Ethiopia’s Gedion Timothewos accuses Eritrea of “modern-day slavery,” says Red Sea access is “existential”

Ethiopia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gedion Timothewos, delivered a candid assessment of Ethiopia–Eritrea relations during a policy forum at Addis Ababa University, arguing that the current tensions stem from long-standing political and psychological dynamics within Eritrea’s ruling elite rather than from Ethiopia’s recent push for access to the Red Sea.

Speaking at the Foreign Policy Forum on Developments in the Horn of Africa, Gedion dismissed what he described as “simplistic external assumptions” that Ethiopia’s interest in sea access is the driving force behind strained relations with Asmara.

“For instance, some external observers claim that the tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea emanates from Ethiopia’s aspirations for access to the sea,” he said. “But such claims are difficult to square with the historical record, which shows that the Eritrean government has acted in a hostile manner even against previous Ethiopian governments that had categorically renounced all maritime claims and aspirations.”

The minister drew parallels between what he described as current misconceptions and the international narrative during the 1998–2000 Ethiopia–Eritrea war, which was widely viewed as a border conflict. That framing, Gedion said, “ignored deeper political drivers” behind the confrontation.

“Those who assume that the tension between the two states is caused by Ethiopia’s maritime ambition are making a mistake similar to those who assumed that the war from 1998–2000 was a border war,” he stressed. “Very often, in matters concerning these two countries, there is more than what meets the eye.”

Gedion criticized reports attributing tensions to Ethiopia’s aggressive push for sea access as misguided. “These days, just like those who erroneously assumed that a border dispute about the town of Badme was the cause of the conflict in the 1990s, some think that the Assab port is the bone of contention… Such an assumption would be, to make an understatement, a gross oversimplification,” he noted. “This kind of misdiagnosis could result in wrong and unhelpful prescriptions.”

In some of his most pointed remarks, the foreign minister described what he called a “psychological condition” within Eritrea’s ruling elite, rooted in its guerrilla-era political culture. He argued that this mindset has led to “the imposition of indefinite military service on the entire Eritrean society,” creating what he termed “virtual modern-day slavery.”

While rejecting the claim that maritime ambition is the cause of bilateral tensions, Gedion noted that Ethiopia’s pursuit of a secure sea outlet is legitimate, and central to its long-term development.

“It is becoming more and more evident that Ethiopia’s long-term economic prospects would suffer greatly unless it is able to address the logistics challenges it faces right now due to its lack of a secure and durable access to the sea,” he said. “A vibrant economy that can provide livelihood for a population of more than 130 million people would need durable and secure access to the sea… Ethiopia must not be locked in poverty,” he added, calling the issue “an existential matter for Ethiopia.”

The minister also accused Eritrea of actions that undermine Ethiopian sovereignty and regional stability, asserting that Asmara continues to maintain a military presence on Ethiopian soil.

“At the moment, Eritrean troops are in control of several local administration units in northern Ethiopia, areas that fall squarely within Ethiopian sovereign territory,” he said. He added that the Eritrean government is “interfering in Ethiopia’s internal affairs by providing substantial material support to groups that have raised arms against the Government.”

Gedion’s remarks come amid Ethiopia’s intensified push to secure access to the Red Sea corridor. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has repeatedly described access to the Red Sea as an existential issue for Ethiopia, at times calling the country’s lack of a coastline a “historical mistake.” His comments have triggered concern about Ethiopia’s intentions and the stability of the Horn of Africa.

Although Eritrea and Ethiopia enjoyed relatively warm relations after Abiy came to power, cooperating closely and even fighting side by side during the Tigray war, their relationship began to fracture following the signing of the Pretoria Agreement. Eritrea felt sidelined by the deal, which formally ended the conflict without its direct involvement despite its major role in the war.

Tensions surfaced more openly last month when Ethiopia formally lodged a complaint against Eritrea, alleging that Asmara had joined forces with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) in preparation for renewed conflict. Ethiopian officials accused Eritrean forces of supporting various rebel groups inside Ethiopia, including the Fano militia. Eritrea has consistently denied these allegations, dismissing them as unfounded.

The situation in northern Ethiopia has also grown increasingly volatile. The TPLF has repeatedly accused Prime Minister Abiy of failing to fully implement the Pretoria Agreement, the deal that ended the two-year war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. According to the TPLF, the federal government has shown little willingness to honor key provisions of the accord.

At the same time, the federal government has escalated its own accusations, claiming that the TPLF has been diverting federal funds to support insurgency activities in the Tigray region. The most serious escalation came last week, when the TPLF accused the Ethiopian federal government of violating the Pretoria Agreement by launching drone strikes in the region, an action they say represents a direct breach of the peace deal. The Ethiopian foreign minister’s wide-ranging comments add to growing fears of renewed conflict between the two countries, as well as potential instability in the northern region. There is also a rising insurgency movement across the country, including in the Amhara region.