Deep-seated Tensions, Glaring Contradictions Laid Bare At UNGA80

Eighty years ago, the United Nations was formed in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the aim of not only deterring a third war, but also making earth an equitable, peaceful, suitable,  place for living and to develop for  all.

Last month, the UN conducted its 80th general assembly. Heads of state and government and diplomatic envoys from all 193 member states convened in New York for the three-week marathon event.

They discussed global, regional and national issues ranging from development and climate to security, geopolitics, and uncertainties in the global order. This time around, the theme was ‘Better Together: 80 years and more for peace, development, and human rights.’

The assembly took place amid mounting pressure on the UN for its failure to live up its foundational principles and aims. Its inability to resolve the wars in Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine and elsewhere, or respond to calls for reform from the global south have placed the UN under fire.

Despite the growing criticism, the UN remains the principal stage where states can echo their concerns—perceived, real, or fabricated. However, the endless debates and motions at UNGA80, as with so many of the assemblies that came before it, are unlikely to result in a peaceful resolution of differences through dialogue.

For Ethiopia, the assembly coincided with a spike in tensions with Egypt following the inauguration of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), and continuing friction with Eritrea as the administration of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed presses ahead with its campaign for maritime access.

UNGA80 served as a spotlight on Egypt and Eritrea’s position towards Ethiopia, highlighted glaring contradictions in their arguments, and signaled expectations that the geopolitical spiral in the Horn of Africa is unlikely to resolve itself in the near future.

Ethiopia’s interest in direct access to the Red Sea, particularly revolving around the Port of Assab, has been a dominant talking point over the past few weeks.

The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) recently issued a statement asserting Ethiopia’s interests in Assab, and government officials have been busy substantiating all the legal, historical, and national interest factors they believe can bring sea access within reach.

Asmara and its officials view the rhetoric as inflammatory. During the assembly, Osman Saleh, Eritrea’s foreign minister, described Ethiopia’s interest in Assab as a “reckless and expansionist ambition.”

Osman spoke repeatedly about Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions during UNGA80, but at times his statements seemed to contradict themselves.

“Eritrea wishes to reaffirm that it is a sovereign coastal state, and its ports are national assets. Any arrangements for their use, whether commercial or logistical, are matters to be negotiated directly and bilaterally between Eritrea and the partner of its choosing. Its ports are not open for foreign military or naval use, and that mediation by external powers is neither legally required nor politically acceptable. Access by a landlocked state is not automatic, nor does it require mediation by third parties. International law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary norms, recognizes the principle of sovereign control over ports,” he stated during one session.

In another, he expressed Asmara’s willingness for a commercial partnership on fair and equal terms, and said Eritrea’s ports remain open to legitimate trade. He also said that Eritrea is committed to the Awaza Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries, a UN program aimed at supporting the development aspirations of 32 landlocked nations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America.

While rejecting Ethiopia’s quest for maritime access, Eritrea claims to support a UN program on equitable sea access.

Contradictory statements were also part of the debate between Ethiopian and Egyptian representatives at UNGA80. GERD’s inauguration last month has sparked frustration in Cairo, and during the assembly 14 years of tensions were laid bare.

An Egyptian representative said the GERD’s inauguration was a “unilateral measure devoid of any legal legitimacy” and argued the dam violated international law and UNSC statements. Egypt went further, accusing Ethiopia of causing several regional conflicts.

“Ethiopia signed an MoU with secessionist forces threatening the unity and sovereignty of Somalia. Ethiopia attacked Sudan’s borders repeatedly, for illicit resource exploitation in the contested al-Fashaga region. Ethiopia waged war on Eritrea, seized the Eritrean border illegally, and is now maintaining threats to Eritrea over access to the Red Sea. Ethiopia removed its peacekeeping forces from UNISFA. Ethiopia is deploying troops in Somalia outside the AU framework. This is Ethiopia, not Egypt,” said the rep.

Cairo argued that Addis Ababa’s rhetoric stemmed from “a troubled internal situation” and attempts to manufacture enemies for domestic consumption.

The Egyptian representative wrapped up with an open-ended conclusion, stating that Cairo would use “all necessary means” under international law to protect its interests.

In response, Ethiopian representatives argued that Addis Ababa maintains the same position it has since the dam was launched 14 years ago. They stated that Ethiopia has a right to use its resources for development with respect to the rights of riparian countries.

Ethiopia’s representative hailed GERD as a symbol of resilience not only for Ethiopians but also for Africans, and accused Egypt for hobbling negotiations surrounding the dam “in bad faith.” Ethiopia firmly rejected what it described as unfounded claims made by Egypt regarding GERD at UNGA80.

Ethiopia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Yoseph Kassaye, exercised the Right of Reply in response to remarks delivered by Egypt’s representative in the assembly’s general debate.

He underscored that Egypt’s claims against the GERD have also been communicated to the UN Security Council, despite being baseless and misleading. Ethiopia, he said, has consistently provided responses grounded in truth, principle, and international law.

“The stark contrast between Ethiopia’s long-standing policy of cooperation and Egypt’s continued hostility is clear,” Yoseph told the assembly, stressing that Ethiopia’s position on the Nile is anchored in the international principle of equitable and reasonable utilization.

Ethiopia criticized Egypt for attempting to impose so-called “historic rights” rooted in colonial-era treaties that excluded most Nile Basin countries.

“While Ethiopia seeks to develop the Nile to uphold the basic human rights of its people, access to clean water, food security, and electricity, Egypt insists on denying these necessities through outdated claims of monopoly over the river,” the Ambassador said.

He also recalled that Ethiopia had engaged Egypt throughout the GERD’s planning and construction process, in contrast to Egypt’s unilateral construction of the Aswan High Dam, which displaced communities and destroyed the remnants of ancient civilizations.

Despite multiple rounds of negotiations, Egypt has repeatedly sought unreasonable concessions without demonstrating genuine interest in a mutually beneficial agreement.

“Egypt’s entire focus has been to extract recognition of colonial-era entitlements and secure absolute control over the Nile Basin,” Yoseph stated.

Highlighting Ethiopia’s commitment to peace and regional integration, he accused Egypt of undermining these efforts by fueling instability in neighboring countries through arms shipments and political interference.

“There is no parallel comparison between Ethiopia and Egypt. Our determination to cooperate comes from the just nature of our cause and the shared future we envision with our neighbors,” he emphasized.

Ethiopia further criticized Egypt for attempting to internationalize the GERD issue, calling it “an effort to exploit the UN platform for narrow political purposes and to deflect attention from its own internal and regional challenges.”

Concluding his remarks, Yoseph called on Egypt to abandon hostile approaches and instead play a constructive role in fostering regional cooperation. .

The UNGA exchange showed that the GERD is no longer just about electricity or irrigation. It has become the focal point of competing narratives about sovereignty, regional stability, and Africa’s future.

As usual, UNGA80 served as a talking platform, not a firm, truthful, impartial place for solutions to emerge.