Treaties and agreements that enable the world to move forward peacefully and cooperatively are those centered on national sovereignty, common existence, and mutual benefits. Some of these treaties apply to all nations, while others are bilateral or trilateral, governing specific countries. Bilateral agreements also have the potential to become part of international agreements. Therefore, these agreements and treaties protect our world from becoming a haven for the powerful and the violent. International and regional organizations are the ones that implement these treaties and agreements and prevent their violation. The United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and IGAD are among the main ones.

A country has a process through which its sovereignty becomes acceptable to the international community. Eritrea also had a process through which it reached its current state, which some parties, due to the repressive PFDJ administration, wish to call a "country without sovereignty." However, although the path it has traveled has been challenging, the process by which Eritrea became sovereign was not only a successful domestic struggle but is also strengthened by various internationally recognized treaties and agreements. Among the treaties that have laid a solid foundation for Eritrean sovereign nationhood over the past 136 years, we can mention the following as examples:

1. Treaty of Wuchale, May 2, 1889: Signed by King Menelik II, recognizing Italy as the ruler of Eritrea.
2. July 10, 1896, Addis Ababa: An agreement reached between Menelik and Italy, in which Ethiopia acknowledged Eritrea's existence under Italian rule.
3. July 10, 1900, Addis Ababa: Signed between Italy and Ethiopia, agreeing to recognize Mereb, Belesa, and Munna as their border in the central zone connecting Eritrea and Ethiopia.
4. March 15, 1902: The treaty signed to clarify the eastern border zone connecting Eritrea and Ethiopia.
5. May 10, 1908: A treaty signed by the Emperor of Ethiopia with the then-ruling British government of Sudan to clarify the Eritrean-Sudanese border in the western part connecting Eritrea and Ethiopia.
6. August 16, 1928: Ethiopia recognized Italian rule in Eritrea and signed an agreement to live peacefully with it.
7. September 15, 1952: An agreement was signed for Eritrea and Ethiopia to be federated as two nations.
8. 1964, Addis Ababa: The Organization of African Unity reached an agreement to accept and continue the existing colonial borders of nations.
9. May 28, 1991: After the fall of the Derg regime, a provisional transitional protocol agreement was reached in London among the EPLF, TPLF, and the United States.
10. May 28, 1993: Following the results of the Eritrean referendum, Eritrea was registered as the 182nd sovereign state at the United Nations.
11. December 12, 2000, Algiers: Signed by President Isaias Afwerki and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to end the 1998-2000 war and establish an independent border commission.
12. May 13, 2002: The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission officially announced its binding and final decision, which both countries had accepted in principle.

These agreements are not merely honored and implemented by the governments that signed them, only to be broken when the signatories pass away. Instead, they are binding on successive governments that come to power during the process of governmental power transition. This is because they are agreements reached not in the name of system officials but in the name of the nations and peoples that endure. Accordingly, the agreements signed between Eritrea and Ethiopia since the colonial era are not subject to change with shifts in regimes but must be respected and implemented without alteration. Governments should understand that such internationally recognized treaties concerning Eritrea and Ethiopia are not to be honored solely for one's narrow interests but are binding to avoid violating the interests and dignity of others.

The agreements signed between Eritrea and Ethiopia over the past 136 years have complemented each other and brought the history and sovereignty of Eritrea to its current state; they have not contradicted each other. However, history tells us that in the process, they were temporarily obstructed due to the interests and interpretations of powerful nations. At a crucial stage when Eritrea was supposed to be independent, it was forced to federate with Ethiopia against the will of its people. John Foster Dulles, then US Secretary of State, said, "From the standpoint of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people should have been considered; however, taking into account the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea, as well as international security and stability, Eritrea must be linked with our ally Ethiopia." This was an example of coercion and big power hegemony.

In the escalating tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which threatens to erupt into war, one frequently cited argument is, "Ethiopia needs access to the sea." Indeed, it is undeniable that Ethiopia needs access to a port for import and export. However, claiming to "build a naval base" in a sea that is not yours is simply unacceptable because it violates international laws.

The issue of port access for a landlocked country has a legally supported process for implementation. Since Ethiopia is surrounded by neighboring countries with sea access, it has a wide range of options on how to become a port user. This is not something that is starting today; both Ethiopia and other landlocked countries have been working on this and continue to do so.

Without going far, we can refer to the recent situation of Uganda's use of the Kenyan port of Mombasa. What we observe today, jumping from "utilization to ownership" and attempting to seize and end Eritrea's sovereignty, is not consistent with Ethiopia's claim of being a "founding member of the United Nations and the African Union, as well as a signatory to various international and regional agreements and charters." Therefore, the people of Ethiopia should reflect on this matter rather than blindly following some wild claims uttered for political ends.