Embassy and Permanent Mission of the State of Eritrea in Geneva
This website use cookies to help you have a superior and more relevant browsing experience on the website.
A Rebuttal to the Speech Delivered by Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos at the Foreign Policy Forum on Developments in the Horn of Africa – November 14, 2025
By Dr. Abdulqadir Osman
21 November 2025
Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister, Gedion Timothewos, used his recent address at the Foreign Policy Forum to advance a narrative casting Eritrea as a spoiler, while presenting a veneer of regional integration and cooperation. His address highlights how Ethiopia’s declared “war manifesto,” under the pretense of seeking “peaceful access to the sea or…” is evolving through ongoing shifts in narrative to depict itself as “the aggrieved party” within regional dynamics. This rhetorical transformation is as transparent as it is concerning.
Moreover, Ethiopia’s self-portrayal as a benevolent regional actor committed to cooperation is not only misleading but also starkly at odds with its current foreign policy conduct, revealing a dissonance that any informed observer cannot ignore. In essence, Ethiopia is scapegoating Eritrea to deflect attention from its own internal failures. Rather than externalizing its crises or blaming Eritrea, Ethiopia must confront the root causes of its divisions, conflicts, and policy missteps. Indeed, the war-mongering mentality evident in Ethiopian government circles is both alarming and deeply troubling.
Over the past two years, while Ethiopia escalated war rhetoric, Eritrea has remained steadfast in its commitment to peace, stability, and constructive cooperation in the Horn of Africa. This contrast highlights Eritrea’s principled approach: sustainable regional prosperity requires genuine partnership grounded in mutual respect, not coercion or asymmetrical influence. Eritrea recognizes the importance of constructive dialogue among regional states and the international community. However, the recent speech delivered by the Ethiopian Foreign Minister contains numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies regarding Eritrea’s policies, historical conduct, and role in the region. This statement aims to clarify Eritrea’s position and provide an accurate account of its efforts toward peace, sovereignty, and regional integration.
Ethiopia’s Historical Revisionism and the Costs of Selective Memory
The current leadership in Ethiopia, including the Foreign Minister, appears either to be exhibiting historical amnesia or deliberately attempting to reinterpret established events to construct a narrative that supports their aggressive political assault on Eritrea. According to this perspective, the 1998 border war was initiated by the then-incumbent Ethiopian government under the pretext of a “dispute over Badme and its environs,” in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to alter the internationally recognized, colonial-era boundary between the two countries. Such deliberate and selective historical interpretation of past missteps cannot fool anyone. It only reflects a recurrence of expansionist policies long associated with successive Ethiopian governments. Notably, senior military officials in the Prosperity Party (PP) government—including the current Army Chief of Staff—have acknowledged that parliament’s 1998 accusation of Eritrean aggression was embarrassing, since the military had reportedly been ordered to initiate hostilities weeks beforehand.
The Foreign Minister has also claimed that even after the signing of the Algiers Peace Agreement in 2000, the conflict was never fully resolved. However, he fails to acknowledge that the impasse persisted solely because Ethiopia refused to accept and implement the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling. Eritrea, by contrast, accepted the Commission’s verdict without reservation and consistently called for the prompt demarcation of the border—a process that lay at the heart of the dispute. Finally, the EEBC demarcated the border in 2007 through another established modality – through coordinates – and deposited the final ruling the UN’s Cartographic Unit while also delivering copies to the two parties. Rather than honoring its binding international obligations, Ethiopia sustained an 18-year ‘no war, no peace’ stalemate, destabilizing the entire region.
This deadlock was finally broken in 2018 when a new leadership took office in Ethiopia and reassessed its predecessor’s counterproductive approach. The new administration reversed the previous hostile policy and sought to open a new chapter in relations between the two neighboring states. Eritrea welcomed this development, and the two sides subsequently signed new peace agreements in Asmara. Both documents reaffirmed Ethiopia’s full acceptance of the Algiers Agreement and its commitment to implement the EEBC ruling without delay. These agreements once again confirmed Eritrea’s territorial integrity and underscored the miscalculations of earlier Ethiopian leaders. Setting aside other key treaties governing Ethio-Eritrean relations, Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister is dismissing the Asmarsa agreement, signed by his prime minister and deposited with the UN as legally binding instrument.
Eritrea, for its part, embraced the peace initiative in good faith and took concrete steps to support regional peace, security, and stability. As part of this effort, Eritrea encouraged several Ethiopian armed groups based in its territory to lay down their arms and join the peace process. Consequently, many of these groups including Ginbot 7 and OLA factions returned to Ethiopia, signed agreements with the government in Addis Ababa, hoping to contribute constructively to the country’s political future. However, the promises made to them were subsequently broken; instead of being integrated, many were detained or harassed, leaving them with no option but to return to armed struggle.
Despite this, Addis Ababa has adopted belligerent policies and aggressive rhetoric toward Eritrea for nearly two years. It has also failed to uphold the Pretoria Peace Agreement in Tigray and has instead deliberately orchestrated chaos in the region by consistently attempting to pit Tigrayans against one another. Over time, abrupt policy reversals have become a defining feature of the current Ethiopian government’s domestic and foreign conduct. In addition, it has targeted Amhara Fano militia who fought along with the federal government forces during the war in Tigray and inflamed tensions between Amhara and Oromo communities, generating manufactured ethnic conflicts.
As a result of these reckless and adventurous policies, the Amhara and Oromia regions are now engulfed in a prolonged and bloody conflict. At the same time Tigray remains effectively blockaded by federal authorities. As these multiple crises intensify and various armed groups gain momentum, senior leaders in Ethiopia—including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Gedion Timotheos, and top military officials—have resorted to escalating hostile rhetoric against Eritrea. This clearly aimed at diverting public attention away from the internal conflicts they themselves have ignited across the country.
Beyond Accusations: Eritrea’s Case for Sovereignty, Non-Interference, and Strategic Defense
Moreover, it is deeply troubling that the Foreign Minister accuses Eritrea of meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs without providing any evidence. This is a baseless accusation and no Ethiopian official, including the Foreign Minister has ever produced any proof to substantiate it. Ethiopia’s instability is self-inflicted. Rather than blaming Eritrea or externalizing its crises, Ethiopia must address the root causes of its conflicts and policy failures. The war-mongering psychosis evident in Ethiopian government circles is deeply troubling. In fact, Eritrea’s engagement in regional affairs has always been defensive and strategic, never aimed at destabilizing Ethiopia or any other neighbor, even in periods of strained relations. Eritrea upholds the UN Charter in both word and spirit and therefore rejects interference in the internal affairs of any state just as it rejects such interference in its own.
By and large, Eritrea has consistently asserted its sovereign right to manage its territory, economy, and security policies without any external pressure. Yet, Minister Gedion Timotheos claims that Eritrea serves as a “regional proxy” for third parties hostile to Ethiopia—an allegation utterly divorced from reality. The real proxy actors and their foreign sponsors operate openly and have been widely exposed by independent media. The very same sponsor backing Ethiopia today has long supported the genocidal militias responsible for crimes in El-Fasher and other parts of Sudan. To suggest that Eritrea is the proxy and destabilizing force while such actors and their sponsors operate in broad daylight, which is not only absurd but also a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. The Minister labels Eritrea as ‘militarized,’ yet his government has conscripted hundreds of thousands of young Ethiopians, many of whom are abandoned or captured in combat. Having failed to secure any victories against local militias, the government of Mr. Timotheos has now turned to blaming Eritrea, using it as a convenient distraction to deflect attention from its own military and political fiasco. It is the easiest excuse to mislead an increasingly critical and inquisitive public.
Moreover, the Ethiopian Foreign Minister has labeled Eritrea as “anomalous,” citing militarization and prolonged national service. In reality, any extension to the terms of Eritrean national service is a direct consequence of Ethiopia’s aggression against Eritrea. It is standard practice for states to maintain security structures to address genuine threats; ignoring the historical context of Eritrea’s policies—shaped by aggressive postures of successive Ethiopian governments—misrepresents the rationale behind its national defense and security measures. Indeed, Eritrea’s national service, mandated for all citizens as a civic duty, serves as a critical mechanism for maintaining national security and strategic readiness. From a strategic perspective, Ethiopia’s aggressive posture appears both ill-conceived and opportunistic: it signals an intent to project power while simultaneously grappling with internal instability.
Eritrea’s defense policies, therefore, are not merely precautionary; they are a rational response to an adversary that exhibits an offensive intent. By integrating its citizenry into a structured defense framework, Eritrea ensures resilience against potential aggression while reinforcing national cohesion in a volatile regional environment. The speech frames Eritrea’s security as dependent on Ethiopia’s weakness, suggesting a doctrine of deliberate antagonism. This perspective misreads Eritrea’s strategic calculus. A nation emerging from decades of colonial rule and war in a volatile neighborhood, naturally prioritizes autonomy and robust defense. Maintaining strategic independence is not an ideological posture but a rational response to historical vulnerability.
Beyond Accusations: Eritrea’s Consistent Commitment to Regional Cooperation
Furthermore, Minister Gedion Timotheos claimed that Eritrea is an “obstruction to regional integration,” yet he offered no concrete evidence to support this assertion. In reality, Eritrea has consistently advocated for regional integration since its independence in 1993. Ethiopia itself benefited from this forward-looking policy in the mid-1990s, when Eritrea opened both of its ports to Ethiopia at token-level fees unmatched by comparable services in the region or beyond. Unfortunately, the previous Ethiopian government, of which the current Prime Minister was at the time a junior intelligence officer, chose to boycott Eritrean ports and ultimately declared war on Eritrea in 1998. Mr. Timotheos also emphasizes “the existential need for access to the sea” and envisions regional economic integration. These proposals risk asymmetrical dependence. Port access and infrastructure control are not merely economic issues; they are matters of sovereignty and strategic leverage. Obviously, Eritrea cannot subordinate its national interests for the sake of Ethiopian ambitions, however well-intentioned. Ethiopia’s talk of “existential” sea access is a Trojan-horse for strategic control. Eritrea will not cede its ports or let Ethiopian infrastructure ambitions become a vehicle for dependence.
Ironically, Mr. Timotheos has claimed that Eritrea pursues an approach of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours Is ours” in its engagement with Ethiopia. However, he has been unable to provide any evidence or identify any Eritrean claims on Ethiopian territory to support this allegation. In effect, he is repeating arguments once made by the late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, which by his foreign minister continued to espouse until they were forced to cede power amid popular protests in 2018. The current government appears to be echoing the same rhetoric, risking a similar path of historical irrelevance in the face of an increasingly assertive and politically active Ethiopian populace.
Eritrea has consistently upheld a policy of complementarity and cooperation to foster deeper regional economic integration. It has been at the forefront of regional initiatives encouraging broader engagement in economic and infrastructural collaboration, always in ways that align with and respect its sovereign interests. At the same time, Eritrea maintains a firm position that regional cooperation cannot come at the expense of its sovereignty or territorial integrity. Indeed, certain policy narratives emerging from Ethiopia, particularly those framing access to the sea as a strategic necessity are widely perceived in the region as attempts to reframe geopolitical ambitions under the guise of regional integration. Ethiopia’s narratives are increasingly regarded as unpersuasive and misaligned with the broader regional preference for a cooperative, rules-based engagement—an approach that Eritrea has consistently emphasized in articulating its regional policies.
Genuine cooperation, after all, requires mutual respect and freedom from coercion. Lacking a reliable partner in Ethiopia, Eritrea has adopted a pragmatic, self-reliant approach. While this posture is grounded in protecting its sovereignty and strategic interests, it has at times been mischaracterized as obstructionist. Yet, such self-serving political framing, often advanced by Ethiopian officials, has found little resonance within the region. Indeed, the leadership of a country whose economy is overstressed and whose people endure abject poverty—despite receiving over USD 84 billion in U.S. development assistance alone over the past three decades—has no moral authority to criticize Eritrea’s economic situation.
The Limits of Rhetoric and the Need for Genuine Regional Diplomacy
Ethiopia’s vision of integration as presented by the foreign minister may sound appealing in theory, but it has never been matched by actions on the ground. This rhetoric amounts to double talk, consistent with the policies of successive Ethiopian regimes toward Eritrea. Lasting regional cooperation requires more than lip service; it demands good-faith diplomacy, full respect for sovereignty, consideration of historical experiences, and attention to the security imperatives of every state in the region. True prosperity cannot be achieved through pressure, coercion, or asymmetrical agreements; it depends on genuine, trust-based partnerships in which the independence of every nation is respected and protected.
Unfortunately, the current Ethiopian leadership is reshaping history, ignoring international law, and laying ideological ground for future aggression. Their willful intent to tamper with cardinal principles of international law including the sanctity of colonial boundaries has already eroded the trust required for any fruitful engagement between the two countries. Any attempt to "normalize" their delusional and reckless pursuit of "securing sovereign access to the sea" will lead to unnecessary bloodshed and regional destabilization. Therefore, it is time to listen to reasonable voices to prevent unnecessary conflict and avoid the pitfalls of one-sided narratives. Calls by Ethiopia—or any actor—to compel Eritrea into “dialogue” or to abandon its sovereign rights are doomed to fail. Historical experience underscores that attempts to undermine Eritrea’s sovereignty have consistently failed, affirming its inviolability. The distortions, accusations, and strategic framings presented in Mr. Gedion Timothewos’s speech do not reflect goodwill; they mask attempts to reassert Ethiopian influence and control. Eritrea remains steadfast: sovereignty is not negotiable, and respect is not optional. Any future cooperation must be grounded in equality, mutual respect, and trust—not in the pursuit of Ethiopian ambitions disguised as regional integration or cooperation.