The Anatomy of Revisionism: Dismantling the Prosperity Party’s Hostile Campaign against Eritrean Sovereignty

A dominant trend in orthodox geopolitical literature is the uncritical acceptance of geographic determinism, which often frames landlocked states as passive “prisoners of geography.” In the Horn of Africa, the Ethiopian Prosperity Party (PP) administration, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, has weaponized and stretched this flawed structural paradigm to its limits.

The regime has constructed a revisionist discourse that positions maritime access not as a matter of voluntary trade agreements, but as an existential and natural right. This rhetoric goes beyond standard foreign policy; it constitutes a calculated assault on the post-colonial legal architecture of Northeast Africa. By shifting its rhetoric from a search for commercial port access to questioning the legitimacy of Eritrean statehood, the Prosperity Party effectively deploys external revisionism to mask deep domestic crises.

Specifically, over the past three years, the PP regime has executed a calculated and multi-layered hostile campaign targeting the State of Eritrea. What began as a domestic rhetorical pivot regarding “maritime access” has systematically weaponized historical revisionism, ethnic manipulation, and regional proxy warfare. While the PP administration nominally projects a benign image of “Pan-Africanism” and economic necessity, its actions reveal a zero-sum and expansionist foreign policy designed to externalize profound domestic governance failures – both inherited and self-inflicted. This article, in essence, illustrates the key components of the Prosperity Party’s continuous aggression against Eritrea, and the broader threat it poses to the legal architecture of the Horn of Africa and the African continent as a whole.

1. The Evolution of Aggressive Rhetoric and Claims of Ownership

Since late 2022, high-ranking Ethiopian officials, state media, and state-backed academicians have launched a synchronized campaign asserting a “natural right” to the Red Sea, transitioning from calls for commercial trade agreements to claims implying physical ownership of sovereign Eritrean coastlines. Moreover, the Prosperity Party’s expansionist ambitions are clearly manifested in its official statements, strategic doctrines, and choice of historical metaphors, including:

• The “Two Waters Strategy”: Developed by state-affiliated research institutes, this policy doctrine attempts to construct a geopolitical “Greater Ethiopia” stretching from the Nile Basin to the Red Sea coast. This ideological framework extends beyond a simple search for port access; it seeks to project regional hegemony and incorporates the territories of Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia. In effect, by invoking a provocative and untenable doctrine based on demographic weight and hydro-power calculus, the PP seeks to legitimize the unilateral redrawing of borders and rationalize encroachment upon the sovereign coastlines of neighboring states.
• The “Prisoner of Geography” Metaphor: On October 13, 2023, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed officially initiated the maritime campaign by declaring access to the Red Sea a “matter of existence” and asserting that Ethiopia could not remain a “prisoner of geography.” Subsequent high-level state briefings explicitly stated that the nation would secure a sea outlet “by any means necessary,” signaling a clear shift toward coercive rhetoric.
• The Awassa Declaration: On February 22, 2026, the Prime Minister escalated this rhetoric before elite “Special Forces,” declaring that Ethiopia’s military forces would “ensure the security of the Red Sea from Somalia to the edge of Massawa.” This provocative statement unlawfully asserted Ethiopia’s security jurisdiction deep within sovereign Eritrean territorial waters.
• The Golan Heights Insinuation: During parliamentary sessions in early 2026, the Prime Minister cited the illegal, forced occupation of the Golan Heights as a historical precedent for states seeking to secure “existential” interests. Across the region, this reference was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled military threat of annexation directed at Eritrea’s southern coastline.

1. Questioning Eritrean Statehood and the Revision of History

To construct a domestic justification for annexationist ambitions, the Prosperity Party has actively challenged the legal legitimacy of Eritrean statehood.

• Denial of History: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed openly challenged the international architecture of state formation in the Horn of Africa, as well as Eritrea’s hard-won and legitimate independence, by telling lawmakers that “we cannot find a single document explaining how the latter transpired.” This preposterous assertion amounts to political blasphemy of the highest order. Eritrea’s right to decolonization – which was uniquely denied in the 1940s due to overriding United States geopolitical interests during the emerging Cold War, thereby precipitating Africa’s longest war of national liberation – does not require the prior approval or endorsement of any external power. Furthermore, this falsified narrative constitutes an affront to both the United Nations and the African Union, both of which formally monitored and certified the April 1993 Eritrean Referendum, in which 99.83% of the population voted for sovereignty on the basis of the free will of the Eritrean people.
• The “Arab Driver” Fabrication: State-sponsored media and academic forums in Ethiopia have recently attempted to delegitimize the decades-long Eritrean national liberation struggle by portraying it as an artificial project driven exclusively by “Arab interests” seeking to sever Ethiopia’s coastline. In reality, Eritrea’s coastal territories were never part and parcel of the feudal fiefdoms and kingdoms that governed various parts of present-day Ethiopia prior to the imposed Federation of 1952 and the subsequent annexation period from 1962 to 1991. For reasons of brevity and without delving into an exhaustive and comprehensive historical exposition, the broader objective of the PP’s revisionism is to erase the indigenous, pan-ethnic, and popular character of Eritrea’s 30-year resistance against Ethiopian occupation – a struggle that emerged in the 1940s amid the complicity and support of major external powers.

III. Geopolitical Framing: Red Sea Crises and Transnational Smear Campaigns

The Prosperity Party has further exploited shifting global dynamics in a futile attempt to isolate Eritrea internationally and justify its own regional maneuvers.

• The Iran Connection Fabrication: Amid ongoing security crises in the Middle East and disruptions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, the PP regime has reportedly used diplomatic channels to mendaciously allege that Eritrea is “secretly siding with Iran and destabilizing global shipping lanes”. This mendacious and transparent strategy seeks to exploit Western maritime anxieties and portray Eritrea as a “rogue actor” in order to secure external support for Ethiopia’s port ambitions. What Ethiopia deliberately obscures, however, is its extensive military cooperation with Iran, particularly over the last decade. Ethiopia has not only procured Iranian drones for use in its myriad domestic conflicts, but an Ethiopian Parliamentary Defense Committee delegation also visited Iran in October of last year to strengthen bilateral military and security cooperation.
• The Irony of Destabilization: While Addis Ababa attempts to depict Eritrea as a source of regional instability, empirical evidence indicates that Ethiopia’s current foreign policy is itself a principal driver of friction in the Horn of Africa:
• The Somaliland Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): Signed on January 1, 2024, this unilateral agreement to lease 20 kilometers of coastline for an Ethiopian naval base directly violated the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Somalia and triggered widespread regional condemnation.

• Proxy Warfare and Transnational Destabilization in Sudan: A detailed Reuters investigative report exposed definitive satellite imagery and diplomatic confirmation indicating that Ethiopia has hosted a covert military training facility in the western Benishangul-Gumuz region near Asosa. Funded and logistically supported by the United Arab Emirates, this covert site allegedly has trained thousands of mercenary militia fighters linked to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Such dangerous intervention has directly fueled the devastating Sudanese civil war. The cross-border implications of these activities became evident when the Sudanese government formally accused both Ethiopia and the UAE of coordinating drone strikes inside Khartoum. These developments continue to destabilize both the Horn of Africa and the critical Red Sea trade corridor.
• The UAE and “Port Imperialism”: The United Arab Emirates has increasingly relied on an aggressive strategy of “port imperialism” to project power across Africa and the Near East by unilaterally seizing, leasing, or dominating strategic maritime trade hubs to secure monopolies over maritime logistics. This predatory framework has contributed to trail of security crises in Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. In its desperate pursuit of a sea outlet, the Prosperity Party appears to be emulating this model while simultaneously coordinating with the UAE in certain theaters. Furthermore, Ethiopia’s approach similarly transforms trade infrastructure into an instrument of political leverage and territorial influence over neighboring sovereign states.

1. Domestic Subversion: The Incitement of the Afar People

A particularly alarming aspect of the Prosperity Party’s campaign is its attempt to manipulate ethnic identity as a pretext for territorial annexation. Ethiopian state actors and regional officials have launched a targeted propaganda campaign directed at the Afar populations residing across the borders of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. This rhetoric falsely claims that the Afar people are uniquely marginalized within Eritrea and encourages cross-border subversion.

The strategic objective of this incitement is evident: to provoke a localized rebellion or security crisis along Eritrea’s southern Red Sea coast. The Prosperity Party could then exploit such unrest as a humanitarian or security pretext for military intervention aimed at controlling – and ultimately annexing – the port of Assab. This tactic directly mirrors the colonial “divide-and-rule” methods that African states have historically rejected.

1. The False Veneer of Pan-Africanism

The Prosperity Party frequently employs Pan-African rhetoric, portraying itself as a champion of continental integration and economic development. However, its actual conduct directly contradicts the foundational principles of the African Union:

• Violating Uti Possidetis Juris: The sanctity of inherited colonial borders remains a foundational pillar of continental stability, deliberately established by the founders of the AU to prevent expansionist wars. By questioning the legitimacy of Eritrea’s borders and advocating their revision on the basis of demographic size or economic need, the PP is actively undermining this Pan-African consensus.
• Disregarding Legal Finality: Eritrea has consistently respected international law and the “final and binding” border decisions delivered by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) under the 2000 Algiers Agreement. The PP’s continuing refusal to fully accept these settled boundaries demonstrates that its invocation of Pan-Africanism functions more as a political instrument rather than as a genuine commitment to continental principles.

On the other hand, and in contrast to the Prosperity Party’s aggressive rhetoric, the State of Eritrea has maintained a disciplined focus on regional stability and international law. By refusing to engage in deceitful and inflammatory media campaigns and political provocation, Eritrea has sought to preserve the legal frameworks governing the Horn of Africa and the broader continent. Furthermore, Eritrea’s distinct model of nation-building – centered on unified citizenship and social justice rather than ethnic regionalism – stands as a robust alternative to the fragmented political models proliferating across the region.

For international policymakers, scholars, and, most importantly, the peoples of the Horn of Africa, the central challenge is not Ethiopia’s landlocked geography; rather, it is the Prosperity Party’s increasingly reckless tendency to undermine regional stability, international law, and state sovereignty in order to deflect attention from mounting internal crises.

Conclusion

The Prosperity Party’s three-year hostile campaign against Eritrea exemplifies a dangerous pattern of externalizing domestic structural failures through aggressive foreign policy. By conflating commercial ambitions with territorial sovereignty, inciting cross-border ethnic tensions, and supporting destabilizing proxy activities in Sudan and Somalia, the current Ethiopian administration is, in effect, undermining regional peace and stability.

Throughout these sustained provocations, the Government of Eritrea has maintained a principled position grounded in international law and a prudent policy of patience and restraint. The international community must look beyond the PP’s superficial Pan-Africanist rhetoric and duplicity, and instead hold it accountable to the foundational principles of the United Nations and the African Union Constitutive Frameworks on absolute and unconditional respect for sovereign borders, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Research and Documentation Division
19 May 2026