Why The AU Must Address Ethiopia’s Maritime Access — And Now

As African leaders gather for the forthcoming African Union Summit, one strategic issue demands urgent and collective attention: Ethiopia’s quest for secure and sovereign access to the sea. This is not a narrow national aspiration. It is a test of Africa’s capacity to confront structural development challenges proactively—through dialogue, law, and cooperation—rather than reactively, after tensions harden into crises.

Ethiopia, with a population exceeding 130 million, is the world’s most populous landlocked country. Its landlocked status is not a technical inconvenience but a binding structural constraint. It inflates trade and transport costs, weakens export competitiveness, exposes the economy to external shocks, and limits Ethiopia’s full contribution to regional and continental growth.More than 90 percent of its trade depends on a single maritime corridor—a level of dependency that would be strategically risky for any nation, particularly one central to the Horn of Africa’s economic future.

Some argue that landlockedness is an immutable geographic reality that states must simply manage. Yet history shows otherwise. Geography is mediated by politics, law, and cooperation. Europe’s landlocked countries thrive because access regimes are diversified, predictable, and rules-based. Africa, by contrast, has too often treated maritime access as a bilateral privilege rather than a shared developmental responsibility—despite repeated commitments to regional integration and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

A Continental Challenge

Ethiopia’s appeal must therefore be understood in a broader African context. Sixteen AU member states are landlocked, collectively losing billions of dollars each year to excessive transit costs, delays, and uncertainty. If AfCFTA is to become a driver of industrialization rather than a paper aspiration, structural bottlenecks—especially access to ports—must be addressed systematically at the continental level.

Concerns are occasionally raised that Ethiopia’s maritime agenda could destabilize the Horn of Africa. In reality, the greater risk lies in inaction. Unresolved structural asymmetries—where a major economy remains permanently dependent on ad hoc arrangements—tend to generate friction over time. Predictable, negotiated access reduces tension; ambiguity and improvisation magnify it.

Recent debate surrounding Ethiopia’s engagement with Somaliland has heightened sensitivities, particularly regarding Somalia’s sovereignty. These concerns warrant clarity rather than escalation. Ethiopia has neither claimed Somali territory nor sought to undermine Somalia’s unity or internationally recognized sovereignty. Its engagement was driven by economic and logistical imperatives—not territorial ambition—and Ethiopia has repeatedly reaffirmed its respect for Somalia as a sovereign AU member state.

In instances where misunderstandings have emerged, Ethiopia has consistently shown a willingness to engage in dialogue, mediation, and clarification. The core challenge lies not in the intention itself, but rather in the lack of an AU-approved framework that would facilitate the transparent, lawful, and collective resolution of legitimate maritime access requirements.

Maritime Access and Security Responsibilities

Maritime access is not only an economic question; it also carries security dimensions. As one of Africa’s largest economies and leading contributors to AU and UN peace operations, Ethiopia has a legitimate interest in the safety of the sea-lanes upon which its trade, energy supplies, and food security depend.

Any future Ethiopian naval capability should therefore be understood as modest, defensive, and cooperative—embedded within regional and AU-led maritime security arrangements. Its purpose would not be power projection or territorial control, but contribution: combating piracy, protecting commercial shipping, enhancing search-and-rescue capacity, and supporting stability in one of the world’s most congested and strategically sensitive waterways. At a time when extra-regional military presences in the Red Sea are expanding rapidly, greater African ownership of maritime security should be seen as a stabilizing, not destabilizing, development.

Why the AU Must Act

Some maintain that maritime access should remain a purely bilateral matter. Experience suggests otherwise. When negotiations occur in a vacuum—without shared principles or continental guidance—they become vulnerable to misinterpretation, domestic politicization, and external interference.

The AU Summit therefore has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to elevate this issue from fragmented diplomacy to structured continental engagement. Doing so would reinforce the Union’s relevance and demonstrate its ability to anticipate challenges rather than merely manage their consequences.

Three practical steps merit serious consideration.

First, the AU should mandate a high-level panel of legal experts, economists, and eminent persons to examine maritime access for landlocked states, with Ethiopia as a priority case. Second, it should develop an AU framework on maritime access and transit equity, outlining cooperative options—such as long-term leasing, joint port management, or special economic corridors—while fully safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. Third, maritime access must be aligned with AfCFTA implementation, ensuring that Africa’s largest economies are not structurally constrained from participating fully in continental trade.

Ethiopia’s maritime question is not a demand for special treatment. It is a call for structural fairness, regional foresight, and African agency. Addressing it constructively would strengthen—not weaken—sovereignty by replacing uncertainty with rules and unilateral pressure with cooperation.

As the AU Summit convenes, leaders face a clear choice: defer the issue until it resurfaces in a more volatile form, or confront it now with vision and pragmatism. Ethiopia’s maritime access is not only about ports or naval presence. It is about whether Africa can collectively design solutions equal to its ambitions.

The Summit should choose foresight over delay—and cooperation over complacency.

Alemayehu Tedla is a political analyst.

Contributed by Alemayehu Tedla