admin
ANFET EDITORIAL November 6, 2025
1. Ethiopia’s Shifting Sovereignty Standards
In a recent interview with Ethiopian YouTuber Andafta, commentator Dr. Dagnachew Assefa dismissed the legitimacy of the 1993 Eritrean Referendum, the Pretoria Agreement, and the authority of international law, including the United Nations and African Union. Yet, in the same breath, he argued that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed should negotiate directly with Afar nationals in Dankalia, bypassing Eritrean sovereignty.
This contradiction exposes a dangerous logic: Ethiopia rejects legal frameworks when they affirm Eritrean independence but invokes ethnic dialogue when it serves expansionist aims.
2. Historical Echoes and Strategic Exploitation
This imperial logic is not new. In the early 1970s, a territorial dispute over Badme escalated between Ras Asrate Kasa, then Governor of Eritrea, and Ras Mengesha Seyoum of Tigray. When the case reached Emperor Haile Selassie, his verdict was:
የትግሬን ይሁን የኤርትራ መሬቱ የኢትዮጵያ ነው። “Ye Tigrayem Bihon Ye Eritra, Ye Ethiopia N’ew” (Be it Tigrayan or Eritrean, it belongs to Ethiopia.). Why create an armed conflict for interna provincial borders that should have been resolved as cited by the Pretoria Agreement?
This mindset still shapes today’s rhetoric. The Welqayit agenda, now revived, is not about historical justice—it is a strategic maneuver to deny Tigray access to Sudan, just as the Afar narrative is being used to challenge Eritrea’s Red Sea sovereignty.
The recent move to bring Getachew Reda into Welqayit negotiations is not a gesture of reconciliation—it is a blunt exploitation of internal Tigrayan divisions. It seeks to portray Getachew as a betrayer of Tigrayan unity, weaken his credibility, and derail any future plans for autonomous governance or regional diplomacy. This tactic mirrors the broader Ethiopian strategy: fragment internal movements, delegitimize their leaders, and reframe territorial disputes as ethnic bargaining chips.
3. The Afar Question and Eritrean Sovereignty
Dankalia is part of Eritrea’s internationally recognized borders. Its Afar population is Indigenous, and their rights must be respected within a sovereign Eritrean framework. Suggesting that Eritrean sovereignty over Dankalia is negotiable based on ethnic geography is legally baseless and echoes colonial logic.
However, the Afar perspective also reveals a deeper truth: sovereignty must be inclusive. Eritrean democracy must be built on the dignity of Afaris, Tigrinyas, Tigres, Sahos, and others—not on external manipulation.
4. Ogaden and the Double Standard
If Abiy Ahmed claims that Dankalia’s status requires negotiation with Afaris, then why not apply the same logic to Ogaden, where ethnic Somalis have long demanded autonomy? Ethiopia cannot selectively invoke ethnic self-determination to undermine Eritrea while suppressing it within its own borders.
5. Somaliland Port Deal: A Failed Precedent
In January 2024, Abiy signed a deal with Somaliland for naval access. It collapsed:
Somalia rejected it as a sovereignty violation.
Türkiye-mediated talks failed.
Ethiopia retreated without recognition or access.
This failure shows that Abiy’s regional maneuvers lack legal and diplomatic grounding. If he could not secure Somaliland’s coast, how can he expect to claim influence over Eritrean territory without war or condemnation?
6. Land Ownership and the PFDJ Doctrine
Since Eritrea’s independence, the PFDJ regime declared that all land belongs to the state, nullifying traditional ownership claims—even in Hamassien, Seraye, and Sahel. This policy, while authoritarian, reinforces the idea that territorial integrity is not negotiable by ethnic or provincial lines. Abiy’s suggestion that Dankalia is separate from Eritrea’s core provinces ignores this reality and risks legitimizing external interference in sovereign land.
7. Nostalgia Is Not Solidarity
Ethiopian nostalgia for Assab, Massawa, and Kagnew Station is not rooted in Afar justice—it is rooted in imperial privilege. The mourning is for lost access, not for Afar dignity.
8. Shared Resistance, Not Fragmentation
Eritrean communities—Afaris, Tigrinyas, Tigres, Sahos—fought together. Fighters died in Dankalia, crossed to Yemen, and resisted occupation. Fragmentation is not the answer. Allying with distant actors whose interests never aligned with Afar liberation risks new marginalization.
9. What Eritrean Forces Need Is Space, Not Recognition
Eritrean resistance movements need operational space, not formal recognition. Sudan once gave silence—not signatures—and that silence allowed liberation to grow. Ethiopia must do the same.
10. Internal Self-Determination Is a Right
The Afar people must live off their land and resources. Internal self-determination is not a threat—it is the foundation of Eritrean sovereignty. The PFDJ regime has brutalized all communities, but the Afar experience must be named and addressed.
11. ANFET’s Position: Sovereignty Through Inclusion
Eritrean sovereignty must be defended against re-colonization.
Internal diversity must be respected through democratic structures.
Regional peace requires principled diplomacy—not opportunistic deals.
Conclusion
The argument that Abiy must talk to the Afaris is not inherently wrong—but it must be reframed. He must talk to all peoples of the Horn of Africa through legitimate, inclusive, and sovereign frameworks. Eritrea’s territorial integrity is not negotiable, and any attempt to divide it along ethnic lines will fail—legally, politically, and morally, just as the Somaliland port deal did.
Sources
Al Jazeera – Ethiopia-Somaliland Port Deal
The Reporter – MoU Saga Ends
Caasimada – Why Ethiopia-Somalia Talks Collapsed
Andafta Interview with Dr. Dagnachew Assefa
