Can Ethiopia Gain Access to the Sea Without a War?

Ethiopia is the world's most populous landlocked country. Yet discussing it was politically taboo, and the EPRDF regime dismissed it as nostalgic, reactionary politics.

While it is commendable that the Prosperity Party has revived this matter as a national interest and framed it as a regional issue, some people are misguided in presenting war and the use of force as the only viable options. War brings only fleeting victories; it cannot provide sustainable solutions.

Throughout history, many nations have secured sovereign access to the sea and transit corridors through diplomatic efforts, legal frameworks, and mutual economic partnerships.

Why Does Sovereign Access Matter?

The quest for sea access goes beyond merely finding a terminal to unload commercial goods; it is about sovereign maritime access. This means securing an enclave or corridor where the state exercises independent commercial, customs, and administrative authority.

Ethiopia still retains access to neighboring ports today. However, renting port services as a commercial client and holding sovereign access are fundamentally different.

At least two structural factors underscore the necessity of sovereign sea access:

Security Vulnerability

As the world's most populous landlocked country, Ethiopia’s reliance on a single outlet (Djibouti handles roughly 95% of its trade) or on one or two neighbors exposes an estimated 130 million people to serious, long-term strategic vulnerabilities.

Economic Burden

Ethiopia spends up to USD 2 billion annually on port fees and related transit logistics. This drain on foreign currency weakens import-export competitiveness, drives up domestic consumer prices, and exacerbates the cost of living.

Why Assab?

Assab is Ethiopia's closest natural maritime outlet, about 65 kilometers from the border, and it currently sits largely dormant and underutilized. Directing Ethiopia’s vast commercial traffic back through Assab offers an unmatched, cost-effective solution.

How Can This Be Achieved Without War?

Landlocked countries worldwide have historically negotiated access to the sea without resorting to armed conflict. Proven diplomatic precedents include:

Territorial Swaps

The 1965 border agreement between Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a prime example. Jordan acquired a coastal corridor on the Red Sea to expand its port of Aqaba, while Saudi Arabia received inland territory in return. Similarly, Ethiopia could offer fertile, strategically valuable agricultural land in exchange for a sovereign corridor to Assab.

Long-Term Sovereign Leases

Under the 1929 bilateral agreement between Germany and Czechoslovakia, landlocked Czechoslovakia secured a 99-year lease in the Port of Hamburg (Moldauhafen), granting it full customs and administrative autonomy. While leases are inherently time-bound, they provide vital economic stability and operational sovereignty.

Joint Sovereignty

The bilateral arrangements between Argentina and Uruguay over shared navigable waterways show how countries can manage cross-border corridors collaboratively. Applying this model to a terrestrial transit corridor requires innovative diplomacy, but a binational authority can still administer it.

Economic Partnerships

This approach rests on structured reciprocity. While Eritrea’s economy remains constrained and isolated, Ethiopia offers a sizable, growing market. Ethiopia could grant Eritrea equity in profitable national assets, such as Ethiopian Airlines or dedicated power allocations from major energy infrastructure, in exchange for a dedicated, duty-free transit corridor to Assab.

Framed around mutual benefit and regional economic integration rather than coercion and zero-sum rivalry, the pursuit of maritime access can anchor regional peace and prosperity rather than trigger devastating conflict.

Diplomatic Solutions Benefit Eritrea as Well

Addressing Ethiopia's maritime needs is not a one-sided victory; it offers Eritrea a rare path to long-term stability, peace, and economic revival.

Lasting Security Guarantees

As long as Ethiopia remains landlocked, its demographic and economic pressures will keep compounding. Without a diplomatic breakthrough, this unresolved strategic dilemma will sustain regional friction and keep the risk of conflict persistent. War serves neither party, yet for Eritrea, given its smaller population and limited resources, the human and infrastructural toll would be profound. A negotiated settlement would give Eritrea definitive, mutually recognized border security.

Moving Beyond a War Mindset

For decades, the Eritrean populace has lived under the constant shadow of potential conflict. The government in Asmara has long cited the external threat from Ethiopia to justify political regimentation, indefinite national service, and the suppression of civil liberties. Resolving the sea-access dispute diplomatically would remove the central rationale for this permanent war footing, opening the path for society to transition toward normal civil governance.

Economic Revival

Enduring peace would enable Eritrea’s fragile economy to recover. Greater regional normalization would naturally stimulate trade, create youth employment, and capitalize on Eritrea's geographic position along Red Sea shipping lanes, transforming it into an active commercial hub and improving citizens' living standards. Additionally, the economic gains Eritrea would earn in exchange for Ethiopia’s access to a sea corridor would help Eritrea’s economy revive from its deep sleep.