Will the UNSC and the AU Rein in Ethiopian’s Expansionism and Aggression?

Over the past eight decades, when an observer looks at major historical junctures in the history of Eritrea involving the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of African Unity (OAU)/ African Union (AU), an unsettling pattern emerges: at critical junctures, the international organizations have failed to uphold the very principles upon which they were founded, leaving Eritrea and its people to bear the consequences. From the denial of its right to decolonization in the 1940s to the failure to enforce a final and binding international boundary ruling, Eritrea’s experience raises fundamental questions about the credibility of these organizations and the selective application of international law.

Today, as Ethiopia’s ruling party increasingly resorts to belligerent rhetoric and threatens to pursue its ambitions of territorial occupation, the international community faces another consequential test; (Information Note Regarding Eritrea-Ethiopia Relation; shabait.com).

Will the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the African Union (AU), and other relevant actors act decisively to deter aggression, or will they once again allow the burden of defending the UN Charter’s fundamental principles to fall solely on Eritrea?

The UN Charter adopted in 1945 enshrined respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples. Yet, in the aftermath of the Second World War, while other former Italian colonies were granted independence, the international community failed to uphold this principle in the case of Eritrea. In 1952, Eritrea was arbitrarily federated with Ethiopia to satisfy the geopolitical interests of the era’s superpowers. Even this flawed arrangement that effectively undermined Eritrea’s right to decolonization and self-determination was subsequently dismantled by Ethiopia’s imperial regime, culminating in the unilateral abrogation of the “Federal Act” and brazen annexation of Eritrea in 1962. Subsequently, the United Nations failed either to prevent this outcome or to take effective measures to reverse it.

The OAU, that in its first Summit in Cairo in 1964 decided to accept colonial boundaries as sacrosanct and immutable, singularly failed to impartially and rigorously apply this foundational principle in the case of Ethiopia’s annexation and continued occupation of Eritrea.

The resulting consequences were profound. In the face of annexation and brutal occupation, the Eritrean people were compelled to wage a protracted armed struggle against Ethiopian rule. Thirty years of sacrifice and resistance culminated in Eritrea’s independence in 1991.

This history is more than a chapter in Eritrea’s national liberation struggle. It is a stark reminder that the failure to uphold international law has devastating consequences, prolonging conflict and imposing enormous human costs.

Another major test came with the Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict of 1998–2000. The devastating conflict ended with the signing of the Algiers Agreement in December 2000, establishing a legal framework for the peaceful settlement of the conflict and the delimitation and demarcation of the common border by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC).

In April 2002, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission delivered its Delimitation Decision, and in 2007 the Commission completed its demarcation mandate. Though both parties had explicitly agreed that the Commission’s ruling would be final and binding, Ethiopia, however, refused for years to abide by the decision. Meanwhile, the international actors that had witnessed and guaranteed the Algiers peace process, primarily the UN, AU, EU and the US failed to honor their treaty obligations.

Eritrea, for its part, maintained its position that the Arbitral Award had to be respected. The stalemate finally began to change in 2018, when Ethiopia announced its acceptance of the Algiers Agreement and the Boundary Commission’s decisions, opening the way for a historical rapprochement between the two countries, resulting in the signing of the 2018 Peace and Friendship Agreement between the two countries

Today, the Horn of Africa confronts another dangerous juncture. The current Ethiopian ruling party has explicitly framed “sovereign access to the sea” as a “strategic imperative”, that must be “ascertained through negotiations if possible and by force if necessary”. Ethiopia’s intensive and provocative pronouncements conducted for over three years now as well as associated acts are indeed tantamount to a declaration of war.  And finally, on 9 October this month, Ethiopia formally notified the UN Security Council that it has declared war against Eritrea under the preposterous allegations of “Eritrea’s invasion”.

The UN Charter is unequivocal in its fundamental prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Any attempt to acquire territory through aggression would strike at the core of this principle, regardless of the historical narratives, arguments, or economic justifications invoked to advance it.

This brings the international community to a defining question: what are the United Nations Security Council and the African Union prepared to do?

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Its mandate cannot be reduced to reacting after war has broken out; it must proactively address credible threats to regional peace, particularly when they involve explicit or repeated statements violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another member state. The Council should exercise the powers vested upon it and condemn the threat acquiring another state’s territory through force.

Equally important is the role of the African Union. The AU’s Constitutive Act enshrines respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states and strictly prohibits the use or threat of force among member states.

The history of Eritrea’s relationship with these organizations offers a sobering warning. The failure to protect its right to decolonization contributed to decades of war and the failure to enforce the Eritrea–Ethiopia boundary ruling prolonged hostility and undermined confidence in international guarantees.

These failures must not be repeated. The current situation demands more than routine and bland expressions of concern, generic appeals for “dialogue” and for “all parties to exercise restraint.” It requires clear reaffirmation of the inviolable rules governing relations among states.

Both the UN and the AU are intergovernmental organizations designed to reflect the collective position of their member states. In this context, it is imperative that these institutions uphold, without any equivocation, the fundamental pillars of the UN Charter and the AU’s Constitutive Act on the full respect of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all Member States. Indeed, respect for these principles is sine qua non for peaceful relations between States.

In the event, all Member States share a binding obligation to advocate for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, AU Constitutive Act as well as cardinal principles of international law. Upholding these norms is not a favor to any single nation; it is a principled stance and the only viable path toward durable peace and regional stability.

Eritrea has already paid a heavy price for the international community’s past failures. Its long struggle for independence and its insistence on the implementation of the EEBC decisions underscore the importance of defending sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The question now is whether the institutions established to safeguard international peace and security will fulfill their responsibilities. Will the Security Council, the African Union, and the wider international community rein in Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party expansionist ambitions and deter aggression? Or will the defense of the UN Charter’s most fundamental principles once again be left to Eritrea alone, with all the catastrophic costs that such a failure entails.