Addis Ababa, July 26, 2026 (FMC) — The world of diplomacy sometimes becomes a stage where some political actors end up biting their own tongues — a theatre of contradictions where moral and logical rigidity is laid bare.
A brief message recently posted on X (formerly Twitter) by Tibor Nagy, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State and a veteran diplomat, was far from an ordinary statement.
Rather, it was a diplomatic mirror that reflected back the contradictions embedded in Cairo and Asmara’s Red Sea argument, exposing the double standards behind their position.
Tibor Nagy’s reasoning was sharp as a blade.
“So if as Egypt and Eritrea say only littoral states have anything to say about Red Sea, then logically only nations which put water into the Nile, can determine its use,” the diplomat wrote.
Having closely observed the regional balance of power for several decades, Ambassador Tibor Nagy is a diplomat who understands Ethiopia’s resilience and the character of its people.
By publicly exposing what he described through his argument as a failure of logic in Cairo and Asmara’s Red Sea position, he once again demonstrated his deep understanding of regional realities and diplomatic affairs.
Egypt’s foreign policy has long been built on a distorted calculation that only its own rules should prevail.
In an effort to restrict Ethiopia’s aspiration for sea access, Egypt and Eritrea have advanced the argument that the Red Sea should be governed exclusively by littoral states.
However, this very approach has turned into a trap of its own making, undermining the attempt to completely exclude Ethiopia from discussions concerning Red Sea affairs.
If the argument that “only owners of the Red Sea should decide on Red Sea affairs” is applied consistently, the same principle would also have to be applied to the Nile River, where Egypt does not contribute even a single drop of water.
The Ethiopian highlands generate about 85 percent of the Nile waters.
Measured by the same logic presented by Tibor Nagy, Egypt’s role in determining Nile affairs would amount to nothing. Yet Cairo abandons the very “ownership” principle it promotes regarding the Red Sea when it comes to the Nile.
On the Nile, Egypt claims historical rights, demands exclusive utilization of the water, and insists that upstream countries should not interfere — advancing an argument that contradicts the very principle it invokes elsewhere.
This reveals that the approach pursued by Cairo and Asmara is a political gamble built on applying two different standards to interconnected regional realities.
The truth highlighted by an independent and experienced American diplomat demonstrates the fairness of Ethiopia’s peaceful pursuit of sea access as a country with more than 130 million people.
It also enables the international community to clearly understand the inconsistency of attempts aimed at excluding Ethiopia from regional affairs.
Egypt’s contradictory diplomacy is further exposed by its promotion of the principle of ownership in one regional context while seeking to limit the sovereign interests of others in another.
Ambassador Tibor Nagy’s observation provides an important diplomatic insight for Ethiopia.
It serves as a mirror showing that the principles advanced by Cairo regarding the Red Sea can also be reflected back when considering the Nile.
The exclusionary approach pursued by Egypt and Eritrea against Ethiopia’s sea-access aspiration — an aspiration based on cooperation, shared development and regional partnership — has ultimately created a dilemma of their own making.