Recalibration of the 1950th U.S. foreign policy toward Eritrea

David Yeh

Recalibration of the 1950th U.S. foreign policy toward Eritrea:

The federation of Eritrea and Ethiopia was designed by the influence under the watch of a Democratic Party president Harry S. Truman in 1950. The decision to federate was a United Nations resolution influenced by Cold War politics, with the U.S. seeking to protect its strategic interests.

A lingering and nagging U.S. foreign policy until now articulated by the U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles famously stated, “From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia”. This statement, made around the time of the UN decision to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia in the early 1950s, has been widely cited as evidence that U.S. Cold War policy prioritized geopolitical strategy over the principle of self-determination.

The declaration by the former U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (1952) highlights the fundamental basis of U.S. policy toward Eritrea — geopolitics superseding justice. The U.S. State Department knowingly disregarded the Eritrean people’s right to self-determination, opting instead to link Eritrea to Ethiopia in pursuit of strategic interests in the Red Sea basin. This decision precipitated decades of conflict, occupation, and suffering.

The aftermath of that decision still resonates in Washington’s Horn of Africa policy seven decades later — where “strategic partners” are given priority over the principles of sovereignty and justice. Eritrea’s struggle was not undertaken by choice, it was compelled by injustice. And the State Department will continue to be reminded by history: no empire can redefine the will of a people. In the long term, the collective will and persistence of the Eritrean people have significant forces in shaping history.

The decline in US-Eritrea relations was a deliberate act. The downturn was not unintentional, spontaneous, or the result of a misunderstanding; it was a deliberate and structured process. Conscious policy decisions, fabricated narratives, and geopolitical considerations made by Washington systematically undermined Eritrea’s sovereignty and development.

Eritrea’s independent political and economic orientation has never harmonized with Washington’s Ethiopia centered policy, a situation that successive Ethiopian regimes have capitalized on. US policymakers have believed that isolating and weakening Eritrea would bolster Ethiopia’s regional position and maintain Western influence in the Horn of Africa.

This flawed logic yielded the illegal 2009 and 2011 UN sanctions and the politically motivated 2012 mandate creating the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea, both orchestrated by U.S. officials to appease Ethiopia, throttle Eritrea’s economy, and pressure it into compliance. Reinforced by disinformation from Western-funded NGOs, these measures distorted Eritrea’s image and hindered its development trajectory.

The 2009 and 2011 UN sanctions against Eritrea constitute two of the most flagrant instances of politically motivated injustice in recent UN history, with the case remaining unexplained and unaccounted for. Eritrea was penalized not for any wrongdoing, but rather for its audacity in opposing the US and Ethiopia led intervention in Somalia, an operation that precipitated one of the region’s most catastrophic humanitarian crises.

In the aftermath of the intervention, Somalia has struggled to recover from the devastation over the past years. The UN Sanctions Committee has failed to provide credible evidence supporting allegations of Eritrean support for terrorism. The Eritrean people have suffered significant economic and diplomatic consequences as a result of these unfounded accusations, which were driven by U.S. and Ethiopian agendas aimed at isolating a sovereign nation that refused to submit to external dictates.

For more than two decades, Eritrea has faced relentless and politically motivated harassment at the UN and UNHRC under the guise of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. This mechanism, born not of genuine concern but of geopolitical calculation, has functioned as an instrument of pressure rather than a vehicle for truth or justice. Year after year, it recycled discredited claims, amplified the voices of politically affiliated activists, and ignored Eritrea’s tangible progress in nation-building and social development.

Concurrently, the UN Human Rights Council and its sponsors have consistently disregarded Ethiopia’s numerous atrocities, including genocides, ethnic cleansing, mass killings, and displacement of its citizens in Amhara, Oromia, Afar, Gambela, Tigray, and the Ogaden. This pronounced selectivity and silence underscore the moral bankruptcy of the human rights apparatus, which has frequently prioritized power over principle. Eritrea’s resilience in the face of such institutionalized bias serves as a testament to a nation’s unwavering commitment to resisting orchestrated defamation and coercion.

The United States’ reputation as a reliable broker for peace and development in the Horn of Africa has been severely damaged by its policy of appeasement toward Ethiopia. Instead of upholding international law and the UN Charter, Washington has failed to address the egregious crimes committed by successive Ethiopian regimes, including genocides, ethnic cleansing, and systemic marginalization of various communities within Ethiopia. By supporting and enabling these regimes, the U.S. and its allies have facilitated human rights abuses, compromised regional stability, and forfeited their moral credibility.

Ethiopia’s continued actions, enabled by diplomatic support, economic and military aid, and the lack of consequences for international law violations, have significantly contributed to the current chaos. A relationship grounded in peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and adherence to international law could have been established, but was undermined by Ethiopian expansionism, the UAE proxy war, Western backing, and the deliberate disregard of international agreements, resulting in the unstable Prosperity Party regime.

The current chaos in Ethiopia is not accidental. It is the result of decades of Western complacency. Successive U.S. and European administrations have prioritized short-term strategic interests over justice, thereby legitimizing successive Ethiopian regimes that have ruled through violence, exclusion, repression, and aggressive mentality.

The U.S. and European guarantors and witnesses of the Algiers Agreements between Eritrea and Ethiopia also failed to fulfill their obligations. Despite the binding decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, Ethiopia occupied sovereign Eritrean territories for over a decade, in flagrant disregard of international law.

The very powers that brokered peace have, by refusing to enforce the EEBC’s rulings, enabled and legitimized aggression, thereby undermining Eritrea’s sovereignty and sending a clear signal that international agreements can be breached with impunity. This prolonged occupation has delayed regional stability and reinforced the pattern of selective accountability that has characterized Western policy toward the Horn of Africa.

The international community’s tacit approval of Ethiopia’s internal abuses and regional aggression has legitimized impunity, culminating in a nation gripped by political instability, ethnic conflict, and humanitarian disasters, where ordinary Ethiopians’ lives and livelihoods have been compromised to maintain a veneer of stability for foreign powers.

Fully cognizant of its complex history, Eritrea enters into dialogue with Washington and Brussels, expecting and deserving a long-overdue correction: a policy that is clear, consistent, and guided by principles of respect rather than subordination. Primarily, Eritrea’s right to live in peace within its internationally recognized borders, which have been demarcated twice, must cease being sacrificed for the sake of appeasement and expediency.

The United States and its allies must now face the repercussions of their decisions. Stability in the Horn of Africa can only be achieved through fairness, accountability, and respect for the sovereignty of all nations, including Eritrea, rather than indulgence or selective morality.

Eritrea has reached a landmark age of 34 years, having circumvented the debilitating impact of decades long bias, sanctions, and isolation. By leveraging its innate resilience, self-reliance, and astute diplomacy, Eritrea has established itself as a nation that has withstood coercive forces while preserving its sovereignty.
Those who previously sought to silence and sideline Eritrea are now confronted with a reality they formerly denied: that the nation’s steadiness, independence, and dedication to regional peace were never the problem, but instead, they remain the foundation for enduring stability in the Horn of Africa.

For the US to pursue a meaningful re-engagement with Eritrea, it must shift from the 1950th policy and move from “disciplined confrontation” to a more balanced and nuanced approach. It ought to acknowledge Eritrea’s historical context and legitimate security concerns to build a more constructive relationship based on mutual interests and respect.
David Yeh