Eritrea has issued a detailed examination of Ethiopia's maritime ambitions, identifying a series of political and military statements that it says have eroded confidence between the two countries.
The October 20, 2026 assessment, prepared by the Eritrean Foreign Ministry's Research and Documentation Division, examines how Addis Ababa's discussions about commercial sea access have developed alongside claims involving sovereignty, historical geography and regional military security.
Asmara argues that the central question is whether Ethiopia seeks negotiated port facilities or intends to obtain territorial authority over parts of the Red Sea coast.
The ministry's assessment represents Eritrea's official interpretation of the dispute; several of its allegations concerning individual military statements have not been independently verified.
Maritime Access Becomes a National Political Objective
The Eritrean document identifies October 2023 as a major turning point in Ethiopia's public discussion of maritime access.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed increasingly described the country's landlocked geography as a constraint on its economic future.
While Ethiopian officials maintained that negotiations and economic partnerships could provide solutions, Eritrea argued that historical entitlement language raised concerns about the long-term objectives behind the policy.
In November 2023, Abiy publicly emphasised peaceful arrangements, including commercial agreements and possible economic concessions.
Asmara's assessment challenges the consistency of these assurances with later rhetoric from political and military figures.
Somaliland Agreement Adds a Regional Dimension
The dispute acquired a broader regional dimension in January 2024, when Ethiopia reached a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland.
The arrangement was associated with Ethiopian efforts to obtain access to maritime facilities and prompted strong objections from Somalia's federal government.
Mogadishu maintained that Somaliland remained part of Somalia and that arrangements affecting its coast required respect for Somali sovereignty.
The Eritrean ministry presented the controversy as an example of the diplomatic consequences that can arise when maritime arrangements become entangled with disputes over political recognition and territorial jurisdiction.
Prosperity Party's Historical Rights Argument Draws Criticism
According to the Eritrean assessment, Ethiopia's ruling Prosperity Party placed growing emphasis on historical and natural rights to the Red Sea during 2025.
The ministry referred to party deliberations in August and statements by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed later that year.
Abiy's public descriptions of maritime access as a national priority were viewed in Asmara as evidence of an increasingly uncompromising political objective.
Eritrea argued that historical associations with ports or coastlines could not supersede existing internationally recognised borders.
Ethiopian authorities, by contrast, have repeatedly framed maritime access as an economic and strategic requirement that can be pursued through negotiation and regional integration.
February 2026 Statements Bring the Coastline Into Focus
The Eritrean report drew particular attention to statements attributed to Abiy Ahmed during a parliamentary appearance on February 3, 2026.
According to the ministry, the Ethiopian leader discussed access to approximately 50 kilometres of coastline while highlighting the needs of a country with a population of around 130 million.
Eritrea interpreted this as an attempt to justify coastal demands through demographic and economic arguments.
The precise legal and diplomatic scope of the reported proposal has not been established through an independently confirmed agreement.
Asmara nevertheless described the discussion as a significant escalation because it linked access to a specific stretch of coastline rather than general commercial transit arrangements.
Massawa Security References Raise Further Concerns
The ministry also examined a February 22 military ceremony in Hawassa.
According to its account, Abiy connected Ethiopia's defence capabilities with security across a Red Sea corridor extending toward Massawa.
Eritrea interpreted the statement as an attempt to project Ethiopian security authority into maritime areas falling under neighbouring states' jurisdiction.
There is, however, an important distinction between rhetoric concerning regional security and evidence of an actual operation or territorial occupation.
No independently established military takeover of Massawa followed from the reported statement.
Senior Officers Accused of Escalating Assab Rhetoric
The most forceful allegations in the document concern statements attributed to Ethiopian officials during September and October 2026.
The Eritrean ministry named Ambassador Dina Mufti, Ethiopian Deputy Chief of Staff General Abebaw Tadesse, Air Force Commander General Yilma Merdasa and Ethiopian Diaspora Service Director General Lencho Bati.
It claimed that their statements portrayed sovereign Red Sea access as an unavoidable national objective and, in some cases, connected the military campaign in northern Ethiopia to the port of Assab.
The assessment specifically alleged that General Abebaw made remarks on September 27 suggesting that operations in Tigray could extend toward Assab.
It further attributed comments about forcible maritime access to the air force commander on October 11 and described Lencho Bati's October 12 remarks as another example of escalating rhetoric.
Original, independently authenticated recordings or complete transcripts of all the cited speeches were not established during verification.
The statements therefore remain claims attributed by Eritrea to those officials, rather than independently confirmed evidence of a formal Ethiopian military plan to seize Assab.
Red Sea and Nile Narratives Come Under Scrutiny
Another theme was Ethiopia's strategic discourse linking the Nile Basin with the Red Sea.
Eritrea argued that connecting these waterways through a single national security framework risked turning ordinary economic questions into a wider geopolitical confrontation.
The ministry further alleged that a regional alignment led by the United Arab Emirates was influencing Ethiopia's approach.
It did not provide independently corroborated evidence sufficient to establish the claimed relationship or the alleged intentions of all parties involved.
The issue remains politically sensitive because Nile water management, coastal access and regional defence arrangements affect several neighbouring states, including Egypt, Somalia and Sudan.
Escalation in Tigray Increases Regional Risks
The statements reviewed by Eritrea have acquired greater significance amid renewed fighting in northern Ethiopia.
Federal forces advanced into Tigray after clashes with TPLF-led forces intensified in September, while Ethiopia and Eritrea exchanged accusations over cross-border military activity.
Addis Ababa alleged that Eritrean troops had entered Ethiopian territory and supported armed opposition forces.
Eritrea denied the accusations and accused Ethiopia of pursuing policies that threatened regional stability.
The diplomatic rupture on October 1 further reduced opportunities for direct engagement.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently urged restraint and renewed diplomatic efforts, citing the danger of a broader confrontation.
Diplomatic Solutions Remain Possible Under International Law
The dispute continues to involve two distinct legal questions: access to maritime trade and sovereignty over coastal territory.
Under Article 125 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, landlocked states have recognised rights of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit.
The terms of transit arrangements are to be agreed with the relevant transit states, whose territorial sovereignty and legitimate interests must also be respected.
These provisions do not create an automatic right to acquire another state's coastline.
Eritrea's position is that commercial port arrangements can be negotiated but must not be accompanied by threats of force or unilateral territorial demands.
The broader challenge facing the Horn of Africa is preventing competing maritime and security objectives from intensifying an already volatile political and military environment.