It appears that the perspectives emerging from both Addis Ababa and Asmara are rooted, perhaps inadvertently, in a Eurocentric conception of sovereignty. One that privileges the Westphalian paradigm, where the nation-state is regarded as the ultimate and exclusive custodian of authority and territorial integrity.
Incidentally, this very challenge and the misconception underlying it have deep historical roots traceable to the foundational documents of continental governance. Notably, the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and, to a certain extent, its successor, the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU). Both frameworks, though born of noble intent, reflect a philosophical tension between inherited Eurocentric statehood and the indigenous African conception of collective existence.
The OAU Charter, in its commitment to the sanctity of colonial borders, inadvertently codified a Westphalian understanding of sovereignty, thereby preserving the fragmentation imposed by the colonial encounter. This formulation placed the emphasis on the external recognition and territorial integrity of individual states, rather than on the deeper, precolonial African ethos of shared destiny and interdependence.
The African Union’s Constitutive Act, while advancing the continental agenda toward integration and unity, still bears the imprint of this structural paradox: the simultaneous pursuit of Pan-African unity within a framework of rigidly preserved national sovereignties.
Epistemological and Indigenous Frameworks
Philosophically, this tension represents the collision of two ontologies. The Western notion of being as separateness and self-containment. And the African worldview of being-with, where existence is relational, and sovereignty is meaningful only in communion with others. The enduring struggle of African integration, therefore, is not merely institutional but existential in many ways. It is the quest to reconcile these competing paradigms and to restore sovereignty to its original African moral and communal foundation.
Thus, the debates between Addis Ababa and Asmara over sovereign access to the sea are not isolated geopolitical disputes, but rather expressions of a deeper, unresolved philosophical contradiction within Africa’s postcolonial statehood. The challenge before the continent is to transcend the inherited boundaries of thought and territory alike and to move toward a renewed conception of sovereignty rooted in Ubuntu, collective dignity, and continental solidarity.
While this framework has dominated global political thought since the 17th century, it does not fully resonate with African philosophical, historical, and socio-political realities. Africa’s governance traditions, long before colonial impositions, were not premised on rigid territorial demarcations but on relational interdependence, mutual responsibility, and collective well-being.
Sovereignty, in this sense, was not a solitary possession of isolated polities but a shared and fluid construct embedded in communal ethics. This understanding gives rise to what may be called collective sovereignty—a principle that transcends artificial borders and affirms Africa’s oneness as both a moral and political community.
Thus, it is imperative for the AU to re-examine its institutional framework with a view to advancing the vision of a unified African economic and political community, as enshrined in its Constitutive Act. In doing so, the Union must strengthen mechanisms that promote genuine adherence to collective principles and commitments.
Member states that fall short of these shared obligations should be constructively engaged through dialogue, such as the Africa Peer Review Mechanism, and where necessary, a carrot and stick approach. This means decisive but cooperative measures aimed at reinforcing continental solidarity and accountability.
It is within this philosophical framework that the ideals of Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance find their enduring relevance. Both movements seek to reconstitute Africa not as a fragmented geography of competing sovereignties, but as a coherent entity united by shared destiny, historical memory, and common aspirations for development, dignity, and peace.
A Realpolitik Framework for Cooperative Security
The challenge of sovereign sea access, and the international response to it, extends beyond the bilateral context of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Currently, sixteen African nations are landlocked, representing a significant continental imperative for sustainable logistical solutions. Proximity to or distance from maritime resources should not function as a determinant of economic marginalization for African citizens. Consequently, the continent must develop a far-reaching and inclusive mechanism to address this structural impediment.
The Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) holds the potential to evolve into precisely such a framework, provided its implementation actively fosters equitable maritime access and logistics integration for the benefit of all member states, thereby transforming a geographic liability into a catalyst for collective economic security.
Kwame Nkrumah ardently envisioned a unified African military command as a cornerstone of continental political union and collective sovereignty. His conviction stemmed from the recognition that fragmented African states, operating in isolation, would remain vulnerable to external domination and internal instability. For Nkrumah, the idea of a collective defense force transcended mere military necessity; it represented the moral and strategic embodiment of Pan-African unity, self-reliance, and shared destiny.
The normative foundation for a continental security architecture is articulated in key African Union documents, namely the Constitutive Act and the Solemn Declaration on a Common African Defence and Security Policy. This framework guides the ethical application of force and operationalizes the African Standby Force (ASF), a force that represents a concrete expression of the continent’s collective will to ensure its own peace, sovereignty, and developmental interests.
In a similar vein, the countries of the Horn of Africa—Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan—possess the strategic potential to establish a collective security and defense mechanism that is capable of fostering peace and stability both inland and offshore. The creation of such a joint standby force would not only enhance regional security coordination but also serve as a practical expression of African self-reliance in defense matters.
This framework could safeguard one of the continent’s most volatile maritime corridors while gradually reducing dependence on external military powers currently stationed in the region, particularly in Djibouti. Ultimately, the establishment of a regional collective armed force would align with the broader Pan-African aspiration for autonomy, mutual protection, and sustainable peace.
In this context, Ethiopia’s need to recalibrate and redefine its geopolitical posture is not merely a question of access to the sea or the ocean, but rather a deeper reflection on how it situates itself within the collective African project. The maritime domain, in moral and historical terms, cannot be reduced to a matter of territorial entitlement based on demography or other privilege. Rather, it represents the common heritage and shared opportunity of all African peoples.
On the other side of the discourse, the notion of the collective utilization of the Red Sea should not be construed as an immoral or opportunistic aspiration, but rather as an expression of fraternal solidarity and historical interdependence within the broader framework of Africa’s pursuit of a unified economic community.
The shared stewardship of the sea constitutes both a moral and strategic imperative. It symbolizes the transcendence of narrow nationalism in favor of a continental consciousness rooted in mutual prosperity and collective security.
The idea of joint access, anchored in principles of equity and shared responsibility, should thus be appreciated as an enlightened gesture toward building a common destiny. Nonetheless, such an approach must transcend the confines of mere economic or political expediency. It must emerge as a principled manifestation of Pan-African unity and the philosophical reawakening of Africa’s interconnected sovereignty.
To advance claims that isolate or nationalize this shared inheritance risks undermining the very foundations of continental solidarity and the Pan-African ideal. A forward-looking approach must therefore emphasize cooperation, and more importantly, mutual respect and collective stewardship—principles that honor Africa’s historical interdependence while paving the way for a renewed vision of integration, prosperity, and peace.
A lesson for both sides
Beyond the discourse of territorial claims, one striking observation arises from the experience of Southern Africa, particularly the cooperation among South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Eswatini. Remarkably, out of five countries, three of these nations are landlocked, yet they enjoy equitable access to the Port of Durban under the framework of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
This arrangement extends beyond mere port utilization. It embodies a system of shared economic benefit, where revenues are distributed according to mutually agreed variables. Such a model reflects the enduring African principles of communalism, shared destiny, and interdependence.
The lesson to be drawn here is profound. The success of continental economic and political integration hinges less on geography and more on the strength of political will and visionary leadership at the national level. However, the persistence of domestic constraints, ranging from elite-driven nationalism and electoral populism to securitized narratives of migration, continues to undermine the realization of borderless cooperation. Overcoming these challenges requires a conscious return to the spirit of Pan-African solidarity, where unity is not a rhetorical ideal but a pragmatic path toward collective prosperity.
I maintain this argument from within the framework of the African philosophical paradigm, which rests upon the principle of shared existence and collective entitlement. In this view, no African state and, by implication, no African citizen should be denied access to the natural and economic resources of the continent, whether it be the sea, the ocean, the forests, the fertile lands, or the metropolitan centers. These constitute the common heritage of Africa and should serve the collective advancement of its people.
From this standpoint, numerous scholars, myself included, have proposed a multi-layered approach to ensure equitable access for landlocked African countries through cooperative arrangements with their coastal counterparts. However, the persistent challenge lies not in the absence of ideas but in the unwillingness to listen.
Many African leaders, while rhetorically committed to Pan-African ideals, have too often failed to heed scholarly recommendations, policy briefs, or even freely offered consultations. Instead, scarce national resources are diverted toward the acquisition of arms from external powers, thereby privileging the language of force over the reasoned discourse of peace.
I do not write this reflection solely as a scholar or policy thinker, but as an ordinary African citizen who has witnessed the repeated tragedy of fraternal wars. Our continent has endured immense bloodshed conflicts that have yielded not progress, but devastation, economic regression, and a deepening of poverty. The Ethio-Eritrean War of 1998–2000 stands as a haunting testament: hundreds of thousands of young lives were lost, and both societies were left scarred and weakened.
Beyond the tragic legacy of the Ethio–Eritrean conflict, recent years initially ushered in a period of renewed hope when the two nations declared the restoration of normal relations. The peoples of both countries, long fatigued by war and division, embraced this moment as a harbinger of peace and reconciliation in the Horn of Africa.
Yet, within this fragile honeymoon period, internal political turbulence emerged, most notably with the resurgence of hostilities provoked by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). The ensuing confrontation, which drew Eritrean forces into the conflict, resulted in devastating human loss, estimated in the hundreds of thousands.
In the aftermath, the regional power dynamics began to shift, and the rhetoric surrounding the conflict transformed on multiple fronts: political, ideological, and geopolitical. This evolution reflects not only the volatility of postcolonial state relations in the Horn—particularly Eritrea after seceding from Ethiopia in 1993 and South Sudan from Sudan in 2011—but also the deeper struggle between the forces of historical grievance and the aspirations for regional renewal.
Final thoughts
Between 1998 and 2000, during my tenure as a youth leader representing both African and Ethiopian youth, we proactively sought to establish confidence-building measures and sustain direct engagement among the border communities before the commencement of hostilities in the Ethio-Eritrea war. Regrettably, our counsel went unheeded, and the conflict unfolded with devastating human and economic consequences. Yet, even amid that period of darkness, there emerged voices of hope: Eritrean youth leaders who stood with us in the call for peace.
Reminding the world that the human spirit can transcend political borders and ideological divides, I hold faith that similarly courageous young Africans are still among us today, in these challenging times. These are the ones who believe that dialogue, empathy, and unity remain the most powerful tools for shaping a peaceful and dignified future for the Horn of Africa.
Today, with the transformative power of technology and communication, there exists an unprecedented opportunity to amplify the voice of peace over the drums of war. May both nations, and indeed all of Africa, rise above the impulse of conflict and embody the renaissance spirit that calls for wisdom, unity, and collective progress.
My counsel to both sides in this current dispute is, therefore, anchored in humility and wisdom. It is imperative that political ego be set aside and that the pursuit of external recognition or validation be replaced by an inward commitment to the welfare of one’s citizens. True leadership requires listening to the people, fostering open and inclusive dialogue, and engaging traditional authorities, elders, scholars, and faith leaders in the process of reconciliation.
Resorting to war, in contrast, serves no purpose but to deepen suffering and ridicule the aspirations of both nations before the eyes of the world. The mark of genuine civilization in the twenty-first century is not military bravado but the courage to negotiate peace and to forge a win-win strategy grounded in mutual respect and shared prosperity.
In conclusion, my humble counsel to the citizens and intellectuals on both sides is to approach this matter with intellectual objectivity and moral restraint, rather than allowing themselves to be swayed by the impulses of political expediency. Historically, the peoples of the Horn of Africa have coexisted for millennia.
The peoples, as pastoralists, traders, and agricultural communities, were bound not by rigid territorial demarcations but by shared livelihoods and interwoven destinies. Prior to the colonial intrusion and the subsequent imposition of artificial boundaries, there existed no notion of exclusive ownership over the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean.
These waters, like the land itself, were part of a common heritage sustained by mutual dependence. Therefore, the present question should not be framed as a contest of sovereignty, but rather as a collective endeavor to restore the principle that the sea and its resources exist for the benefit of all the people of the region. Ultimately, it is only through dialogue, empathy, and a Pan-African consciousness that this issue can find an enduring and just resolution.
Seife Tadelle Kidane (PhD) is a Director of the Centre for Governance and Intra Africa Trade Studies (CGIATS) and The Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation (IPATC) Associate Researcher at the University of Johannesburg.
Contributed by Seife Tadelle Kidane (PhD)
