AMECO AFRICA / ADDIS ABABA
When embassies close and diplomats are given 48 hours to leave, the question is whether the state acted within the law. A legal scholar says Ethiopia did.
On October 1, 2026, Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs closed its embassy in Asmara, declared ten Eritrean diplomats persona non grata, and notified Egypt’s embassy in Addis Ababa that one of its diplomatic staff had also been declared persona non grata. Ethiopia has accused Eritrea and Egypt of waging a proxy war against it by supporting armed groups that seek to overthrow the government. In written responses to AMECO Africa digital media, Alemayehu G/Mariam, professor emeritus at California State University and an attorney, said the measures are lawful and defensive. “Ethiopia does not have to choose between national security and international law,” he said.
The measures
The ministry’s press statement said the embassy was closed “in response to Eritrea’s direct and indirect acts of hostility and belligerence against Ethiopia.” It declared ten Eritrean diplomats in Addis Ababa persona non grata “for involvement in activities that pose a direct threat to Ethiopia’s national security in breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.” They are “required to leave Ethiopia within 48 hours.”
A separate note to the Egyptian embassy, dated 10/1/2026, followed the same Vienna Convention procedure. “The Ministry hereby notifies the Embassy that Ahmed Moharam Ahmed Soliman has been declared persona non grata,” it reads, and it expects the diplomatic staff member to leave within 48 hours. The note does not state its grounds.
The ministry’s statement also stressed restraint. Ethiopia “remains committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes and to working with all countries in the Horn of Africa to advance lasting peace, security, and regional integration.”
A sovereign right
Prof. Alemayehu said the crisis has outgrown ordinary diplomacy. “The Ethiopia–Eritrea crisis has moved far beyond a diplomatic disagreement,” he said. Fighting has resumed in northern Ethiopia, he noted, and Ethiopia has accused Eritrea of hostile involvement and of supporting armed opposition forces. Eritrea responded to the expulsions by severing diplomatic relations.
He said Ethiopia’s response rests on a recognized right. “Ethiopia has the sovereign right to protect its territory, population and national security,” he said. That includes “strengthening its borders, increasing surveillance and intelligence collection, protecting critical infrastructure, securing transportation and communications networks, and preventing armed groups from crossing into Ethiopian territory.”
He stressed that these steps are defensive. “These are defensive measures. They are fundamentally different from launching an offensive war against another sovereign state,” he said. “The distinction is essential: Ethiopia can defend its territory without abandoning its obligations under international law.”
Where the law draws the line
The professor also distinguished between kinds of hostile conduct. “There is a fundamental difference between diplomatic hostility, espionage, political interference, support for an opposition movement, and an armed attack by the forces of another state,” he said.
On self-defense, he cited the UN Charter. “Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs,” he said. “Measures taken in self-defense must also be reported to the UN Security Council.”
Within those bounds, he said, Ethiopia has wide latitude. It “can defend its territory, strengthen its borders, protect its population, investigate foreign interference, expel diplomats who lawfully constitute a security concern, disrupt unlawful support networks, protect Ethiopian citizens, document external aggression and mobilize African and international institutions.”
He described Ethiopia’s openness to de-escalation as a strength. “Ethiopia can preserve channels for de-escalation. That is not weakness. It is statecraft.”
