The United Nations, a historic forum for nations, is once again convening for its annual General Assembly. This gathering arrives at a time of heightened global tensions: Israel and Palestine remain locked in a decades-long conflict, the war between Ukraine and Russia continues to rage, and in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia’s increasingly assertive rhetoric threatens regional stability. For Eritrea, the upcoming high-level debate from September 23-27, 2025, is not just a routine diplomatic event; it is a profound and poignant reminder of a historical injustice that has shaped the region for over 80 years.
An Echo from the Past: The 80-Year Injustice
In 1950, as the UN was still in its formative years, it was tasked with determining the future of former Italian colonies, including Eritrea. Despite the strong will of the Eritrean people for independence, the UN chose to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia. On November 27, 1950, Sheikh Ibrahim Sultan Ali, representing the Eritrean Independence Block, delivered a powerful and prophetic warning to the UN’s Political Committee. He challenged the very foundation of the UN’s decision, asking, “Why is European colonialism being fought and opposed? Is it in order to replace it by an African form of colonialism?” His words foresaw the “skirmishes and uprisings” that would inevitably follow “in case a mistaken decision is made which will force us to resist it.” This prescient plea was disregarded, leading to a bloody, 30-year war for independence, the repercussions of which are still felt throughout the Horn of Africa today.
A Renewed Threat to Sovereignty
Today, Sheikh Ibrahim’s warning resonates with a fresh sense of urgency as Ethiopia’s government intensifies threats against Eritrea’s sovereignty, a clear violation of international law. Senior Ethiopian officials have made a series of provocative statements that directly jeopardize peace and stability in the region. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has described Ethiopia’s landlocked status as “a mistake made thirty years ago,” suggesting it is only “a matter of time” before the country “corrects” this by “reclaiming” access to the sovereign Eritrean port of Assab. He has also warned that only a “dead person” would believe that Ethiopia will “remain a geographic prisoner.”
While these words might seem like bluster, given Ethiopia’s dire and deteriorating political and economic challenges, a number of actions suggest of their dangerous implications. The establishment of a new naval headquarters in Addis Ababa and a training center in Bishoftu, despite Ethiopia being a landlocked nation, are telling signs that the Prime Minister may be prioritizing confrontation over diplomacy. This bellicose rhetoric is echoed by other high-ranking officials. Field Marshal Berhanu Jula has stated that Ethiopia is “working to secure sea access,” adding that cooperation with Eritrea “did not work.” Similarly, Major General Teshome Gemechu has declared that “access to the sea is a matter of existence…you can pay any price for it.” These public pronouncements, amplified by a relentless media campaign, represent a direct threat to the territorial integrity of Eritrea and other neighbours as UN member states.
The Global Power Play and UN’s Challenge
Ethiopia’s threats are a blatant violation of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which mandates that all member states refrain from the threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. This sustained public relations campaign to justify a potential war could be seen as a “threat to the peace,” which, under Chapter VII of the Charter, requires action from the UN Security Council.
However, this disregard for international law is often enabled by what historian Perry Anderson calls the “International Law of the Strongest.” In this framework, the legal system is not universally applied but becomes a tool for powerful nations to justify their own actions while condemning those of others. While Ethiopia isn’t a dominant power, its belligerence appears to be emboldened by the vested interests of external actors. The Horn of Africa’s strategic importance, particularly its control over the Red Sea, makes it a critical theater for global competition. The Red Sea is a vital maritime route for up to 20% of global trade and is rich in natural resources, including an estimated 5 billion barrels of oil, 112 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and significant reserves of valuable minerals like zinc, copper, silver, and gold.
Eritrea’s extensive coastline including its 3300km of coastline, 1350km of mainland coastline, 1950km of Island coastline, more than 354 Islands and Islets, about 55,000km2 of Territorial water area, circa 120,000km2 of Free Economic Zone (EEZ) and about 44,000km2 watersheds linked to the coast; places it at the heart of this geopolitical rivalry. This significant endowment has made Eritrea a focal point in great power politics for generations. The global powers with interests in this region often turn a blind eye to Ethiopia’s transgressions or, at worst, embolden them with support at the expense of regional peace. The UN’s silence on these threats would not only deny Eritrea’s rights as a member state but would also signal its complicity in this dangerous game of power politics.
A Crucial Opportunity for the UN
The UN’s history with this region is not without blemish. It failed to act decisively in 1998 when Ethiopia declared war on Eritrea. It later sanctioned Eritrea from 2009-2018 based on false accusations while remaining silent on Ethiopia’s refusal to accept the final and binding verdict of the 2002 Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. This history of inaction and double standard has deeply undermined regional peace and stability.
The upcoming high-level debate presents a critical opportunity for the UN to demonstrate its relevance and correct its past mistakes. The theme of this year’s session, “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights,” is a direct call to action. The UN cannot afford to remain silent. The consequences of inaction would be catastrophic for a region already grappling with political instability in Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
This time, the choice for the UN is stark: uphold its own charter and defend the sovereignty of a member state, or once again prove that in the international arena, the law is only either the strongest or their preferred surrogates- that Ethiopia is. The world will be watching to see if the UN will finally act as the guarantor of peace and justice it claims to be.