Understanding Eritrea and the Need for a New Chapter in Eritrea – US Relations

By Sirak Kifle

---

Introduction

The difficult relationship between Eritrea and the United States is often explained through narrow political narratives that focus only on recent events, sanctions, or diplomatic disputes. Yet the roots of mistrust run much deeper. They are tied to history, geopolitical choices made by the USA after World War II and during the Cold War, fundamentally different understandings of sovereignty and nation-building, and persistent misinterpretation.

The tensions between Eritrea and the United States are not primarily the result of an inevitable clash of national interests. Rather, they stem largely from decades of historical betrayal: US role in imposing bogus Federal Arrangement with Imperial Ethiopia, in brazen denial of Eritrea’s right of decolonization and a profound misunderstanding of Eritrea’s political culture, historical memory, and state-building priorities.

At the same time, continued hostility and estrangement serve neither Eritrean nor American interests today. In a rapidly changing global order marked by instability in the Red Sea region and the broader Horn of Africa, there is a growing need for a more realistic and respectful relationship based on mutual understanding rather than outdated and narrow geopolitical calculus.

Part I — Historical Foundations of Eritrean Political Consciousness

Eritrea’s Colonial Experience and the Denial of Self-Determination

Modern Eritrea was formally established as an Italian colony in 1890 during the colonial partition of Africa following the Berlin Conference. Before the colonial era, the territories that now comprise Eritrea and neighbouring states in the northern Horn existed under various local kingdoms, sultanates, chieftains, communities, and regional authorities, as was the case throughout Africa before European colonization.

A major source of confusion in regional politics comes from retroactively projecting modern state relations into historical periods when present-day political entities did not yet exist in their current form. The modern political relationships among Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti, and Somalia emerged largely during and after the colonial partition of Africa and cannot simply be projected backward as if they existed unchanged for thousands of years.

The modern Ethiopian state itself largely took shape during the territorial expansion of Menelik II in the late nineteenth century. Prior to that period, much of present-day Ethiopia existed as separate kingdoms, communities, and regional political entities with distinct histories and structures. The political entity widely known internationally as Abyssinia referred primarily to the highland kingdom centred in parts of present-day northern Ethiopia. Indeed, the term Abyssinia continued to be commonly used internationally until the mid-twentieth century before Ethiopia became the dominant modern state designation.

In Eritrean historical memory, one of the deepest grievances concerns the period after the Second World War. Eritreans were denied the right to decolonization because of Western powers’ geopolitical calculations, especially that of the United States and Britain during the early Cold War period.

The most direct formal political relationship between modern Eritrea and Ethiopia began with the federation established in 1952 under the auspices of the United Nations. This arrangement did not emerge from a freely negotiated agreement between the two peoples; it was indeed conceived essentially to mollify the perceived geopolitical interests of Western powers.

Before 1952, Eritrea had existed separately as an Italian colony and later as a British-administered territory after Italy’s defeat during the Second World War. Eritrea had its own administrative institutions, political movements, labor organizations, and emerging nationalist current.

The federation created the first formal institutional linkage between the two modern territories under the quasi Ethiopian crown while granting Eritrea autonomy, including its own parliament and internal administration. However, that autonomy was gradually dismantled by Emperor Haile Selassie. As federal guarantees were eroded, resistance intensified. The Eritrean armed struggle began in 1961 before formal annexation, reflecting growing opposition to the dismantling of the federation. In 1962, Haile Selassie unilaterally dissolved the federation and annexed Eritrea, triggering a thirty-year war for independence.

The Liberation Struggle and the Formation of Eritrean National Identity

The Eritrean liberation struggle became far more than a military conflict. It evolved into a nation-building process shaped by sacrifice, discipline, self-reliance, and collective survival.

Over thirty years of armed struggle, Eritreans from different ethnic, linguistic, regional, and religious backgrounds fought together under extremely difficult conditions. The experience created a political culture that placed extraordinary emphasis on national cohesion and viewed unity as essential for survival.

This historical experience explains why Eritreans and Eritrean Government remain deeply sensitive to sectarian politics. During the colonial period, foreign administrations frequently employed divide-and-rule policies based on ethnicity, religion, and regional identity. Eritreans emerged from this experience convinced that political fragmentation along communal lines represented an existential danger.

Part II — The Roots of Eritrea–US Mistrust

The Legacy of the Cold War

Eritreans are aware that successive American administrations consistently prioritized imagined strategic relations with Ethiopia over Eritrean aspirations and legal rights. This biased inclination began at the end of the Second World War and continued during the Cold War.

For Eritreans, the federation of 1952 symbolized this prioritization of geopolitical interests over legal self-determination. The fact that Eritrean aspirations and legal rights were sacrificed for illusory strategic calculations remains deeply embedded in Eritrean political consciousness.

This awareness was reinforced during the liberation struggle, when the United States maintained close relations with successive Ethiopian governments, including extensive military cooperation during the imperial era.

The Eritrea – Ethiopia War and the Collapse of Trust

Following the independence of Eritrea, the United States supported Eritrea’s internationally supervised referendum and formally recognized Eritrea, opening a window for diplomatic relationship and cooperation on Regional Partnership for stability in the Horn of Africa and positive diplomatic engagement, including bilateral aid, development programs, and diplomatic visits.

Relations between Eritrea and the United States deteriorated sharply during and after the 1998–2000 border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

From the Eritrean perspective, Washington increasingly abandoned neutrality and tilted toward Ethiopia diplomatically and strategically. Particular resentment developed over the failure to fully enforce the “final and binding” ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission established under the Algiers Agreement.

For Eritreans, the border issue became symbolic of a broader pattern in which international law and legal agreements were applied selectively depending on geopolitical interests.

The prolonged stalemate deepened Eritrean distrust not only toward the United States but toward broader western institutions.

Sanctions, Isolation, and Escalating Hostility

Over time, tensions expanded into broader disputes involving sanctions, accusations of regional destabilization, religious freedom reports, diplomatic restrictions, and competing narratives regarding regional security.

From the Eritrean perspective, these measures reflected a long-term strategy of certain countries to pressure and isolate Eritrea.

This cycle became self-reinforcing:
° US policymakers viewed Eritrea as defiant and uncooperative.
° Eritreans viewed US policy as biased, interventionist, and dismissive of Eritrean sovereignty.

Part III — Eritrea’s Political Culture and Why It Is Often Misunderstood

Sovereignty as a Survival Principle

One of the most important aspects of Eritrean political culture is the extraordinary importance attached to sovereignty, self-reliance, and political independence. To many outside observers, Eritrea’s intense emphasis on these principles can sometimes appear excessive, rigid, or unnecessarily confrontational. However, within Eritrea, these attitudes are rooted in historical experience rather than abstract ideology.

For Eritreans, sovereignty is not merely a legal concept or diplomatic slogan. It is closely tied to national survival itself.

Eritrea’s long standing political stance points respect of sovereignty; opposition to hegemonic global systems (unequal international structures that undermine genuine economic sovereignty); rejection of dependency and externally imposed political models, including military interventionism and coercive diplomacy; and the need for a fairer and more balanced international order.

Eritrea repeatedly criticizes the unequal global system characterized by exploitative financial mechanisms, modern forms of slavery/colonial domination, and zero-sum geopolitical thinking that has disproportionately benefited powerful states while marginalizing weaker nations, particularly in Africa. Eritrea also questions unilateral military interventions and selective application of international law, including tensions involving countries such as Venezuela and Iran.

To many Western policymakers, such statements may appear overly suspicious or excessively anti-Western. However, Eritreans see these positions as grounded in lived historical experience. They point to decades of foreign intervention across the Horn of Africa, shifting geopolitical alliances, selective enforcement of international law, sanctions, proxy conflicts, and repeated external involvement in regional political disputes as evidence that their concerns are not merely ideological abstractions.

The Eritrean emphasis on self reliance must also be understood in this broader context. Eritrea’s leadership has long argued that development should be nationally owned and based on internal priorities rather than externally designed policy frameworks. This approach is frequently misunderstood abroad as isolationism or rejection of cooperation.

In reality, Eritrea generally supports international cooperation, regional integration, and foreign investment when these occur on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect. Whether one agrees with all aspects of this worldview or not, understanding it is essential to understanding Eritrea’s policies, practices, and difficult relationship with the West.

Regional Integration Without Loss of Sovereignty

Contrary to many external portrayals, Eritrea has repeatedly advocated regional economic integration, collective security cooperation, and broader regional stability, insisting that the integration must be based on sovereign equality, non-interference, mutual respect and balanced partnerships rather than domination by stronger states or external actors.

This distinction is central to understanding Eritrean foreign policy thinking.

Part IV — Areas of Genuine Disagreement

Understanding Eritrea’s historical experiences and political culture does not require agreement with every policy pursued by the Eritrean government.

However, many of these disagreements are rooted in deeper historical, cultural, security, and geopolitical realities that are often interpreted very differently by both sides.

From the perspective of certain countries, emphasis is frequently placed on what they term as universal standards of governance and civil liberties. From the Eritrean perspective, however, the actual crystallization of these foundational perspectives and values fall within the prerogatives and ownership of the specific country and must be responsive to the prevailing realities.

A more constructive relationship requires moving beyond simplistic narratives. It requires acknowledging that many tensions between Eritrea and the US are not, in reality, products of ideology but are indeed the results of profoundly different historical experiences, political assumptions, and perceived interests.

Part V — Why a Reset in Relations Is Necessary

The Failure of Prolonged Hostility

Decades of successive US administrations’ misguided policies toward Eritrea have only deepened mistrust, reduced diplomatic communication, constrained economic engagement, and contributed to broader instability in the Horn of Africa.

At the same time, Eritrea has survived repeated external pressures while maintaining a strong sense of national cohesion and independence. This reality alone suggests that policies based primarily on pressure and isolation have achieved limited strategic success.

A Changing Global Order

The global order is changing rapidly. The Red Sea region and the Horn of Africa are becoming increasingly important strategically, economically, and geopolitically.

Many internal ethnic wars and conflict in Ethiopia, tensions in Somalia, instability in Sudan, and potential tensions in the Red Sea, maritime security concerns, migration pressures, and growing international competition in Africa all create strong case for pragmatic engagement rather than continued estrangement.

Eritrea’s enduring diplomatic approach has always been a broader call for a multipolar international system based on fairness, sovereign equality, regional cooperation, and reduced external domination.

Toward a More Realistic Relationship

Constructive engagement between Eritrea and the United States does not necessarily require, and this is broadly the case in all constructive diplomatic ties and relationships, seamless political alignment on all issues. It should rather emphasize mutual respect, understanding of historical experiences, reduced reliance on coercive approaches, and recognition that small states also possess legitimate security concerns and sovereign priorities. The constructive engagement could gradually expand in areas such as, regional security, maritime stability, investment and trade, and regional economic integration, so as to serve both countries and contribute positively to regional stability.

Conclusion – Understanding Before Judging

A more constructive relationship can emerge only through greater historical understanding, mutual respect, and recognition that engagement is more productive than permanent confrontation.

In the end, understanding must come before judgment, and dialogue must replace entrenched mistrust if a new chapter in Eritrea – US relations is ever to become possible.