Ethiopia’s pursuit of reliable maritime access raises a central diplomatic question: how can a major landlocked economy advance its connectivity interests while fully respecting the sovereignty of coastal states? The answer lies not in contesting borders, but in negotiated arrangements that align commercial access, mutual benefit and regional stability.
The debate has sharpened following the El Alamein Joint Declaration of 4 October 2026, issued by Egypt, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan. The declaration reaffirmed respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and stated that governance of the Red Sea is the exclusive responsibility of littoral states. On 5 October, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reiterated Ethiopia’s intention to pursue an outlet to the sea on the principle of give and take. Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also emphasized the country’s geographic and historical connection to the Red Sea and its legitimate interests in regional maritime discussions.
These positions need not be treated as mutually exclusive in every practical respect. Coastal states have sovereign responsibilities and legitimate security interests; Ethiopia, as a landlocked state, has substantial economic interests in predictable access to international trade routes. The diplomatic task is to identify arrangements that respect both realities.
A Seat in Dialogue, Not a Claim to Another State’s Territory
This brief uses the term “corridor standing” as an analytical concept: the case for considering the economic and connectivity interests of landlocked states in consultations about regional trade routes and maritime security. It is not a recognized legal status and does not imply an automatic entitlement to participate in every coastal-state governance mechanism, nor a right to sovereign control over a port or territory.
International law provides a relevant foundation. Article 125 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes landlocked states’ right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit for the purposes specified in the Convention. It also states that the terms and modalities of transit are to be agreed by the landlocked and transit states concerned, and preserves transit states’ sovereignty and legitimate interests. The provision therefore supports a framework for negotiated access; it should not be presented as granting Ethiopia a right to a particular port or direct sovereign access to the coast.
Ethiopia’s treaty position should be described precisely. The United Nations Treaty Collection records Ethiopia as having signed UNCLOS. Before publication, legal reviewers should confirm the current treaty status and distinguish treaty obligations from any applicable customary international law. The 1921 Barcelona Statute on Freedom of Transit may provide historical context, but its present relevance and applicability should not be overstated.
Economic Dependence and Shared Corridor Interests
Ethiopia’s landlocked status since Eritrea’s independence in 1993 has made dependable transit arrangements a lasting economic and strategic concern. The Addis Ababa–Djibouti corridor carries the overwhelming majority of Ethiopia’s external trade, according to widely cited development assessments. Concentration on a principal route exposes trade to logistical bottlenecks, cost pressures and disruptions beyond Ethiopia’s direct control. Any quantitative statement about the share of trade using that corridor should be accompanied by a dated, authoritative source and a clear definition of whether the figure refers to trade by value, volume or another measure.
The broader Red Sea and Gulf of Aden corridor is also important to international shipping, regional commerce and the economic interests of multiple states. A stable, predictable trading environment benefits coastal states, transit countries, hinterland economies, shipping companies and investors. Ethiopia can make this case without suggesting that economic dependence gives it authority over coastal waters or maritime governance. The constructive argument is that practical cooperation on transit, infrastructure, customs, investment and maritime safety can produce mutual benefits.
Recognizing Coastal States’ Concerns
Eritrea and other coastal states have legitimate interests in territorial sovereignty, national security and the management of ports and maritime spaces under their jurisdiction. Recent diplomatic tensions underline the need for careful language. Statements about specific ports, military movements or maritime enforcement can be interpreted in a security context and should be included only where necessary, accurately attributed and supported by credible evidence.
A negotiated commercial arrangement would differ fundamentally from a territorial claim. Such an arrangement could, if the relevant states agree, address port services, transit rights, infrastructure, fees, investment, dispute settlement and appropriate security assurances. The details would need to be negotiated with the state concerned and should preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Examples from other landlocked regions may illustrate possible models, but they should not be treated as directly transferable without considering local legal, commercial and security conditions.
The same discipline should guide discussion of the El Alamein Declaration. Ethiopia can acknowledge the signatories’ stated position while maintaining that its economic and connectivity interests deserve constructive diplomatic engagement. It is more effective to seek dialogue on practical questions than to portray the declaration as illegitimate or to imply that coastal states’ responsibilities should be displaced.
Ethiopia’s Strategic Stakes
For Ethiopia, diversified and predictable maritime connectivity could support trade competitiveness, economic planning and resilience. Diplomatically, a clear commitment to negotiation helps distinguish the objective of access from any suggestion of territorial acquisition. Regionally, mutually beneficial arrangements could create incentives for cooperation and reduce the economic costs of political disruption.
Somalia’s public statements about the need for formal negotiations should be treated as an opening for dialogue, not as evidence that an agreement has been concluded.[5] The same principle applies to any reported interest from external partners: claims about the preferences of the United States or other powers should be included only where supported by attributable, authoritative evidence. Speculation about external strategic preferences adds little to the central case and can distract from Ethiopia’s own diplomatic objectives.
A Practical Diplomatic Path
First, Ethiopia should communicate a concise set of principles for negotiated maritime access. These should emphasize commercial purpose, mutual benefit, agreed compensation where applicable, peaceful negotiation and full respect for territorial sovereignty.
Second, Addis Ababa should pursue formal bilateral discussions with interested transit and coastal states. Any public statement about another government’s willingness to negotiate should accurately reflect that government’s words and should not imply consent to terms that remain unsettled.
Third, Ethiopia should support practical regional consultations on trade connectivity, transit infrastructure, shipping resilience and maritime safety. It may propose dialogue involving both coastal and landlocked states where appropriate, while recognizing that the format and participation of any mechanism require agreement and must respect existing mandates.
Fourth, public messaging should remain consistent and restrained. Officials and commentators should avoid language that could be interpreted as a threat to borders or as a claim to a specific port. Messages should focus on negotiated access, mutual economic gains and regional stability.
Fifth, Ethiopia should use appropriate bilateral and regional diplomatic channels to explore the commercial, legal and security dimensions of possible arrangements. African Union and IGAD channels may be useful where their mandates and the consent of the parties permit. Technical discussions can help identify feasible options without prejudging the outcome.
Conclusion: Making Connectivity a Basis for Cooperation
Ethiopia’s interest in reliable maritime access is a serious economic and strategic concern. Its most credible diplomatic case is one that recognizes the sovereign rights and security interests of coastal states while seeking practical, mutually beneficial arrangements for transit and port services. “Corridor standing,” used carefully as an analytical concept rather than a legal entitlement, captures the value of considering the interests of landlocked economies in regional connectivity discussions. The objective should be to make Ethiopia’s pursuit of access a contribution to regional cooperation, not a source of avoidable confrontation.
Notes
1. Presidency of the Arab Republic of Egypt, “El Alamein Joint Declaration,” October 4, 2026, https://www.presidency.eg/EN/قسم-الأخبار/أخبار-رئاسية/news04102026-12/; Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, “Ethiopia Reasserts Core Interests in Blue Nile, Red Sea Security,” October 5, 2026, https://www.ebc.et/english/Home/NewsDetails?NewsId=8589.
2. United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, Part X, art. 125; United Nations Treaty Collection, “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Ethiopia—Signature,” https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showActionDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=0800000280043f6d. Confirm legal status and applicability with qualified legal review before publication.
3. World Bank and other development sources have described the Addis Ababa–Djibouti corridor as Ethiopia’s principal external trade route. Insert a dated, directly verified source for any specific percentage and clarify the measure used before publication.
4. Reuters, “Ethiopian Troops Enter Town on Border with Eritrea, Stoking War Fears,” October 13, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/ethiopian-troops-enter-town-border-with-eritrea-stoking-war-fears-2026-10-13/. This source describes competing allegations; attribute claims to the parties rather than presenting disputed accounts as settled fact.
5. Associated Press, “Ethiopia Again Demands Access to the Red Sea as Tensions with Neighbors Escalate,” October 5, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/bad74909a59297de524fdf377f0605c2.
By Sifen Gudeta, IFA
Disclaimer
The content disseminated by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) – including, but not limited to, publications, public statements, events, media appearances, and digital communications – reflects the views of individual contributors and does not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Institute, its partners, or any affiliated governmental or non-governmental entities.
While the IFA endeavours to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and timeliness of the information presented, it makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, reliability, or suitability of such content for any purpose. The Institute expressly disclaims any liability for errors or omissions, as well as for any actions taken or decisions made based on the information provided.
The inclusion of external links, references, or third-party resources does not constitute an endorsement by the Institute. Additionally, engagement on social media platforms – including, but not limited to, likes, shares, retweets (RTs), or reposts – shall not be interpreted as an endorsement or validation of the views expressed therein.
Readers and audiences are encouraged to exercise critical judgement and seek independent verification when interpreting or relying upon any information disseminated through publications and posts on the Institute’s platforms or representatives.