ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷

#Eritrea: keep going. Everything you need will come to you at the perfect time.🐪🐪🐪🐪

[Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 @hawelti]

In characteristic fashion, the Potemkin Party's erratic political pendulum is yet again swinging between two extreme positions:
i) A provocative and aggressive posturing that has been accompanied, for over two years now, by incessant saber-rattling to "acquire sovereign access to the sea", on the one hand;
ii) Simultaneous portrayal of itself as the "aggrieved party" and a "hapless victim of internal and external conspiracies", on the other.

This was indeed the gist of the PM's rambling at the House of Peoples Representatives earlier today.

Hyperbole and associated drama aside, the stubborn facts remain the same.

The sad truth is: the unnecessary and avoidable tensions in the region have and continue to be stoked by the very reckless policies of the Potemkin Party. For brief illustrations:

1. The palpable friction with the Sudan squarely emanates from the Potemkin Party's dangerous involvement in the conflict in the Sudan by hosting, under the bidding of certain extraneous forces, a secret military camp and base for the RSF in the Benishangul-Gumuz region of Ethiopia. The evidence, which is overwhelming, is already in the public domain.
2. The Potemkin Party's stealthily signed MOU with Somaliland a couple of years ago was another illicit and reckless misstep that aroused consternation in the region as a whole. This act remains in flagrant violation of the AU and IGAD Constitutive Acts as well as fundamental tenets of international law on sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.
3. The Potemkin Party has pursued, for over two and half years now, a toxic and revisionist policy against Eritrea by openly threatening to invade/acquire by any means, its Assab port and coastal areas for what it terms as "sovereign access to the sea".
4. In the event, its frequent reference to "conspiratorial forces disappointed by, and bent on, scuttling the Pretoria Agreement" is as disingenuous as it is untenable. In as far as Eritrea is concerned, the Pretoria Agreement is a purely Ethiopian affair. Let us also recall - the beans have been spilled now by Getachew Redda's multiple confessions - that the Potemkin Party was scheming against Eritrea (Djibouti and Seychelles events) months before the negotiations and signature of the Pretoria Agreement.

In a nutshell, the quest for enduring regional peace and stability that the peoples of the Horn of Africa deeply cherish and deserve has been, and continues to be, jeopardized by the Potemkin Party's delusional policies.
https://t.co/2MuR9MZUna

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@Sharronyemane Beautiful! 😍

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@Deee_luul Happy Independence Day Somalia! 🇸🇴

[Sertseyonas Negash 🇪🇷 @Sertseyonas]

Recently, PP officials and their trolls have been quoting the fickle @reda_getachew to reinforce their disinformation campaign against #Eritrea. It is worth reminding them what this same big sellout was saying about @AbiyAhmedAli & the PP.
@DanielsonKassa1 @dany_daba @ButaDubi

[Sirak Bahlbi @SirakBahlbi]

This man is a Minister in #Ethiopia's Prosperity Party (PP) government. In an interview on Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation (EBC) few days ago, he discussed Ethiopia's unlawful claim to ownership of Red Sea coastal territory. In doing so, he bastardizes the history of the Horn of #Africa to accommodate Abiy Ahmed's Red-Sea fantasies and to destruct the poor #Ethiopian public.

We constantly receive messages from PP supporters on social media telling us not to speak about Ethiopia and related matters. I would be more than happy not to mention Ethiopia if its covetous Ministers and Generals would stop mentioning #Eritrea. The relentless propaganda and toxic indoctrination aimed at persuading ordinary #Ethiopians that they are victims because of the Red Sea issue is becoming increasingly dangerous. If left unchecked, it could easily lead to conflict, destruction, and further destabilization of the region.

In this clip, he appears to have little understanding of how modern nation-states are formed, particularly how sovereignty and borders were established in #Africa. He refers to the 4th-century Kingdom of Aksum and its use of the port of Adulis as justification for contemporary territorial claims.

Someone needs to explain to this greedy Minister that if the borders of African states were to be determined according to the ancient kingdoms, then present-day Ethiopia would not be recognizable . Large parts of what is now Ethiopia—including #Oromo, #Somali, 'Southern people', #Afar, and #Benishangul-#Gumuz regions—would not be part of modern day Ethiopia. Even the #Amhara heartland was not fully part of the Aksumite Kingdom during much of its existence.

So when he uses Aksumite Kingdom of the 4th century to justify his Red-Sea fantasies, which Ethiopia exactly is he referring to? The modern Ethiopian state did not exist in its current territorial form, and using ancient kingdoms as a basis for contemporary sovereignty claims raises even more difficult questions his small brain can answers.

[Bloomberg @business]

A group of holders of Ethiopia’s defaulted $1 billion eurobond will continue the process of suing the government after the latest round of restructuring negotiations fell through https://t.co/5ulIpxTQYJ

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@TiborPNagyJr We love our president and the entire leadership team that safeguard our beloved country.🇪🇷🇪🇷🇪🇷🇪🇷💪🏽

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@reda_getachew ፍቕሪ ሃገርካን፣ረቡሓ ሃገርካን ምቕዳም “ባርነት” ኮይኑ ይረኣየካ እንተሃልዩ ናትካ ሽግር እዩ።

ብዛዕባ ‘ባርነት’ ካብ ኣልዓልካ ግን እቲ ናትካ ሕሽክርና ኸ ምስምንታይ እዩ ክቑጸር?

“ላም ምስ ሓራዲኣ ማይ ትሰቲ”

[Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 @hawelti]

President Isaias Afwerki received, at the Denden Guest House in the late morning hours today, senior Egyptian delegation composed of Foreign Minister Dr. Badr Abdelatty; the Minister of Transportation, Lt. General Engineer Kamel Alwazir; and CEO's of several companies involved in the transport, energy and mining sectors.

The extensive discussions centered on further enhancement of all-rounded bilateral ties of cooperation as well as regional and international issues of mutual importance.

President Isaias underlined the significance of consolidating the all-rounded ties between Eritrea and Egypt to advance the mutual interests of the Eritrean and Egyptian peoples. In this respect, President Isaias expressed Eritrea's readiness to implement common projects in collaboration with Egyptian economic and trade companies.

Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, for his part, stated that the current visit was a manifestation and expression of the brotherly ties of friendship and cooperation that exist between the peoples of Eritrea and Egypt.

The principal purpose of the visit was to further consolidate economic and trade ties between the two countries in accordance with the guidelines charted out by President Isaias Afwerki and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Dr. Badr noted.

On the occasion, the two countries signed an Agreement on Marine Transport "for developing cooperation in the sector with a view to contributing to the development of international shipping on the basis of the principles of the freedom of navigation".

The Agreement was signed by Eritrea's Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Berhane Tesfaselassie, and Egyptian Minister of Transport, Lt. General Kamel Alwazir.

[Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 @hawelti]

Foreign Minister Osman Saleh today met his Egyptian counterpart, Dr. Badr Abdelatty, and discussed modalities of implementation of the overall bilateral agreements of cooperation reached between the two sides.

Foreign Minister Osman underlined the significance of the visit of the senior Egyptian delegation and the importance of strengthening the bilateral ties of cooperation in these crucial times of fluid developments in the Horn of Africa region.

Dr. Badr, for his part, referred to the alignment of views and positions of the two sides on vital regional and international issues and stressed the importance of expediting the implementation of mutually agreed development programmes.

[Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 @hawelti]

Audacity of Potemkin Party minions and their hired apologists is indeed beyond the pale.

The PP regime's delusional policies continue to foment, beyond any shred of doubt, unnecessary tension in the region:
- Exhibit 1: the illicit MOU that the PP regime signed stealthily with Somaliland in January 2024;
- Exhibit 2: the relentless media and diplomatic campaigns, accompanied by incessant saber-rattling, that the regime has unleashed since December 2023 to invade Assab in pursuit of its pipedream of "sovereign access to the sea";
- Exhibit 3: PP's widely reported (Yale University findings etc.) involvement in the conflict in the Sudan whose tentacles and dangerous ramifications (link below) are multi-layered and grave indeed.

Still, PP minions and their apologists accuse Eritrea and other countries in the region for "conspiracies... for forming an axis of powers" against Ethiopia.

These false flags are too transparent and cannot camouflage the real source and incubator of unnecessary and avoidable tension in the Horn of Africa region.

The lofty aspirations of the peoples of the region remain enduring peace and cooperation anchored on respect of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity; not perennial conflicts to mollify elusive ambitions of hegemony and domination.

https://t.co/j7f3eN57o7

[Sirak Bahlbi @SirakBahlbi]

“As we have shown with objective evidence, when we [#Ethiopia] were using #Assab and #Massawa, our economy was in free fall and only days away from total collapse. And when we became landlocked, our economy took off with double-digit growth.” — Redwan Hussein, current National Security Advisor to Abiy Ahmed, speaking during Ethiopia’s 2005 election campaign.

[ER MEDIA @ERMedia91]

ንማዕርነታዊ ሽርክነት’ምበር “እምባ” ንምንዳይ ኣይኮነን

ኣመሪካ ዝምድንኣ ምስ ኤርትራ ዳግም ንምትካሉ (Reset) ትሰርሕ ምህላዋ ዝገልጽ፡ Wall Street Journal ዝተባህለ ጋዜጣ ኣመሪካ ሓደ ዓንቀጽ ዘርጊሑ። ሕመረት ናይ’ቲ ጽሑፍ “ ጂኦግራፊያዊ ኣቀማምጣ ኤርትራን ስትራተጂያዊ ኣገዳስነቱ ንረብሓታት ኣመሪካ” ጠቓሚ ስለ ዝኾነን ብፍላይ ድሕሪ ምብራዕ “ ኲናት ኢራን”፡ ስዒቡ ዝተፈጥረ ወጥሪ ኣብ መጻብቦ ሆርሙዝን፡ ምምሕዳር ትራምፕ ንምብርባሩ ዝያዳ ከም ዝተሃንጠየ ይገልጽ። ከም “ግንዖ” ከኣ ኣመሪካ ከፊላዊ ምልዓል እገዳ ኣብ ልዕሊ ኤርትራ ክትገብር ከም እትደሊ ይጠቅስ።

መቓምጦ ኤርትራ ኣብ ኣገዳሲ ጂኦ-ስትራተጂያዊ ዞባ ዝርከብ ምዃኑ፡ ሎሚ ዝኽሰት ዘሎ ሓድሽ ርኽበት ኣይኮነን። ጥንታዊ’ዩ። ጠንቂ ናይ 80 ዓመታት ዓሎቕ፡ ውዲት፡ መግዛእቲ፡ ብሓደ ወገን፡ ሳዕቤን ቃልስን መስዋእትን ድማ በቲ ካልእ ዝነበረን ዘሎን፡ ንሱ እዚ ኣገዳሲ ጂኦ-ስትራተጂያዊ ኣቀማምጣ ኤርትራ እዩ። ሽግር ወይ ዕንቅፋት ዝኸውን ዘሎ ግን፡ ግጉይ ፖሊሲ ምምሕዳራት ኣመሪካ ኣብ’ዚ ዞባ እምበር እቲ ጂኦ-ስትራተጂያዊ ኣቀማምጣ ኤርትራን ኣገዳስነቱን ኣይኮነን። መርገጺ ኤርትራ፡ ኣብ ጉዳይ’ዚ ኣህጉራዊ ኣገዳስነት ዘለዎ ጂኦ-ስትራተጂያዊ ከባቢ ንጹር’ዩ። ምውሓስ ሰላምን ጸጥታን ከባቢና ሓላፍነት ሃገራት ገማግም እምበር ንኻልኦት ዝወሃብ ዕዮ ኣይኮነን ዝብል መትከል ይኣምን። እዚ ማለት ግን ደገፍን ምትሕግጋዝን ካልኦት ኣብ ዘድልየሉ እዋን፡ ዘይሕሰምን ዘይነጽግን ምዃኑ ከኣ ክዝከር ኣለዎ።

ንድሕሪት ቁሩብ ምልስ ኢልና እንተፈቲሽና፡ ኤርትራ ምስ ኣመሪካ ዘለዋ ዝምድና ንምምዕባል ካብ ጽባሕ ናጽነትን ቅድሚኡን፡ ዝተፈላለየ ተበግሶታት ብምውሳድ ዝተግሀት ሃገር’ያ። ዓሚ ሓምለ፡ ፕረዚደንት ትራምፕ ኣብ ሓድሕዳዊ “ምክብባር” ዝተመርኮሰ፡ ቅድሚኡ ንዝተፈጸመ ጌጋ ዝእርም ዝምድና ምስ ኤርትራ ክሃንጽ ከም ዝደሊ ዝገልጽ መልእኽቲ ናብ ፕረዚደንት ኢሳይያስ ምልኣኹ፡ ኤርትራ ብእወታ ተቐቢላቶ እያ። ኣብቲ ቀዳማይ እብረ ስልጣን ፕረዚደንት ትራምፕ፡ ፕረዚደንት ኢሳይያስ’ውን ተበግሶ ኤርትራ ንምምሕያሽ ዝምድና ምስ ኣመሪካ ዝገልጽ መልእኽቲ ሰዲዱ ምንባሩ ክርሳዕ የብሉን።

ኤርትራ ምስ ኩለን ሃገራት ኣብ ማዕርነትን ሓድሕድ ምክብባርን ዝተመርኮሰ ውዱን ዝምድና ምምዕባል እንተዘይኮይኑ፡ ምስ ሓደ ወገን ኣንጻር ካልእ ወገን ምሽራው ዘይትቕበል፡ ኣብ ልኡላዊ ግዝኣታ ወተሃደራዊ መደበር ወጻእተኛታት ኣንጻር ካልኦት ክህሉን ክነጥፍን ዘይትፈቅድ ሃገር’ያ። ስለ’ዚ ምስ ኣመሪካ ክምዕብል ዝድለ ዝምድና’ውን ብዋጋ ካልኦትን ኣንጻር ካልኦትን ክኸውን ኣይክእልን’ዩ። ከም’ቲ ዝበሃል ዘሎ ድማ ኣመሪካን ምምሕዳር ትራምፕን ምምሕያሽ ዝምድና ምስ ኤርትራ ንምቅልጣፍ ይሰርሑ እንተልዮም እወታዊ’ዩ። ኤርትራ’ውን ክትጽዕረሉ ዝጸንሐትን እትደልዮን ስለ ዝኾነ። እንተ ብዛዕባ’ቲ ከም “ግንዖ” ዝጥቀስ ዘሎ ምልዓል እገዳ ኣብ ልዕሊ ኤርትራ፡ ብቐደሙ’ውን ሓደ ካብቲ ክኸውን ዘይነበሮ በደላት ምምሕዳር ኣመሪካ ስለ ዝኾነ፡ ክለዓል ዘለዎ’ዩ። ከም መባድልቲ ኣብ ምምሕያሽን ምምዕባልን ክልትኣዊ ዝምድና ኤርትራ - ኣመሪካ ክውሰድ ግን ቅኑዕ ኣይኮነን።

ሎሚ፡ ጽባሕ፡ ምእንቲ ሰላምን ርግኣትን ሃገርናን ከባቢናን፡ ምስ ኣመሪካ ዝምድና ንምምሕያሽ ክንጽዕር ኢና። ንኽልትኤን ሃገራት ኣብ ዘርብሑ ጉዳያትን ዓውድታትን ድማ ናጽነትን ልኡላውንትን ዝመሰረቱ ምትሕግጋዝ ምምዕባል ግቡእ ስለ ዝኾነ ክንደፍኣሉ ኢና። እንተኾነ ግን “መጸግዒ እምባ” ከም ምንዳይ ክውሰድ የብሉን። ዓይንና እናረኣየ ኣእዛንና እናሰምዐ ጌጋ ካልኦት ክንደግም ዘይሕሰብ’ዩ።

@followers

[Amb. Sophia Tesfamariam @AmbStesfamariam]

There has been a lot written about Eritrea in the last few weeks, and I have decided to respond to one of the many pieces coming out of Ethiopia...The IFA article titled “Eritrea’s Sovereignty Claim and the Insecurity It Conceals”.

This article rests on a selective interpretation of international law, an incomplete account of the history of the #Horn of #Africa, and a troubling attempt to recast legitimate concerns regarding #sovereignty and territorial integrity as evidence of political insecurity rather than lawful state responsibility. It is therefore necessary to address several of the issues raised in this selectively framed piece.

The title itself is particularly revealing. It reflects an increasingly common tendency in certain Prosperity Party (PP) political and intellectual circles to delegitimize Eritrea’s invocation of sovereignty by portraying it not as a foundational principle of international law, but as a form of concealment, obstruction, or paranoia. That framing is deeply problematic.

Sovereignty is not something #Eritrea must “hide behind.” Sovereignty is the cornerstone of the modern international legal order, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. For African states in particular, many of which emerged from colonial partition, territorial disputes, occupation, and prolonged external interference, the defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be dismissed as rhetorical posturing; these are existential legal principles rooted in painful historical experience.

For #Eritrea, these concerns are not theoretical. Eritrea emerged from a long anti-colonial and anti-annexation struggle following federation, annexation, and decades of war. #Ethiopia was not merely a neighboring state in #Eritrean historical memory; it was Eritrea’s former colonizer. That historical experience inevitably shapes Eritrea’s understanding of sovereignty, borders, and national survival.

As the Amharic proverb aptly states: “የወጋ ቢረሳ የተወጋ አይረሳም” — “The one who inflicted the wound may forget, but the one who was wounded never does.” The proverb captures an essential reality often ignored in external analyses of #Eritrea: historical memory shapes national security consciousness. States and peoples that endured annexation, war, occupation, territorial disputes, sanctions, and prolonged external pressure do not, and cannot, approach questions of sovereignty lightly or abstractly.

From an #Eritrean perspective, sovereignty is therefore not an abstract diplomatic slogan or tactical political shield. It is inseparable from the sacrifices made during one of Africa’s longest liberation struggles and from the determination to prevent any return, direct or indirect, to arrangements perceived as compromising Eritrea’s hard-won independence and territorial integrity.

To suggest that Eritrea’s insistence on sovereignty somehow masks illegitimate motives effectively reverses the legal burden. It implies that smaller states defending internationally recognized borders must justify their concerns, while larger regional powers, advancing inflammatory hegemonistic ambitions and openly invoking “historical rights,” “natural entitlement,” or “strategic necessity” regarding maritime access, are treated as merely pursuing economic pragmatism.

From Eritrea’s perspective, the issue has never been whether Ethiopia, as a landlocked state, possesses legitimate developmental interests in commercial maritime access. Eritrea has never disputed that principle. International law already recognizes the rights of landlocked states to negotiated access and freedom of transit. The issue is whether such ambitions are being articulated and pursued in a manner consistent with the UN Charter, sovereign equality, and the prohibition against the threat or use of force.

Article 2(4) of the @UN Charter prohibits not only the use of force, but also the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. International law does not require states to wait for military invasion before taking seriously rhetoric, strategic signaling, or political discourse carrying coercive implications. Preventive vigilance regarding credible coercive signaling is fully consistent with the sovereign right of states to safeguard their territorial integrity and political independence.

Against this backdrop, Eritrea’s concerns regarding Ethiopia’s increasingly assertive discourse on Red Sea access are neither irrational nor propagandistic. Senior Prosperity Party (PP) officials, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, have repeatedly framed maritime access in existential and revisionist terms, invoking notions of “historical rights,” “natural entitlement,” and strategic inevitability. #Ethiopia|n political discourse surrounding Red Sea access has at times gone even further, with prominent figures openly declaring that Ethiopia would obtain maritime access “peacefully if possible and militarily if necessary.”

This rhetoric has not emerged in isolation. It has been accompanied by a broader climate of increasingly normalized irredentist discourse on Ethiopian social and political media platforms, including circulation of altered maps depicting Assab and portions of sovereign Eritrean territory as part of Ethiopia. Independent fact-checking organizations documented multiple instances in which maps were digitally manipulated to incorporate Assab into Ethiopian territory amid heightened public debate surrounding #RedSea access.

Equally troubling were images and videos circulated from military-linked events and social media accounts showing #Ethiopia|n military figures displaying maps incorporating portions of southern #Eritrea into #Ethiopia during public ceremonies associated with special forces mobilization and nationalist messaging. Whether officially sanctioned or not, the widespread dissemination of such imagery contributed to a political environment in which revisionist territorial narratives increasingly entered mainstream discourse.

Taken together, these developments cannot reasonably be dismissed as harmless nationalist symbolism. In a region with a long history of interstate war, contested borders, and unresolved territorial grievances, such rhetoric and imagery carry legal and security implications that responsible states are entitled to take seriously under the precautionary logic embedded within Article 2(4) of the @UN Charter.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed himself publicly characterized Red Sea access as an existential issue for Ethiopia and suggested that the matter could not remain unresolved indefinitely. International media and regional analysts increasingly warned that such rhetoric, combined with military mobilization and nationalist agitation surrounding Assab, risked contributing to renewed regional instability and fears of interstate confrontation.

The 2024 Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and #Somaliland further heightened tensions, particularly as Somalia formally rejected the arrangement as an infringement upon its sovereignty and territorial integrity. These developments underscore precisely why questions of maritime access in the Horn cannot be divorced from wider legal and security considerations.

Equally problematic is the article’s selective treatment of the 1998–2000 Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict.
Eritrea’s borders were not undefined or ambiguous constructs. They were established through the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties concluded between imperial Italy and imperial Ethiopia. These treaties formed the legal basis upon which the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), established under the Algiers Agreement, based its delimitation ruling.

Critically, the EEBC’s final and binding decision awarded Badme, the principal flashpoint and casus belli of the 1998–2000 conflict, unequivocally to #Eritrea. That fact is legally fundamental. It demonstrates that the territorial dispute centered on areas ultimately determined by the competent international arbitral body to fall within Eritrean sovereignty.

The article also misrepresents the role of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission by implying that it definitively adjudicated the broader origins of the war. As legal scholars, including analyses published in the European Journal of International Law, have noted, the Claims Commission was not specifically mandated to comprehensively determine the origins of the conflict. The independent investigative mechanism envisaged under Article 3 of the Algiers Agreement for that purpose was never constituted.

Thus, no authoritative international process ever fully examined the broader antecedents of the conflict, including tensions arising from contested administration, local clashes, militia activity, mapping disputes, and allegations of encroachments into sovereign Eritrean territory during the 1990s, as well as the unprovoked assault by Ethiopian troops against an #Eritrean army unit in the Badme area on 5 May 1998. What was conclusively determined, however, was the territorial issue itself. And on that question, the #EEBC ruled in #Eritrea’s favor.

The defining legal and political crisis of the post-war period therefore was not Eritrea’s rejection of international law, but Ethiopia’s refusal, for nearly two decades, to implement a binding arbitral ruling it had expressly agreed would be “final and binding.” This remains one of the most consequential contradictions in discussions surrounding the rule of law in the Horn of Africa.

At stake was not merely a bilateral border dispute, but the integrity of international arbitration itself. If states may disregard binding arbitral rulings when politically inconvenient, the credibility of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms under international law is fundamentally undermined.

The article’s treatment of the 2009 sanctions regime is similarly incomplete. From #Eritrea’s perspective, the sanctions imposed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907 emerged from a highly politicized process shaped by Ethiopia’s manipulation of #IGAD and the @AfricanUnion. The allegations underpinning the sanctions were strongly contested and were never established through an independent judicial process meeting accepted evidentiary standards.

For many Eritreans, the sanctions episode remains a troubling example of the instrumentalization of multilateral institutions for geopolitical purposes. Indeed, many #Africa|n observers viewed the process with deep discomfort, recognizing the damaging precedent of one #Africa|n state mobilizing punitive international measures against another amid contested allegations. The eventual lifting of sanctions in 2018 further underscored the fundamentally political nature of the process.

The article also presents Eritrea’s National Service Program in a highly reductionist manner. While external narratives often portray the program solely through a militarized lens, Eritrea’s national service system has long included substantial civic and developmental components. National Service graduates contribute across ministries, schools, colleges, hospitals, infrastructure projects, local administrations, and diplomatic missions abroad.

More importantly, the statutory 18-month duration of National Service was prolonged largely as a consequence of the prolonged no-war-no-peace environment and continued security threats emanating from unresolved tensions with successive Ethiopian governments.

At the same time, Ethiopia itself has, in recent years, undergone extensive military mobilization, major arms acquisitions, and repeated internal armed conflicts across multiple regions. Numerous international organizations, media investigations, and even #Ethiopian institutions have documented serious abuses in regions such as Amhara and Oromia, including extrajudicial killings, drone strikes affecting civilians, arbitrary detentions, mass displacement, and attacks on civilian infrastructure.

A balanced and credible analysis cannot selectively invoke human rights concerns only where they reinforce preferred geopolitical narratives while minimizing or contextualizing large-scale violence elsewhere.

More broadly, #Eritrea’s foreign policy has consistently emphasized sovereign equality, non-interference, regional ownership, and resistance to hegemonic arrangements in the Horn of Africa. #Eritrea’s invocation of sovereignty is not “camouflage”; it reflects the historical experience of a state that emerged from one of Africa’s longest liberation struggles and subsequently endured war, sanctions, prolonged territorial occupation, and sustained external pressure.

Regional integration and economic cooperation in the Horn are both necessary and achievable. Eritrea has never opposed negotiated frameworks for trade, connectivity, or maritime access grounded in mutual consent and international law. What Eritrea rejects, correctly, is the normalization of rhetoric implying that the strategic ambitions or demographic weight of larger states entitle them to exceptional arrangements at the expense of the sovereignty and security concerns of smaller neighbors.

Ultimately, the issue is not opposition to Ethiopia’s development. It is the insistence that all regional ambitions remain firmly anchored within the principles of international law: sovereign equality, territorial integrity, non-interference, pacta sunt servanda, and the prohibition against coercion enshrined in the Charter of the @UN.

As for future Eritrea–Ethiopia relations, or “settlement,” as the author characterizes it, prudence, realism, and historical experience counsel patience rather than premature and unrealistic optimism.

Genuine peace and stable relations between neighboring states cannot be manufactured through diplomatic slogans, external pressure, or intellectual wishful thinking. They must emerge organically, gradually, and on the basis of mutual respect, consistency, reciprocity, and trust built over time.

Lasting peace cannot be rushed, especially after the considerable goodwill and historic opportunity extended in 2018 were ultimately undermined by a leadership in Ethiopia that failed to consolidate reconciliation internally, regionally, and institutionally. Sustainable peace in the Horn of Africa will require seriousness, strategic patience, and above all, an #Ethiopia that is first at peace with itself.

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@reda_getachew We will see what the “Overinflated bravado” will do when the game goes 😄😄

[ⓉⓃ @tesfanews]

“The Last King of Beshasha,” a reggae single, by the one and only 🤡 has been released ... 😂 (Credit: @Meconneno)

https://t.co/r8YcQhMAVW

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@Ternafi @Sharronyemane @SebleEphrem Great job both of you!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🇪🇷

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@SirakBahlbi ልክ ነው እኛም ሰልችቶናል 🤣🤣🤣

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@Eskinder88 @hawelti @SirakBahlbi If you are serious about this you need to visit your doctor before it’s to late 😄😄😄

[ፍናን ሃገር 🇪🇷 @fenanhager]

@GirmaTelk 🤣🤣