Mereja.Forum

[Somaliman]

So Mogadishu may be offering Ethiopia a port deal under Turkey’s “mediation” to abandon the MOU it signed with Somaliland. I hope Addis thinks carefully before dropping a functioning nation for a house of cards regime only upheld with international help.

Tibor Nagy

Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, US Ambassador to Ethiopia


https://x.com/TiborPNagyJr/status/1823520872914878619

Please note that a port deal is not the same as saying access to the sea, an international body of water that is open to everybody. What Ethiopia has been saying again and again consistently is "that Ethiopia would gain “secure dependable access to and from the sea" as a result of this solution". a saying attributed to Ethiopian MFA.

This idiot Somaliman thinks Eritrea owns the sea, he needs to go back to school and educate himself anew.

Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti and others do own sea-coast but not the sea, they can't give or take away it from anybody. Once access is allowed, without any impediments, then Ethiopia can do anything that others too do with the sea, including building its own naval power.


I really hate idiot creatures like this guy Somaliman.

Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti and others do own sea-coast but not the sea, they can't give or take away it from anybody. Once access is allowed, without any impediments, then Ethiopia can do anything that others too do with the sea, including building its own naval power.

The worst is the ignorant who doesn't realise their ignorance.

It's not kind of, 'all I need is just to reach the fuc'king sea and then after their coastline it belongs to everybody, and thus I can do whatever I want in the sea. You must be confusing the sea with a brothel in Addis, I guess

Let me educate you a bit free of charge despite hating me.

The fuc'king passage you're talking about is not in the sky but in someone else's country, even though any passage in the sky also belongs to someone. In addition, although the oceans and seas are global commons, coastal countries do have the right to claim what's called ‘exclusive economic zones’ (EEZs) of up to 200 nautical miles from their coastlines. Therefore, from their coastline all the way up to 200 nautical miles, it exclusively belongs to the country of the coastline and not any fuc'ker as your uneducated little chicken-brain believes, confusing the sea with dirty and dusty roads in Addis Ababa's slums. Each country is the master of its EEZ. Landlocked countries, on the other hand, do NOT have right to any EEZs in the sea, which means in polite English, they can go fuc'k themselves.

Beyond the 200 nautical miles, it's a zone where everything becomes subject to maritime law, including countries, ships, etc. In this zone, which is also called international waters, is, as the word itself denotes, for all countries to use it for navigation, fishing, etc., but no fuc'ker is allowed to park their ar'se in there, leave alone stationing their navy.

And where is it written that the so called "coastal countries" shouldn't allow a free passage through their "territories" to the international body of water?

Is Eritrea also such a "coastal country"? Say it loud!

If anything, then Eritrea is a thief, we should demand back what has been stolen from us!

It is non sustainable, nor just, nor practicable, Eritrea has to return what it has stolen!

I've just borrowed your uneducated term of "passage" for simplification, otherwise, in reality, there's no such thing as "passage to the sea".

There's what's called access to the sea, which means landlocked countries can gain access to the sea by using transit routes through neighboring countries that have coastlines under the terms of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which gives landlocked countries the right to access the sea and to travel through the territory of transit states. In layman's English, it means that the landlocked country could use the ports of the transit country upon agreement with the transit country. UNCLOS does not oblige any transit country to reach an agreement with any landlocked country. According to UNCLOS, any transit country can also refuse to a landlocked country for access to the sea through its land for a number of reasons, including that the border between the two countries is not demarcated, which is exactly the case with regards to Eritrea.

As I explained to you earlier, coastal countries own 200 nautical miles from their coast after which everything becomes subject to maritime law, which does not allow any fuc'ker to park their ar'se in there, leave alone stationing it.

Stop confusing a brothel in Ethiopia, where you say, 'let me in first and then I'll choose which bit'ch to fuc'k' with access to the sea regulated by international bodies, including the UN High Seas Treaty and UNCLOS.

As for Eritrea, as your little chicken-brain thinks that I'm an Eritrean, the last one I would teach on anything on earth is an Ethiopian on the location of Eritrea and its marvellous coasts.

[DefendTheTruth]

I've just borrowed your uneducated term of "passage" for simplification, otherwise, in reality, there's no such thing as "passage to the sea".

There's what's called access to the sea, which means landlocked countries can gain access to the sea by using transit routes through neighboring countries that have coastlines under the terms of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which gives landlocked countries the right to access the sea and to travel through the territory of transit states. In layman's English, it means that the landlocked country could use the ports of the transit country upon agreement with the transit country. UNCLOS does not oblige any transit country to reach an agreement with any landlocked country. According to UNCLOS, any transit country can also refuse to a landlocked country for access to the sea through its land for a number of reasons, including that the border between the two countries is not demarcated, which is exactly the case with regards to Eritrea.

As I explained to you earlier, coastal countries own 200 nautical miles from their coast after which everything becomes subject to maritime law, which does not allow any fuc'ker to park their ar'se in there, leave alone stationing it.

Stop confusing a brothel in Ethiopia, where you say, 'let me in first and then I'll choose which bit'ch to fuc'k' with access to the sea regulated by international bodies, including the UN High Seas Treaty and UNCLOS.

As for Eritrea, as your little chicken-brain thinks that I'm an Eritrean, the last thing I would teach anyone on earth is an Ethiopian on the location of Eritrea and its marvellous coasts.

I have given you examples of the countries which don't own sea coast but still allowed to have a base in many places around our region. Do you need more example?

You try to avoid saying about them anything. Did they go there to just have a permission to use a port for their maritime trade?

Why are you insisting in the case of Ethiopia it should only get an access to a port, not only in sing-a-poor but also the other "coastal countries" of the region, why?

Why on earth?

Humiliate Ethiopia? Well, let's see about who is going to have the last laugh thereby.

That was the starting point of the discussion here, when the mob from sing-a-poor started to jump high and cried "no way, no way".

If I were a decision maker in Ethiopia, then I wouldn't have waited for any permission from sing-a-poor of Africa, simply go in and occupy in a self-defense! No way on earth that the lives of over 130 Million souls be taken hostage by a mob coming from around 3 million, fake country.

[Zack]

You can’t go into sovereign country and get away with it besides the Eritreans have million army u can never come inside their land they will beat you as they have beat you before .

Ethiopia is the fake country u just have to acccept ur country is landlocked there are allot of countries in Africa that are land locked South Sudan Uganda rwanda etc. Ethiopia is no different

Dr Zackovich

[Somaliman]

I've just borrowed your uneducated term of "passage" for simplification, otherwise, in reality, there's no such thing as "passage to the sea".

There's what's called access to the sea, which means landlocked countries can gain access to the sea by using transit routes through neighboring countries that have coastlines under the terms of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which gives landlocked countries the right to access the sea and to travel through the territory of transit states. In layman's English, it means that the landlocked country could use the ports of the transit country upon agreement with the transit country. UNCLOS does not oblige any transit country to reach an agreement with any landlocked country. According to UNCLOS, any transit country can also refuse to a landlocked country for access to the sea through its land for a number of reasons, including that the border between the two countries is not demarcated, which is exactly the case with regards to Eritrea.

As I explained to you earlier, coastal countries own 200 nautical miles from their coast after which everything becomes subject to maritime law, which does not allow any fuc'ker to park their ar'se in there, leave alone stationing it.

Stop confusing a brothel in Ethiopia, where you say, 'let me in first and then I'll choose which bit'ch to fuc'k' with access to the sea regulated by international bodies, including the UN High Seas Treaty and UNCLOS.

As for Eritrea, as your little chicken-brain thinks that I'm an Eritrean, the last thing I would teach anyone on earth is an Ethiopian on the location of Eritrea and its marvellous coasts.

I have given you examples of the countries which don't own sea coast but still allowed to have a base in many places around our region. Do you need more example?

You try to avoid saying about them anything. Did they go there to just have a permission to use a port for their maritime trade?

Why are you insisting in the case of Ethiopia it should only get an access to a port, not only in sing-a-poor but also the other "coastal countries" of the region, why?

Why on earth?

Humiliate Ethiopia? Well, let's see about who is going to have the last laugh thereby.

That was the starting point of the discussion here, when the mob from sing-a-poor started to jump high and cried "no way, no way".

If I were a decision maker in Ethiopia, then I wouldn't have waited for any permission from sing-a-poor of Africa, simply go in and occupy in a self-defense! No way on earth that the lives of over 130 Million souls be taken hostage by a mob coming from around 3 million, fake country.

I have given you examples of the countries which don't own sea coast but still allowed to have a base in many places around our region. Do you need more example?

Having a military base in an another country is normal, but there's no a single landlocked country that has got a naval base in the ocean. You can have your own fuc'king navy whether in your rivers or ar'ses, but not in the ocean.

Why are you insisting in the case of Ethiopia it should only get an access to a port, not only in sing-a-poor but also the other "coastal countries" of the region, why?

Unlike your brothels in Ethiopia, access to the sea is regulated by international bodies, which I've listed in my previous comment.

If I were a decision maker in Ethiopia, then I wouldn't have waited for any permission from sing-a-poor of Africa, simply go in and occupy in a self-defense! No way on earth that the lives of over 130 Million souls be taken hostage by a mob coming from around 3 million, fake country.

Daydreaming on anything, including bringing Eritrea back into Ethiopia is not a crime. Beware indulging in daydreaming, though, as it might lead you to disconnecting yourself from the reality, which might in turn lead you to see a psychiatrist.