Abiy’s Message of Mutual Benefit Meets Scepticism Over Ethiopia’s Sea Access Plans

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has renewed his argument that access to the sea is essential to his country’s future, promising to pursue reliable maritime routes through dialogue and mutual benefit. But reactions to his latest remarks show that the issue remains deeply contested, with some critics questioning whether Ethiopia’s stated need for access could eventually become a challenge to the sovereignty of neighbouring coastal states.

Speaking at the 12th Tana High-Level Forum on Security in Africa in Bahir Dar on October 23, Abiy said Ethiopia’s population of more than 130 million made access to the sea an existential concern. He argued that a country whose international trade must pass through other states faces long-term questions about security, sovereignty and the opportunities available to future generations.

“Imagine planning for generations ahead, when every road to the world must pass through other countries,” he said, according to the Ethiopian News Agency. Abiy added that his government would continue to persuade through dialogue and mutual benefit, describing reliable transport corridors as an issue shared by countries across Africa.

The prime minister also connected maritime access to wider regional economic cooperation, arguing that efficient corridors could link producers to markets, help small traders enter the formal economy and support trade under the African Continental Free Trade Area. His message presented the issue as more than a national ambition: Ethiopia, he suggested, needs dependable routes to international markets, while neighbouring countries could benefit from the trade and infrastructure associated with those routes.

Yet the reaction to the speech on social media was far from uniformly supportive. In the comments shared on X, several users challenged the distinction between obtaining commercial access to a port and seeking sovereign control over coastal territory. Others argued that Ethiopia’s population and economic needs could not, by themselves, justify demands that would compromise another country’s territorial integrity.

One user, Nora, argued that commercial access was not the same as sovereign ownership and warned against demands for sovereign access or naval bases on another nation’s territory. Another account, Had elibi, challenged Abiy to explain in English what the user claimed he was telling Amharic-speaking audiences about acquiring another country’s coastline by force. These were individual social media comments, not independently verified accounts of what Abiy has said in other speeches, but they illustrate the distrust surrounding the issue.

Other commenters invoked international law, arguing that Ethiopia’s landlocked status does not give it a right to take territory from a coastal neighbour. Some also questioned why a country seeking economic security should pursue a strategy that risks worsening relations across the Horn of Africa.

The dispute is not simply about whether Ethiopia should have access to international shipping. Ethiopia lost its coastline when Eritrea became independent in 1993 and has since relied heavily on neighbouring countries, particularly Djibouti, for maritime trade. Dependence on routes passing through another state creates practical concerns involving transport costs, infrastructure, border procedures and the stability of commercial arrangements.

For Ethiopia, securing reliable access is therefore a genuine economic and strategic concern. The challenge is how to achieve it without turning a need for trade connectivity into a dispute over borders, military access or political control.

International law recognises the position of landlocked countries. Part X of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for access to and from the sea and freedom of transit through other states. However, Article 125 says the terms and arrangements must be agreed between landlocked and transit states. It also makes clear that transit states retain sovereignty over their territory and may protect their legitimate interests.

That distinction lies at the centre of the current debate. Ethiopia can negotiate commercial port access, transport corridors, logistics facilities and other arrangements that improve its access to global markets. Those arrangements do not automatically give it sovereignty over a port, coastline or naval facility located in another country. Any such rights would depend on an agreement with the state concerned and the terms of that agreement.

The regional atmosphere makes those distinctions particularly important. On October 4, Egypt, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan issued a joint declaration emphasising the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and asserting that governance of the Red Sea is the responsibility of the countries bordering it. The statement came amid renewed regional concern over Ethiopia’s push for a maritime outlet.

The four countries’ position does not erase Ethiopia’s economic interests, but it demonstrates that coastal states view the question through their own security concerns. For Eritrea and Somalia in particular, any suggestion that access might extend to sovereign control or a military presence on their territory is likely to be a sensitive issue.

Abiy has repeatedly presented his government’s approach as one based on negotiation rather than war. In his latest speech, he again referred to dialogue and mutual benefit. That is an important part of Ethiopia’s stated position, although regional concerns have not disappeared simply because the government says it prefers a negotiated solution.

The comments shared online also reveal a communication problem. While Ethiopia frames sea access as a question of national survival, critics hear language that they fear could be used to justify pressure on neighbouring countries. Neither a social media post nor a speech alone establishes that military action is planned, but the lack of trust means that even statements about national necessity can be interpreted through the region’s wider security tensions.

For Ethiopia, the task is to turn its maritime ambitions into concrete arrangements that can withstand scrutiny from its neighbours. That means making clear what kind of access it seeks, where the route would run, what legal arrangements would govern it and how the sovereignty of the coastal state would be protected. Transparent negotiations and mutually agreed commercial terms would give neighbouring governments more reason to view the proposal as an economic partnership rather than a territorial threat.

For coastal states, the challenge is to protect their sovereignty while recognising the economic value of trade corridors that connect landlocked economies to ports. A workable arrangement could bring business and infrastructure investment to both sides. A confrontation over territory, however, could undermine the regional trade and stability that all the countries say they need.

Abiy’s speech has therefore not settled the argument over Ethiopia’s sea access. It has restated the country’s position, but the response from critics shows that the central concern remains unresolved: whether Ethiopia’s search for a reliable maritime route can be achieved through agreements that satisfy its economic needs while leaving the sovereignty of its neighbours unquestioned.