A Call for Reciprocal Harm with a Bad Neighbour

Mahjoub Fadl Badri

When any country in the world declares that it adheres to a “good neighbour policy” as part of its foreign policy principles, it does so in the knowledge that the saying attributed to Jesus Christ—“If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also”—is, fortunately, not embedded in the laws governing relations between states. Those laws, rather, are founded on the principle of reciprocity. If that state is an Islamic one, then its legal tradition equally recognises the right of response, based on the principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Since relations between states, in certain respects, resemble relations between individuals—once stripped of emotion—it is only logical that ties between neighbouring countries are influenced by the harm, injury, or affront inflicted by one upon the other.

Ethiopia, in this view, is among the harmful neighbours, adept at biting the hand that feeds it. The proud Sudanese people and successive governments, across different eras, stood in support of the oppressed peoples of Ethiopia, backing revolutionary movements from the time of Haile Selassie through to the era of Mengistu Haile Mariam. May God have mercy on Air Marshal Al-Fateh Orwa, who personally piloted the aircraft that carried the late Ethiopian revolutionary prime minister Meles Zenawi to Addis Ababa.

Various liberation fronts broadcast their messages from Sudan, including the voice of the Oromo Liberation Front, to which Abiy Ahmed belongs. Its broadcasts, transmitted from Sudan, would open in the Oromo language with the phrase: “This is the voice of the Oromo Liberation Front” (Kun sagalee adda bili summaa Oromoo ti). Eventually, Abiy Ahmed rose from within that movement to power following the era of Meles Zenawi. Sudan, therefore, had a “debt” owed to it—one that, in the author’s view, has not been repaid except through betrayal.

This, it is argued, has taken the form of opening Ethiopian territory to what is described as a hostile external actor, which in turn has reciprocated Sudan’s past support with aggression—launching drones from Ethiopian territory targeting vital institutions and airports in Khartoum and earlier in Port Sudan. These operations are said to originate from the Bahir Dar base in the Benishangul region—territory historically linked to Sudan but incorporated into Ethiopia during the colonial period through agreements with the British. Following independence, successive Sudanese governments did not reopen this file and instead recognised those borders as international, in line with the charter of the Organisation of African Unity.

In light of these repeated attacks, the author contends that silence is no longer possible in the face of what is described as reckless conduct. The argument follows that, under principles of reciprocity recognised in international relations, responding in kind becomes conceivable—not as a threat, but as a stated possibility grounded in perceived rights of response.

At the same time, it is argued that Abiy Ahmed should recognise that the shared interests between Sudan and Ethiopia far outweigh any gains from such alignments. Chief among these is Sudan’s ports, which represent Ethiopia’s most viable access to the Red Sea—even before the completion of proposed railway links connecting Ethiopian hinterlands to Sudanese ports, a project envisioned as mutually beneficial and integrative.

Otherwise, the warning concludes, instability could follow, with internal pressures mounting within Ethiopia itself. It further suggests that Ethiopian refugees—who once found refuge in Sudan in large numbers—may no longer find the same welcome in light of recent developments.

The piece closes with a well-known Arabic maxim:

“If you honour the noble, you win him;

if you honour the ignoble, he rebels.”

And with the final remark: He who warns has fulfilled his duty.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13615