them through diplomatic, strategic, or bilateral measures.
When the underlying security and economic foundations drastically change, nations routinely review bilateral agreements and regional arrangements.
Additionally, Tsegaye's viewpoint totally ignores the growing outside influences and foreign meddling in the Red Sea region. With foreign naval outposts, regional rivalries, and hostile alliances specifically designed to stifle Ethiopia's expansion, the Red Sea is quickly turning into one of the world's most militarized maritime routes.
It is unrealistic to expect Ethiopia to do nothing while foreign nations establish military outposts just outside its borders.
Expecting Ethiopia to remain completely passive while foreign powers secure military footholds right off its border is naive. Direct maritime presence and sovereign port access are not just about importing goods; they are about guaranteeing national defense, maritime security, and protecting vital trade routes from foreign blockades or external coercion.
Finally, Tsegaye’s defeatist stance on Ethiopia’s regional role claiming our military lacks credibility and that any move toward the coast would invite disaster, ignores our country's historical role as a stabilizing anchor in the Horn of Africa. A prosperous, secure, and sea-connected Ethiopia is essential for the long-term prosperity and security of the entire Red Sea basin.
Rather than dismissing our national aspirations as mere regime propaganda or illegal overreach, intellectuals like Tsegaye should be helping shape constructive, legal, and pragmatic ways for Ethiopia to secure its rightful place on the coast. We cannot allow procedural technicalities and outdated frameworks to permanently hold our nation's economic future hostage.
