Notwithstanding the writer’s glaring oblivious and disparaging stance against Eritrea’s independence, sovereignty and its people, if not for a fact-checking rebuttal, it is compelling to shed light to rectifying some of his misguided narratives and the political adventurism propagated by his ilk. Just as Ambassador Mufti’s portrayal of Eritrea’s colonial history, particularly the deceptive federal arrangements fundamentally flawed, so too is his proposed vision of a “supranational union” between the two countries, which rests on equally problematic assumptions. It amounts to a prescriptive political arrangement, thinly veiled as a project of ‘cooperation and integration.’

To begin with, the UN-sponsored ‘federal arrangement’ of the 1952 was never a “compromise between the competing demands for autonomy and unity.” Conversely, it was an epitome of historical injustice imposed on the Eritrean people against their will for independence to serve the geopolitical interests of the then global powers and the Imperial regime of Ethiopia. The blunt admission by then–U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles encapsulates this betrayal:

“…From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia…”

Contrary to Mufti’s distortion portraying the federation as a recommendation of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, the Commission itself was deeply divided: Pakistan and Guatemala advocated for Eritrean independence; apartheid South Africa and Burma proposed a federation in which Eritrea would form an autonomous unit alongside Ethiopia; and Norway alone suggested a complete merger with Ethiopia. Ironically, even before the Commission’s findings were formally submitted to the UN, the United States and Britain had already established a joint committee, later joined by Ethiopia, to predetermine Eritrea’s fate. Consequently, the sham federation was neither the product of internal Eritrean negotiations balancing autonomy and unity, nor a genuine proposal emanating from the UN Commission of Inquiry.

Ambassador Mufti’s distortion of history is no accident. More troubling, however, is that the geopolitical expediency of the post-World War victors, coupled with Ethiopia’s imperial ambitions that denied Eritreans their inherent right to self-determination and independence, still reverberates in his thinking and that of successive Ethiopian regimes. No matter how polished or tempting it may appear, any proposition for ‘cooperation’ or ‘integration’, within a regional configuration of sovereign States, must begin with honesty and historical truth. Regrettably, Ambassador Mufti’s diplomatic overture fails to meet even the basic standards it demands of others.

In his historical revisionism, Ambassador Mufti, an unapologetic nostalgist of the defunct Derg regime, devotes a section to what he calls the “complex history of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF),” only to advance the disingenuous narrative that the TPLF was responsible for Eritrea’s secession and, by extension, Ethiopia’s landlocked status. This assertion is not only historically untenable but also indicative of a more insidious agenda. Eritrea’s hard-won independence was achieved through the immense sacrifices of its own people, not as a result of political charity or goodwill from any external actor.

The 1993 referendum, conducted under international supervision, was the logical and legal culmination of the Eritrean people’s thirty-year struggle for self-determination. It reflected the EPLF’s longstanding commitment to allowing the people to freely decide their future. With a resounding 99.8% voting in favor of sovereignty, Eritrea emerged as an independent state through a process that was unimpeachably legitimate. No amount of historical distortion or regressive rhetoric, such as that espoused by Ambassador Mufti, can negate or revise this unalterable truth.

Ambassador Dina Mufti sidesteps well-documented realities, distorting both the causes and consequences of the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict. Most notably, he fails to acknowledge the central legal instrument designed to resolve the dispute: the final and binding ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). Rather than confronting Ethiopia’s two-decade defiance of its treaty obligations and international law, a defiance tacitly endorsed by successive U.S. administrations, Amb. Mufti deflects attention toward amorphous calls for “transcendence.” In doing so, he implicitly urges Eritrea to set aside its legitimate grievances and acquiesce to a regional arrangement shaped largely by Ethiopia’s political ambitions and strategic calculus.

One of the most glaring flaws in Ambassador Mufti’s article is the deliberate obfuscation of the root causes, progression, and internationally adjudicated resolution of the 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia war. It makes vague allusions to “a tragic chapter” and “needless conflict” without ever acknowledging the core fact that the war was triggered by Ethiopia’s armed encroachment into sovereign Eritrean territory, specifically in and around the town of Badme.

Moreover, the article conveniently erases the existence and significance of the EEBC, the independent body established under the Algiers Peace Agreement and mandated by both countries to deliver a final and binding legal ruling on the border. The EEBC, after extensive hearings and evidences presented by both parties, ruled on April 2002 that Badme and other contested areas claimed by Ethiopia unequivocally belonged to Eritrea. However, Ethiopia, emboldened by its handlers, refused to accept the ruling and engaged in a 16-year-long military occupation of Eritrean territory, in open violation of international law and the very agreement it had signed. That illegal occupation not only undermined peace and security in the region but also made a mockery of the notion of the rule of law and international arbitrations.

By omitting the EEBC’s ruling, Mufti’s article attempts to rewrite history, sidestepping legal accountability and instead emphasizing abstract notions of “moving forward” and “shared destiny.” This sleight of hand serves to shift the burden of normalization onto Eritrea, suggesting that it is Eritrea’s unwillingness to embrace regional integration, rather than Ethiopia’s failure to comply with international law, that remains the primary obstacle to peace. Such misrepresentation is not only disingenuous but dangerous. It erases a vital legal precedent and emboldens a narrative that places ‘diplomacy’ above justice, and shielded ambitions above hard-won international rulings. Reconciliation without truth and legality is not peacebuilding; it is appeasement, a recipe for grievances and another cycle of conflict.

To fully understand the implications of Ethiopia’s defiance, and the dishonesty embedded in Mufti’s narrative, it is essential to revisit the Algiers Peace Agreement of 2000, which both Eritrea and Ethiopia signed under international auspices, including the United Nations, the African Union, the United States, and the European Union. The Agreement was not a political pact; it was a legal contract that bound both parties to accept the EEBC’s ruling as “final and binding” without precondition or appeal. Eritrea upheld its obligations. Ethiopia, despite having formally agreed, reneged once the ruling awarded the flashpoint town of Badme to Eritrea. This betrayal of an international agreement not only prolonged instability but undermined the very credibility of international mediation efforts.

Throughout the protracted and frustrating process, Eritrea maintained a consistent legal position: full respect for international law and implementation of the final and binding decisions as the cornerstone for sustainable peace. Far from being the spoiler painted in Ambassador Mufti’s article, Eritrea remained steadfast in its demand for a lawful and principled resolution. The call was never for endless confrontation, but for genuine normalization rooted in justice, not political expediency. Eritrea’s stance was not one of stubbornness, but one of legal integrity, a refusal to compromise sovereignty or reward aggression under the false flag of pragmatism. Any reconciliation that fails to acknowledge these hard truths is neither honest nor durable.

The ‘rapprochement’ of July 2018 between Eritrea and Ethiopia that Amb. Mufti claims to have brought Eritrea out of ‘isolation’ came as a result of Ethiopia’s statement on June 5, 2018 announcing that Ethiopia fully accepts the 2000 Algiers Agreement. Eritrea had steadfastly resisted decades of injustice stemming from this unlawful occupation and the sanctions imposed thereafter. Eritrea remains firmly committed to the final and binding decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), which Ethiopia had accepted but persistently defied until the rapprochement.

In an apparent effort to reconcile his association with the EPRDF’s rule in Ethiopia, Ambassador Mufti’s article romanticizes the country’s ethnic federal experiment as a commendable model of diversity and decentralized governance. However, this portrayal glosses over the toxic pitfalls and destructive legacy of “institutionalized ethnicity”. Rather than fostering unity, the ethnicized federal architecture entrenched divisions, exacerbated historic grievances, and institutionalized an exclusionary polity in Ethiopia while also venturing into an expansionist agenda regarding Eritrea.

Ambassador Mufti’s omission of this fundamental truth is deliberate and serves as the foundation for the revisionist narrative advanced in his article. Eritrea is called upon to “transcend” history and embrace a shared regional future, yet the political authorities within Ethiopia have neither publicly nor unequivocally renounced the irredentist ideology that precipitated the 1998–2000 conflict and the subsequent decades of occupation. Although appeals for “integration” are presented as progressive, they in fact circumvent established legal obligations, historical injustices, and the deeply entrenched asymmetries of regional power. Eritrea cannot be expected to engage in normative regional integration frameworks when the essential prerequisites for sustainable peace, namely, the mutual recognition of sovereignty and the inviolability of borders, remain unsettled or selectively acknowledged.

Ambassador Mufti’s narrative seeks to deliberately diminish and distort the profound contribution Eritrea made to Ethiopia during its time of crisis. His revisionist account not only downplays the decisive military role of the Eritrean Defence Forces, forces whose valor and effectiveness were instrumental in halting the war of insurrection. This deliberate erasure of Eritrea’s pivotal role ignores the historic reality that Eritrea stood as Ethiopia’s reliable ally, at a time of when both countries faced a grave adversity and threat of considerable magnitude. Such a cynical attempt to rewrite history undermines the very foundation of regional solidarity that was forged through shared struggle. Ambassador Mufti’s narrative thus reveals itself as less an honest reflection and more a political effort to rewrite facts to suit transient agendas.

Ambassador Mufti’s assertion that “Eritrea was not happy with the signing of the Pretoria Agreement and feared that the Federal and TPLF forces could launch a joint attack against it” is not only speculative but legally irrelevant. In the first place, why would Eritrea countenance backstabbing and conspiratorial alignments of this nature when the central objective of the Pretoria Agreement was on silencing the guns for endurable regional peace? Indeed, such a statement reflects a fundamental misapprehension of both the facts and the principles governing international agreements. Eritrea, not being a signatory or party to the Pretoria Agreement, bears no legal or political obligation under its terms. Consequently, Eritrea’s position, whether in favor or against, has no bearing on the validity, implementation, or enforceability of the Agreement.

If Ambassador Mufti is genuinely concerned with the status of the Pretoria Agreement, the appropriate inquiry should focus on his government’s failure to implement key provisions more than two and a half years since its signing. To deflect responsibility onto Eritrea, a non-party to the accord, amounts to both a factual distortion and a legally untenable position.

Ambassador Mufti’s article conspicuously omits one of the most recent and provocative developments in Ethiopia’s posture toward Eritrea: the renewed and publicized demands for “sovereign access to the Red Sea” by curving up and violating Eritrean territory. This demand constitutes a redline, an inviolable element of Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law. Ethiopia’s repeated pronouncements regarding “access to the sea” are not mere political rhetoric; they represent a continuation of a well-documented pattern of asserting claims and pressures that infringe upon Eritrea’s sovereign rights. Any attempt by Ethiopia to undermine, encroach upon, or otherwise compromise Eritrea’s territorial sovereignty constitutes a direct violation of the United Nations Charter and contravenes established principles of international law concerning the territorial integrity and political independence of states.

Such provocations are not isolated statements, but part of a broader strategic posture aimed at exerting undue leverage over Eritrea and diluting its sovereign agency. Demands for “access,” when decoupled from full and unequivocal respect for Eritrea’s sovereignty and consent, amount to an attempt to erode the legal and political foundation upon which Eritrea’s independence and territorial integrity rest. Eritrea retains the sovereign right to take all necessary and proportional defensive measures to safeguard its national interests against unlawful pressure or threats to its territorial integrity.

Furthermore, if the international community is genuinely committed to peace, stability, and the rule of law in the Horn of Africa, it must abandon the practice of selective engagement and unequivocally denounce all acts, whether rhetorical or material, that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states. Sustainable peace and regional cooperation cannot be pursued through coercion, legal equivocation, or the selective application of international principles. The path forward must rest on principled, impartial, and consistent adherence to international law, ensuring that no state, large or small, is forced to concede its sovereignty under political pressure or hegemonic ambition.

Eritrea’s measured and disciplined posture in the face of Ethiopia’s recurrent provocations, including border incursions, inflammatory war rhetoric, and orchestrated campaigns of defamation and disinformation, has reflected a deliberate policy of strategic restraint grounded in a principled commitment to regional peace and stability. This conduct stands in stark contrast to the narrative of belligerence often imputed to Eritrea. Despite possessing both the legal and moral right to respond decisively to repeated violations of its sovereignty, Eritrea has consistently chosen the path of non-escalation. This restraint is all the more notable given Ethiopia’s long-standing breaches of the Algiers Agreement, its protracted refusal to implement the final and binding ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), and ongoing efforts by external actors to obscure legal and historical facts through politicized narratives.

Rather than acknowledging this record of restraint or recognizing Eritrea’s unwavering insistence on mutual respect, sovereign equality, and adherence to international legal norms as a stabilizing force in the Horn of Africa, Ambassador Mufti’s article resorts to a reductive and discredited trope: the myth of Eritrean intransigence. Such framing is not only intellectually unsubstantiated but also politically expedient. It enables elements within the Ethiopian political establishment to deflect responsibility for their own internal policy failures by externalizing blame and casting Eritrea as a perpetual antagonist. This narrative construction undermines genuine efforts at regional reconciliation and obscures the root causes of instability in the region.

This pattern has long been reinforced by external actors with vested interests in the region, including certain Western advocacy networks that, knowingly or not, echo the narratives crafted by Ethiopian regimes’ propaganda organs. These narratives have helped shield Ethiopia’s internal fractures and regional ambitions from international scrutiny, while simultaneously attempting to delegitimize Eritrea’s legitimate security concerns and independent political path.

Ambassador Mufti’s article, in this context, is not a call for honest reflection or genuine reconciliation. It is a continuation of the same discursive campaign that seeks to pressure Eritrea into acquiescence by misrepresenting its role and mischaracterizing its intentions. Any meaningful path toward regional cooperation must begin by confronting these distortions, not perpetuating them.

Ambassador Dina Mufti’s proposal for regional integration advances a model that is internally inconsistent, historically detached, and perilously dismissive of Eritrea’s sovereign rights. Genuine regional integration cannot be premised on abstract idealism or political expediency; it must be grounded in legal certainty, mutual respect, and the unequivocal recognition of sovereign borders.

For Eritrea, any vision of regional integration that does not explicitly and unequivocally commit to certain foundational principles is a non-starter. These include: full respect for Eritrea’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; an unambiguous rejection of all forms of hegemonic, expansionist, or irredentist agendas, agendas that have been repeatedly promoted by successive Ethiopian regimes and factions through official maps, rhetoric, and territorial encroachments; and a commitment to accountability for past injustices and ongoing provocations, including acts of destabilization and coordinated propaganda campaigns. Without these essential guarantees, calls for integration risk perpetuating historical patterns of domination under the guise of cooperation.

Calls for “integration” that elide these essential prerequisites merely recycle the colonial-era logic that once denied Eritreans their right to independence and attempted to subsume Eritrea’s national identity under the guise of serving the “greater good” of regional and geopolitical interests. Such reasoning not only dismisses the legitimacy of Eritrea’s inalienable and hard-won sovereignty but also mischaracterizes its principled stance as obstructionism.

Eritrea’s resistance and resilience are frequently misunderstood, or deliberately mischaracterized, by external observers like Amb. Mufti, who mistake principled independence for isolationism. In reality, Eritrea’s stance on regional and global affairs is not born of fear or retreat, but grounded in hard-earned sovereignty and a deliberate foreign policy built on self-reliance, political independence, respect for legality, mutual respect, and regional harmony based on equity rather than hierarchy. Eritrea has consistently championed peace, cooperation, and regional stability, but never at the expense of its dignity, sovereign rights, or the sacrifices made by its people throughout decades of struggle for liberation and justice.

To reduce Eritrea’s firm stance to mere intransigence, as Ambassador Mufti’s article implicitly does, is to erase the profound context of Eritrea’s historical experience: a nation that resisted successive waves of colonization, endured 30 years of brutal atrocities under Ethiopian regimes to secure liberation and self-determination, and has since withstood repeated attempts to undermine its independence through war, occupation, sanctions, disinformation, and campaigns of regional isolation.

The article’s attempt to subtly co-opt Eritrea into Ethiopia’s domestic reconciliation and federal restructuring project, veiled in lofty language like “transcending the conundrum” and “regional cooperation and integration”, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Eritrea’s identity and national trajectory. Eritrea’s identity is not defined in opposition to any political entity, including Ethiopia; rather, it is grounded in its own values, history, and future aspirations.

To conflate Eritrea’s regional engagement with Ethiopia’s internal politics, especially amid Ethiopia’s volatile, unresolved ethnic federalism and persistent irredentist rhetoric, is to undermine the very foundation of Eritrea’s national sovereignty. Eritrea’s path is distinct, and its principled insistence on equal partnership, legal clarity, and respect for statehood should never be mistaken for aloofness. It is a stance rooted in strength, not seclusion.

Finally, if Ambassador Dina Mufti genuinely seeks a “better tomorrow,” let that vision be grounded in honesty rather than skewed narratives, selective amnesia, or rhetorical flourish. It must begin with the moral courage to confront the past truthfully, not with attempts to revise it for present convenience. Lasting peace in the Horn of Africa cannot be built by glossing over historical realities or ignoring the foundational injustices that have shaped regional dynamics for decades. Nor can it arise from narratives that evade accountability or sidestep legal obligations, such as the final and binding Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling, an agreement Ethiopia refused to implement for nearly two decades, with grave consequences for peace, trust, and regional cooperation.

Any sincere regional initiative must begin by recognizing Eritrea’s independent agency, not by subsuming it into Ethiopia’s evolving political experiments. True regional transcendence cannot be achieved by overriding the dignity and sovereignty of one nation for the supposed benefit of another. Eritrea will engage, but only as an equal partner, not as an appendage to a neighbor’s unfinished nation-building project. Peace, if genuine and sustainable, must be built on truth, justice, and accountability, not on platitudes or political poetry. Let us therefore start with honesty: about the sanctity of sovereign borders, about past injustices, and about the real preconditions for trust. Anything less is not a “better tomorrow,” but a repackaged past cloaked in new language.

The conundrum is not Eritrean intransigence, but rather it is the amnesia and blind ambitions of successive Ethiopian regimes.