The Red Sea, though not the crux of the matter in Ethiopia’s quest for a sea outlet, has now become a talking point in East Africa. Narratives on this most highly trafficked waterway are on the remaking and the way nations think about it is and should be expected to be redefined. With almost everyone, at least here in Ethiopia, irrespective of sex, educational background, religion, talking about it, the Red Sea has turned into a household word.
Although the issue of access to an alternative port remained vitally important for Ethiopians ever since the nation found itself landlocked in the wake of Eritrea’s independence, never has the issue regained such intensity like now. Thanks mainly to a recently aired television documentary in the local Amharic revolving around the lengthy explanations forwarded by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, which shaped the tone and direction of the narrative.
Hammering out the hot-button issue to an audience mainly constituted by federal lawmakers, Abiy cogently laid out Ethiopia’s argument for reclaiming its natural, historical, political and legitimate rights of having direct access to the sea. But sadly, some singled out only phrases from the lecture, intentionally using it out of context, and misinterpreting it for their own political gains.
Ethiopia’s landlocked position remained a particular impediment to its export performance. The fact that the country is trying to gain access to ports in northern Sudan, its continued use of Djibouti's eastern ports and latest negotiations over the use of Somaliland's Berbera port facilities demonstrate the pressures facing the Eastern African nation. Put succinctly, Ethiopia’s reliance on other ports has proved too costly, while at the same time stymieing its aspirations to ensure economic stride. Worse still, its grandiose plan to reach lower-middle-income status has all the more necessitated the need to eye a direct access to sea waters-gate to the world.
Ethiopia, in its latest quest, has demanded not a free lunch, but has rather offered lucrative business shares of billions of dollars, namely its flagship project in return for what it might gain from its direct access to the busiest water routes –a win-win approach.
Ethiopia’s claim for a direct access to the sea threatened no one particular nation. Neither has it targeted any particular group. The quest, shelled out in the most benign manner has only just promoted regional-multilateral economic integration. While beating the drum for the agenda, Ethiopia has not shown an iota of a hidden motive; nor has it harbored any intention of declaring war over any of its neighbors unlike claims by some naysayers.
This is even reiterated by Prime minister Abiy Ahmed’s latest remark during the 116th Army Day event held Oct. 26 in the capital. The country has zero interest to launch an offensive and invasion against any of its neighbors, he said. In a bid to clear bewilderments among some about the quest to a sea outlet, the Premier reaffirmed “Ethiopia is a nation with zero history of invasion of other sovereign countries, provoke war and conflict against any States and a country with no history of colonization.”
Ethiopia, therefore, appealed to the globe in good faith; no axe to grind. Being a country of over 120 million plus, Ethiopia’s serious and timely demand for direct access to a sea outlet is a rational, righteous and fair query. Besides, Ethiopia seeks it due to pressing economic and geopolitical needs, no more, no less.
Abiy’s recent call for direct access to the sea was variously interpreted by Ethiopia’s neighbors. While some stood by its side, others made it look like Ethiopia was deliberately trying to stem a potential diplomatic falling out with neighbors.
The optimists are in support of the status quo - an unfavorable situation hanging over Ethiopia for over three decades now, seriously impeding its economic growth by remaining landlocked, despite the legal provisions, history and sundry other considerations saying otherwise. The irony of the whole situation is that some distant superpowers are allowed to establish military bases in and off shores of the Red Sea while a thriving nation is given the red card.
Many are insisting that any Red Sea related architectures and projects have little or no chance of succeeding unless Ethiopia, one of the architects of AU, is welcomed and its regional and international roles are credited. Failure to accept Ethiopia’s plea, as PM Abiy Ahmed warned, would lead the region into mistrust and conflicts.
A matter of life and death, I think, is to have direct access to the Sea. If not, the years to come, strategies and common destines both IGAD and AU are aspiring to claim by 2063 may not succeed particularly in areas of economic and political integration of the region. As perspectives and understandings toward the waterways are fundamentally changing with geopolitics, failure to timely act will disadvantage not only Ethiopia, but the region and the globe entirely. Mistrust of nations over how to fairly and responsibly use the waterways should be tackled either by soft powers, or any international laws. Because, failure to wisely approach claims of stallholders may result to mistrust
Let me seize the opportunity to turn my attention to an aspect of the Red Sea politics playing out against Ethiopia at this point in time. There is the Red Sea Forum- a club of states which has refused Ethiopia’s pleas to join it. Although not an official response from the club of nations, their reason for denying Ethiopia the membership status has everything to do with contempt for its legitimate quest to have direct access to sea.
I have every reason to believe that Ethiopia has been excluded from the forum intentionally. But given its irreplaceable roles to regional and global issues of security and counter terrorism efforts, such as its peace keeping mission and regional and global influences, its exclusion from the Red Sea Forum will not be rational and just idea for the heavily trafficked waterways, a safe haven will be created for any human and drug trafficking.
Ethiopia would have a lot to contribute for the common agenda and destiny of both the Horn and the Gulf states and beyond, and its exclusion will definitely impact the region negatively, at least in the distant years.
Because of its strategic importance competitions with no doubt will go intense as it has been over the last five years. The need to employ soft power, the use of diplomatic exchanges, all inclusive regional bilateral and multilateral agreements are of irreplaceable significance for the Horn and East Africa region to prosper.
The Red Sea Forum to my knowledge from the get-go was aimed at excluding Ethiopia. At some point the draft boldly noted its hidden motive not to include Ethiopia without naming it. It dictates that no landlocked country can be accepted, international sea laws are not against, though. In fact, the draft writer himself, and then many others warned that excluding Ethiopia –the regional power-would be not only costly, but gravely dangerous for shared development.
Fortunately, some neighboring countries have positively responded to Ethiopia’s request of having direct access to the Red Sea and many people in the Horn and beyond are in support of economic integration- a win- win approach. Thousands cheered regional and continental togetherness, yet few others are acting negatively as if militarily threatened.
For now, Ethiopia is demanding a direct access for economic reasons, and it definitely needs access which is sustainable, and economic integration is what the region needs the most for the horn and beyond to be stable and prosperous.
BY AHMED MOHAMMED