The world was taken by surprise with the agreement that was signed in recent days between Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the leader of the internationally unrecognized Somaliland region, which imposed Ethiopian sovereignty over the strategic Berbera Port on the Red Sea.
Indeed, Abiy Ahmed had paved the way for this agreement in his controversial speech delivered in mid-October last year. The speech raised significant questions about Ethiopia’s intentions in the region. Abiy Ahmed stated that his country, with a population of about 150 million, will not remain imprisoned by geography. He added that having a seaport is vital for Ethiopia and hinted that the country would seek to secure this right by peace or force. The Ethiopian Prime Minister’s speech contained a multipurpose expression when he said that the Nile and the Red Sea are the basis for Ethiopia’s development. Here, an objective question arises as to why he involved the Nile in a matter related to access to the Red Sea, knowing that Ethiopia is one of the sources of the Nile and has not been disputed in that?
The government of Somaliland confirmed that it had permitted Ethiopia to impose its military and commercial sovereignty over the Port of Berbera for half a century. Legally speaking, this means that the land will become the property of the Ethiopian government and under its direct management.
Looking at the world’s political geography, Ethiopia is not the only landlocked country; there are more than forty such countries in the world, including major nations and those that play significant roles globally, such as Switzerland, Austria, Kazakhstan, and not far from Ethiopia, there are Uganda, South Sudan, and Malawi, among others. These countries have not rebelled against the prison of geography and their geographical position has not prevented them from developing, progressing, and playing regional and perhaps international roles. So why does Ethiopia want to be an exception? Hence, this Ethiopian rebellion against geographic realities hints that Addis Ababa is determined to expand into the vital areas of its neighbors at any cost, perhaps to play a role that future days will reveal.
The Ethiopian Prime Minister’s speech alerted the public to the fact that Addis Ababa is preparing to operate in neighboring geographic areas to reach warm waters. Many analysts believe that Abiy Ahmed’s statements suggest that the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea could escalate to an armed confrontation in 2024, and this option remains viable despite the challenges it faces.
Since Eritrea regained its independence in 1993, Ethiopia has been deprived of access to the Red Sea as Eritrea took over the important ports of Assab and Massawa. Ethiopia has not accepted this situation and has since been looking for a means to regain access to warm waters. Some may wonder why Ethiopia does not use other ports in neighboring countries such as Djibouti, which it currently uses, Mombasa in Kenya, or even Port Sudan in Sudan.
In fact, Ethiopia does not need a port for exporting its trade abroad; this is available in the coastal neighboring countries. However, Addis Ababa desires a port that it can manage itself to bolster its political and military sovereignty and to play an effective and influential role in securing this vital maritime passage, whose importance has grown based on the new Suez Canal.
The military option to acquire Eritrean ports, which Ethiopia knows well, is still on the table and discussed within Ethiopia’s strategic mindset. However, some analysts believe that the timing is not apt for this option in light of the presence of President Isaias Afwerki, who is a fierce fighter, a pragmatic politician, and commands a cohesive army driven by the spirit of revolution, national patriotism, and hostility towards Ethiopia. Yet, Addis Ababa’s eyes remain watchful over Eritrean ports, working in silence, and perhaps seeking to contain the Eritrean political regime that may form in the absence of President Afwerki.
In the quest to formalize a policy of containing Eritrea, Ethiopia is working on weakening Sudan and distracting it with a futile political conflict, supporting the establishment of a weak government in Khartoum, considering that Sudan is the only country that can impact Eritrea due to the strong social and economic ties between the two nations, which hinders Ethiopia’s expansion to absorb the border areas and swallow Asmara.
Old, rusted, and colorful fishing boats and ships in the Somalian Berbera Port (Getty)
Berbera Port.. The Enigmatic Deal
While all eyes were on the looming conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia for the latter’s access to warm waters, the Ethiopian Prime Minister stunned the world with an enigmatic agreement with Somaliland, which is not internationally recognized. This agreement involves leasing Berbera Port on the Red Sea, strategically overlooking the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Hormuz. The text of the agreement has not been made public yet, but statements from both parties have given general outlines of this deal.
The Somaliland government confirmed that it has allowed Ethiopia to impose its military and commercial sovereignty over the Port of Berbera for fifty years, which legally means that this territory will become Ethiopian government property and under its direct administration, turning Ethiopia into a Red Sea coastal state. Ethiopia’s navy, inactive since Eritrea’s independence in 1993, will once again operate in the Red Sea, making Ethiopia a partner in the security arrangements of this crucial waterway. Thus, we are not looking at a deal that only boosts trade but an agreement with significant geostrategic and security dimensions for the region.
The Somaliland government stated that Ethiopia promised to recognize Somaliland as an independent state, a status that “Somaliland” has not achieved since its separation from Somalia in 1991. On the other hand, a reliable Ethiopian source confirmed that Somaliland would receive a share of the Ethiopian Airlines, which is a giant in the African air transport industry. This offer raises significant interest.
This mysterious agreement triggered a broad wave of anger and dissatisfaction in regional countries. The legitimate Somali government responded quickly and decisively, as the Somali parliament rejected the agreement, and the legitimate government in Mogadishu annulled it. It considered that Somaliland is part of Somalia and does not have the legal authority to sign such an agreement. Somalia also decided to call back its ambassador to Ethiopia in protest of this act, which breaches all international laws and norms.
Other regional states also rejected this unilateral agreement, affirming that Somaliland does not have the legal validity in this deal. Djibouti, particularly affected by this agreement, will lose over a billion dollars – fees annually received for handling 95% of Ethiopia’s trade through the Port of Djibouti and the implicit Ethiopian recognition of Somaliland hampers the massive project sponsored by Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh aimed at unifying northern and southern Somalia, which has made significant strides in previous years.
While the reaction of the African Union and IGAD has been vague and timid.
Bullying the International System
The enigmatic deal faces numerous challenges that are legal and objective, turning it into a document with no value in international law. The logic adopted by the Somali legitimate government is clear and convincing since what is called the “Republic of Somaliland” has no legal legitimacy. However, the Somali government can do little more than protest in continental and international forums, as it is still a fragile state recovering, and its political parties have differing stances on the relationship with Ethiopia.
Further, the international reality post the Gaza war, and Israel’s bullying over all international values and covenants, confirms that the logic of strength and favoritism by central powers is more powerful than international treaties and legal texts unsupported by force. For, “the sword is indeed mightier than the pen.”
Due to Ethiopia’s international favor, it is likely to proceed with its deal without concern for the surrounding opinions. No doubt Ethiopia had approval from Washington before signing the deal with Somaliland, given that the Red Sea security has become a significant file for the United States and NATO allies. These countries are primarily seeking to reduce Russia and China’s influence in the region and take control. The United States, with an important base in Djibouti, would be well-aware of the Ethiopian expansion in the Red Sea. This also indicates that France has knowledge and implicit approval of this matter.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the Policy of Turning a Deaf Ear
Returning to what the Ethiopian Prime Minister said about the Nile and the Red Sea forming the basis of his country’s development, it poses the question of why the Nile is dragged into this strategic conflict. The underlying meaning of this statement is that the Prime Minister wants to say Ethiopia, in its pursuit of a foothold on the Red Sea coast, will use the same policy of turning a deaf ear it employed in managing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam issue.
Over a decade of dialogue and meetings between Ethiopia and the downstream countries, Sudan and Egypt, Ethiopia has not once halted progress on the Renaissance Dam project, which has now become a towering reality. Egypt and Sudan raised fundamental concerns about the dam, proposed a set of solutions, but Ethiopia continues in its way and refuses to sign any legally binding document concerning the dam’s filling and operation.
The reality confirms that Ethiopia, protected by central powers and allies, will continue with the policy of turning a deaf ear until it finds a foothold on the Red Sea as desired. And if we look closely, we will find that the same allies who supported and financed the Renaissance Dam construction are the ones backing Ethiopia in its project to reach the warm waters of the Red Sea. The message is clear.
