ERITREA the Red Sea: A Century and a Half of Great Power Interests

How External Powers Shaped the Geopolitics of the Horn of Africa

By David Yeh

For more than a century and a half, the Red Sea has functioned as one of the world’s most strategically charged maritime corridors. Its narrow waterways, chokepoints, and proximity to global trade routes have drawn the sustained attention of empires, superpowers, and regional actors seeking influence over a passage that connects continents and shapes international commerce. Eritrea, positioned along the western flank of this corridor, has repeatedly found itself at the center of these external ambitions. The country’s geography has never been incidental; it has been a prize, a vantage point, and a strategic fulcrum for those seeking leverage over the Horn of Africa and the wider Red Sea basin.

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the Horn of Africa became a stage for imperial competition. European powers viewed the Red Sea not simply as a commercial passage but as a strategic artery linking their colonial holdings. Italy’s colonization of Eritrea in 1890 marked the start of a long period in which foreign powers treated the territory as a geopolitical asset rather than a sovereign nation. The Italian administration built ports, roads, and military installations not for Eritrea’s benefit but to secure imperial reach. Decisions made in distant capitals London, Washington, Moscow often determined Eritrea’s fate, each driven by its own strategic calculations rather than the aspirations of the people who lived there.

The British Military Administration that followed Italy’s defeat in World War II continued this pattern. Eritrea’s future was debated not in Asmara but in diplomatic circles where global powers weighed their own interests. The United States, emerging as a dominant post‑war actor, viewed Eritrea through the lens of Cold War competition. Its primary concern was not Eritrean self‑determination but the establishment of a secure intelligence and communications hub. The creation of the Kagnew Station in Asmara reflected Washington’s recognition of Eritrea’s unique strategic value. The station became one of the most important American listening posts in the world, underscoring how Eritrea’s geography repeatedly served external agendas.

At the same time, Ethiopia under Feudal King Haile Selassie pursued its own ambitions, seeking to absorb Eritrea and secure control over its coastline. The unfair federation imposed in 1952 and the subsequent illegal annexation in 1962 disregarded Eritrean self‑determination and violated the terms of the UN‑brokered arrangement. Ethiopia’s actions were driven by a long‑standing desire to transform itself into a coastal empire, a project rooted in expansionist ideology rather than legal or historical legitimacy. This annexation set the stage for a thirty‑year war of liberation, during which Eritreans fought not only for independence but for the restoration of sovereignty that had been systematically denied.

Eritrea’s independence in 1991 corrected these historical injustices. Yet the geopolitical weight of the Red Sea ensured that external interest in the region did not diminish. Global powers continued to view the Horn of Africa through the lens of maritime security, counterterrorism, and commercial shipping. The rise of Gulf states as regional actors added new layers of complexity, as countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates expanded their influence along the Red Sea corridor. Eritrea’s sovereignty, hard won and internationally recognized, remained essential to maintaining stability along this critical passage.

In recent years, renewed statements from Ethiopian leaders regarding a maritime outlet have revived longstanding rhetoric in flagrant violation of Eritrean sovereignty and territorial integrity. This rhetoric directly contravenes established international laws and norms. Assertions describing a maritime outlet as an existential national necessity go beyond geopolitical posturing, representing a profound threat to Eritrea and the wider Horn of Africa by challenging legally recognized borders. Ethiopia’s framing of its ambitions as a matter of national survival is not a neutral policy position; it is a deliberate attempt to normalize expansionist claims that have no basis in international law.

Viewed through the broader historical record, such expansionist rhetoric is not new. Since the nineteenth century, questions surrounding Eritrea have repeatedly been framed within wider geopolitical calculations involving external powers, regional security, and international trade routes, often at the expense of its rightful autonomy. Ethiopia’s contemporary narrative echoes earlier imperial logic: the belief that Eritrea’s coastline is a resource to be claimed rather than a sovereign territory belonging to a sovereign nation. This continuity underscores the importance of confronting expansionist rhetoric with clarity and legal precision.

The distinction between legitimate commercial arrangements and expansionist ambitions is essential. Landlocked states around the world routinely secure commercial access through negotiated agreements, infrastructure partnerships, and international transit rights. These mechanisms respect sovereignty and uphold international law. They are transactional, contractual, and mutually beneficial. What Ethiopia is pursuing, however, is categorically different: not transit rights, not logistical cooperation, but territorial acquisition and sovereign control over a coastline that belongs to another nation. This belligerent expansionist drive to secure a maritime outlet represents a direct challenge to the foundational principles of territorial integrity that underpin the international system.

Eritrea’s position along the Red Sea remains central to global maritime security. Its coastline borders one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, linking Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The Bab el‑Mandeb strait, a narrow chokepoint at the southern end of the Red Sea, is vital to the flow of global commerce. Any destabilization in this corridor carries consequences far beyond the Horn of Africa. The Red Sea’s importance has only grown as global supply chains have become more interconnected and as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have intensified. Eritrea’s sovereignty is therefore not only a national imperative but a cornerstone of regional and international stability.

The Red Sea basin is also undergoing significant geopolitical shifts. The rise of new security partnerships, the expansion of naval presences, and the increasing militarization of chokepoints have transformed the region into a complex strategic environment. Eritrea’s role within this environment is not peripheral; it is central. Its stability contributes to the security of shipping lanes, the predictability of trade flows, and the broader balance of power in the region. Any attempt to undermine Eritrea’s territorial integrity threatens not only the country itself but the stability of the entire Red Sea corridor.

Throughout history, external powers have sought influence over the Red Sea for strategic advantage. Today, the stakes remain high. The region’s future depends on disciplined adherence to international law, respect for sovereign borders, and recognition of Eritrea’s rightful place as a sovereign coastal nation. The geopolitical realities of the Red Sea demand clarity, precision, and unwavering commitment to principles that safeguard both national sovereignty and regional stability. Eritrea’s history demonstrates the consequences of allowing external ambitions to override legal norms. Its future depends on ensuring that such violations are never repeated.