Yonan Yonas2

I love God: Only God can Judge me. Ich liebe Deutschland ( Eritrea forever 🇩🇪🇩🇪🇪🇷🇪🇷💕

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@AfricaViewFacts 😂😂😂😂

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@sternde Ja darf er wo ist das Problem!!?? 🤔

Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG: Jeder hat das Recht,…………….

[Sahra Wagenknecht @SWagenknecht]

Friedrich Merz hat Angst vor Neuwahlen. Kein Wunder: Merz ist der unbeliebteste Bundeskanzler aller Zeiten. Die Zustimmungswerte von Union und SPD befinden sich in freiem Fall. Doch anstatt etwas an ihrer katastrophalen Politik zu ändern und endlich einmal die Interessen der Bürger zu vertreten, fahren die zerstrittenen Koalitionspartner unser Land weiter vor die Wand.

Diese Politik muss abgewählt werden! Die nächste Gelegenheit dazu bietet die Landtagswahl in Sachsen-Anhalt im September. Nur ein starkes BSW kann garantieren, dass der CDU-Ministerpräsident sein Amt verliert und von der Wahl ein klares Signal nach Berlin ausgeht!

Wir wollen der Regierung Merz einen weiteren Sargnagel verpassen. Deshalb gehen wir auf die Straße: Am 13. Juni in Magdeburg um 16 Uhr auf dem Willy-Brandt-Platz. Kommt alle vorbei – gemeinsam fordern wir: Weg mit Merz!

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@AussenMinDE https://t.co/FWgtcxXnqX

[Tristan Tate @TateTheTalisman]

And there we have it.

Romanias president confirms that a drone targeting Ukraine was redirected by a Ukrainian air defence system and that’s why it hit Romania.

Read the comments under my original post for laughs.

I knew it this morning - no propaganda here.

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@bundeskanzler Herr Kanzler, woher wissen Sie das eine Russische Drohne ist??? Niemand kann den Ursprung eines Drohne bestimmen solange keine technischen Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind!!!

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@connorcrd Arsenal 2:1

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@reda_getachew Kem kelbi uh uh enda belka teray zetwhbka kurub korabo enda astmkrka hilfa eza alem bedan

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@JDunzel Wird kommen das ist nur Frage der Zeit!!🫡

[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.

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@Megatron_ron @grok stimmt das

[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.

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

How !!???🫣🤔🤔🤔😥

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@bundeskanzler Und Steuer Erhöhung ist keine Reformen !!??? Mit volle Respekt 🙇 Herr Kanzler Treten Sie bitte zurück !!!

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@AloisNorbe53940 Bald die #AFD dran 🫡🫡🫡🤝

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@AndrewBolis Money 💵

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

Ist einfach unglaublich was in Deutschland möglich ist 😢🫣

[Natnael Zemichael @natzem]

🚨 URGENT WARNING Unauthorized Fundraising Under Ali Sulieman's Account and @ENFFONLINE2023! 🚨

Serious concerns are rising about a crowdfunding campaign circulating on what appears to be Ali Sulieman's Facebook page.

If this fundraising effort began without proper authorization, it raises critical questions about transparency, consent, and official oversight.

While financial and moral support is always welcome, it must be managed carefully and through official channels.

At a time when our Red Sea Camels are brightly shining on their path to AFCON 2027, it is deeply disturbing to see a GoFundMe launched by irresponsible individuals.

This should not be happening, and whoever is behind it seems intent on damaging Eritrea's image and football development.

It's astonishing that two seemingly naive donors quickly gave $15,000 and $14,000. Could there be a hidden agenda? Time will tell.

One donor is listed as "Eritrean community in North America." Who exactly is this? We must ask why such an unusually large amount of $15,000 was given. This is highly irregular and seems designed to bypass official federations and players. The other donor is anonymous, which further suggests something suspicious is at play.

It's important to remember that in the past, when funds were collected to motivate local Eritrean players, all such efforts were officially mandated and accounted for by Eritrean authorities.

This current situation is deeply concerning. It's shocking to see specific groups using what they claim is Ali Sulieman's social media account to collect funds without proper approval.

Furthermore, it's crucial to understand that all aspects of managing a national or club football team should be centrally coordinated, covered, analyzed, and assessed by relevant authorities within the country to prevent such problems.

As our Red Sea Camels continue their journey towards high-standard continental and international football, we must be vigilant and cautious against individuals with ulterior motives who hide their identities while launching GoFundMe campaigns.

Let our nation's sport flourish!

Let's beware of irresponsible individuals!

Kudos #Eritrea

#MikeSeiumPeleJunior

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@bundeskanzler Finnland Norwegen Schweiz sind besser als Deutschland

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@bundeskanzler Die Tankstellen dürfen nur einmal am Tag erhöhen. Sehr lustig 🤔🥲

[Yonan Yonas2 @YYonas2]

@elonmusk It was Fake everybody knew this!!!