It has been said again and again that landlocked countries have less chance of growing and expanding their economies compared to countries with access to sea ports and the numbers support this statement. This is because landlocked countries have to rely on the wishes of the countries that are willing to offer them access to the sea and at their condition at that. Out of a total of about 200 countries in the world only 44 countries are landlocked and studies have shown that the potential growth of these countries has been limited by their being conditioned by their status as compared to the ones with easy access to sea.
It is easy to imagine how much the costs affect the countries with no access to sea ports of their own because they have to pay for the various expenses related to the usage of the ports, the extra kilometers that they are required to cover in order to transport the goods they buy from outside or export goods they sell to foreign markets. These expenses are also susceptible of continuous increments depending on several circumstances some forecasted others not even dreamt of and how the international markets operate with inevitable fluctuations. Hence the dependence of landlocked countries on those who offer them the services is so big that the influence on the overall performance of the economy of a given landlocked country could be immense and cannot be dismissed as simple and negligible.
Having direct access to the sea means a lot of things to any country that especially relies a lot on import-export transactions affecting its economy deeply such as the case of Ethiopia. It means that these countries can have whatever kind of relations with anyone out there choosing whatever clients whereas those landlocked could be affected by the choice of the country that offers it access to a port service. They could limit the number of ships that dock on their ports or ban certain countries’ ships that they consider as not friendly or with whom they do not have particularly good relations and this can hamper the kind of relations the landlocked country could entertain freely with their trading partner.
Having or not access to the sea also has direct and substantial security implications because the landlocked country is forced to rely on the security apparatus of the country with the sea access. This means the sovereignty of the landlocked country could very well depend on the kind of defense apparatus it has and what sort of international relations the host country entertains with other countries. For instance in the current case of Ethiopia it is forced to rely on the military and security apparatus and capacity of Djibouti to defend its shores from any eventual threats. This means Ethiopia could potentially be exposed to a foreign attack as it has no say in the military operations or defensive capabilities of Djibouti.
Ethiopia does not enjoy a military base there because its agreement with the host country may not cover that. It would be an infringement on the sovereignty of Djibouti if Ethiopia attempted to have a military presence in that country and given that there are already other countries’ presence there, the situation would result in further complications and there could be an issue of stability which is very important in any ongoing commercial transactions that are critical for Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is forced to rely on the good intentions and policies of Djibouti towards it and those that have close security ties with it to keep its shores safe from any potential attacks.
For instance we know that there are a number of armed forces and groups that have extremist views regarding ideological and religious beliefs and there is practically nothing Ethiopia can do to defend its interests except may be interrupt its commercial pacts with Djibouti which currently cannot do because it cannot afford to totally suspend its ties with the only reliable port in which it uses for its import-export trade. For this of course Ethiopia is grateful even if the costs are very burdensome for a growing economy such as Ethiopia with scarce foreign currency and with foreign debt to pay regularly.
On the contrary, if Ethiopia had its own sea port which it could manage in total freedom and with full sovereignty, it would have been up to it to potentially build up the kind of maritime force it deems necessary and adequately prepare itself for any security threat from beyond its coastlines. There are lots of movements in and around Red Sea and it is enough to see what sort of security implications the current war in the Middle East is creating along the sea route that passes near Djibouti.
There are reports that maritime transactions have fallen under serious security threat in a moment when missiles and drones are being used more and more by many parts and the likelihood of ships in the areas being vulnerable even to a non-deliberate attack is high. This presents a challenge to countries such as Ethiopia with no direct say or involvement on these issues. Being a distant observer in things that are crucial for your international commercial relations that have a huge role on livelihoods back home is very difficult and would need a better way of addressing it, not being limited to being a remote observer as things could go out of control.
Ethiopia’s defensive capabilities cannot have an adequate say and its role in trying to anticipate and thwart any threats would be restrained due to the fact that it does not have physical presence at the port The security features of a port are very important to any country availing access to sea. Realizing that dangers could come from beyond the port, it could prepare itself to prevent any threat or aggression.
Hence, landlocked countries find themselves in the unique position of having to rely on the countries that accord them the use of their ports just as Ethiopia does with Djibouti. Being landlocked countries, commercial relations with foreign countries are also restrained in a way because trading partners as well are not so enthusiastic or may not feel at ease with relations with landlocked countries that in the end do not have any say in the safety situation of the ports. This could eventually discourage or limit their relations on the grounds of safety and security of the kind of port they use.
Countries offering access to sea to landlocked countries could also have a say on what sort of goods and merchandizes could be permitted to cross their ports. For instance they could prohibit arms and ammunitions to get into the country using their port. They could hence impose certain restrictions on what kind of goods could enter their ports and be transported internally. This can constitute a huge negative condition on the choice and freedom of the landlocked country seeking the services of a port. Hence it is not only about trade and commerce pure and simple but it is also about security issues and sovereignty factors when we talk about having independent access to sea ports.
There have been tendencies to dismiss access to sea as a mere economic issue and hence easily settle it with some financial transaction but the matter is much more complicated than that as we have tried to illustrate above. We have seen that it is not only economic factors that play in this equation. That is why the current Ethiopian government has begun to consider this matter seriously and from various angles, and began to talk about the need to urgently address this critical issue before it becomes too late and may be create further volatility in a region already teeming with various security and stability issues with so many powers involved in the sub region.
The recently announced deal or memorandum of understanding between Ethiopia and Somaliland on it granting a sea access in exchange of benefits from Ethiopia could be put in this critical context. Ethiopia sees this as a very important progress on its way to securing a right to access the Red Sea in exchange for a quid pro quo on the part of Ethiopia to Somaliland.
Ethiopia’s quest for access to sea has become almost an existential issue and it was announced that it would do all it can legally and peacefully as well as diplomatically to earn this right before the burdensome situation in which it finds itself deteriorates and becomes a critical obstacle in its widening and expanding economic trajectory.
Ethiopia has made its points clear on the matter explaining that what it has done does not violate any international rules or customs and its operations are based on a negotiated and fair agreement with the government of Somaliland that has now been operating on its own for the last more than thirty years. In doing so, Ethiopia is not interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries and its intentions are all peaceful and legal. Ethiopia has clearly explained its position on this recent development and is only exercising its right as a sovereign country dealing with others diplomatically and peacefully in a deal that would benefit not only the two parties involved but also eventually the entire region because an active part Ethiopia plays in Red Sea matters would contribute to further stability and hence growth of all the subregion’s countries. Ethiopia cannot afford to be conditioned by what certain forces claim or argue against its diplomatic activities as a sovereign country as long as it does not violate UN rules and regulations nor other international pacts and practices. Ethiopia is only using its diplomatic good offices to reach to a deal such as the one it did with the government of a Somaliland.
The more there are such peaceful diplomatic ties between countries of the continent the better for more integration and more growth. Africa would soon be able to win its war against poverty and backwardness rather than be involved in interminable intestinal disputes and conflicts while the rest of the world is advancing forward under every parameter and standards.
BY FITSUM GETACHEW
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY 2024
