Note from the Horn of Africa Center for Policies: The following is a detailed digest of the study titled “Eritrea: From Victim to Key Player in the Geopolitics of the Horn of Africa,” published by the Ministry of Justice of the State of Eritrea. This document was presented in September 2024 at an interdisciplinary dialogue in Asmara.

The Horn of Africa Center for Policies presents this summary for informational and research purposes. The views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Center or its staff.

Policy Digest: Eritrea’s Geopolitical Journey from ‘Victim to Key Player’

Document Details

• Original Title: إرتريا: من ضحية الى لاعب اساسي في الجغرافيا السياسية للقرن الافريقي (Eritrea: From Victim to Key Player in the Geopolitics of the Horn of Africa) ¹¹¹¹
• Publication Date: September 2024 ²
• Author/Publisher: State of Eritrea, Ministry of Justice ³
• Document Context: Presented at the “Interdisciplinary Dialogue on ‘Justice, Development and the Geopolitics of the Horn of Africa'” in Asmara, Eritrea⁴.
  
   

Executive Summary

This comprehensive study from the Eritrean Ministry of Justice presents a historical and geopolitical analysis of Eritrea’s evolution as a state. It argues that Eritrean national identity was forged not by innate, ancient commonality, but through a “shared suffering” under Italian colonialism ⁵and a subsequent “bitter lesson” in international betrayal during the Cold War⁶. The document’s central thesis is that Eritrea’s history is a progression from a victim of colonial maneuvers and superpower interests to a key player that has achieved sovereignty through armed struggle and maintains it through a staunch policy of political and economic self-reliance ^7. The study frames Eritrea’s entire modern history through this lens:

1. Colonial Era: The creation of Eritrea by Italy, which inadvertently forged a unified identity ⁸.
2. Post-WWII Betrayal: The systematic British “plundering” of Eritrean industry ⁹and the U.S.-led “denial” of its independence in favor of a “fake” federation with Ethiopia, driven by U.S. strategic interests (Kagnew Station) ¹⁰.
3. The Revolution: A 30-year armed struggle that was simultaneously a war for liberation and a “social revolution,” transforming society by empowering women, enacting land reform, and building a new state from the ground up¹¹.
4. Independent Eritrea: A “game changer” in regional politics ¹²and international aid¹³. The study argues that Eritrea’s insistence on “national ownership” and rejection of conditional aid ¹⁴led to its demonization by Western powers, who labeled it a “‘bad example’ of a ‘good example'”¹⁵.
5. The Way Forward: The document concludes by calling for a new regional order in the Horn of Africa, one that abandons “hegemonic ambitions” and the “comprador mentality” ¹⁶and embraces regional solutions in a new multipolar world¹⁷.

Part I: The Colonial Forging of a Nation (pp. 1-12)

The study’s first section argues that modern Eritrea is an inescapable product of 19th-century colonial geopolitics¹⁸

The Scramble for Africa and Italian Colonialism

The document reviews the “Scramble for Africa” as a complex interaction of European competition, the opening of the Suez Canal, and the desire for permanent colonial footholds ¹⁹ This “arbitrary partition” created artificial borders and exploitative economic structures²⁰. Eritrea’s formation as an Italian colony in 1890 is presented as a direct result of these dynamics²¹. The study outlines three primary motives for Italy’s colonization²²:

1. Settlement: To settle its “surplus” population, leading to the systematic confiscation of the most fertile lands from the indigenous population ²³.
2. Economy: To secure a source of cheap raw materials and a captive market for its industrial goods²⁴.
3. Strategy: To use Eritrea as a “springboard” for further colonial expansion into Ethiopia and Somalia, driven by a desire to “revive” the Roman Empire ²⁵.
   
    

Colonialism and the Birth of Eritrean Identity

The central argument of this section is that Eritrean national identity was an unintended consequence of this colonial experience²⁶. The study posits that identity was forged through:

• Administrative Unity: The consolidation of diverse ethnic and religious groups under a single, centralized colonial government for the first time²⁷.
• Shared Experience: The collective service of Eritreans in the Italian colonial army (the Askari) bred a sense of shared purpose and sacrifice ²⁸.
• Shared Suffering: The collective exploitation as labor for building roads, railways, and factories created a new, shared “sense of teamwork”²⁹.
• Paradoxical Education: The Western-style education system, though intended to serve the colonial administration, “played a crucial role in the rise of Eritrean nationalism”³⁰. It created an intellectual elite that became “acutely aware of their country’s history, culture, and the injustices of colonial rule”³¹, fueling the desire for self-determination.

Part II: Cold War Geopolitics and the Denial of Independence (pp. 13-31)

This section details the period following Italy’s defeat in WWII, which the study portrays as a profound betrayal of Eritrean aspirations by international powers³².

The British “Betrayal” and Plunder (1941-1952)

Instead of liberation, the British Military Administration (BMA) is accused of actively working to “dismember Eritrea, divide its people, and erase its national identity” ³³. The study makes two main accusations against the British:

1. Attempted Partition: The British devised plans to divide Eritrea along religious and ethnic lines, annexing the western lowlands to Sudan and the highlands to Ethiopia ^34343434. This policy, the study claims, was based on the false premise that Eritrea was “ethnically divided and economically non-viable”³⁵. This effort culminated in the Bevin-Sforza Plan of 1949, which formally proposed this partition to the UN^36363636. The plan’s defeat in the General Assembly is credited with saving Eritrea’s territorial integrity³⁷.
2. Systematic Economic Plunder: The study argues that to create the “economic non-viability” needed to justify partition, the BMA “organized the wholesale looting and destruction” of Eritrea’s vital industries and infrastructure ³⁸. It alleges the British systematically dismantled and sold off assets, including the Asmara-Massawa cableway, port cranes, and industrial plants ³⁹. This “deliberate economic depression” led to mass unemployment and social strife, which the British then used as “proof” that Eritrea could not stand on its own ^40404040.
   
    

The U.S. and the “Fake” Federation

The document argues that as British power waned, the United States took over as the primary imperial actor, prioritizing its own Cold War strategy over Eritrean self-determination⁴¹

The core U.S. interest was identified as Kagnew Station in Asmara, a crucial military communications and intelligence base for monitoring the Soviet Union ⁴². To secure this base, the U.S. needed to place Eritrea under the control of its regional ally, Ethiopia ⁴³.

The study cites the famous 1950s statement by U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: “From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea basin… make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally, Ethiopia”⁴⁴.

This policy resulted in UN Resolution 390(V), which established a “fake” federation^45454545. The study argues this federation was a “smokescreen” ⁴⁶deliberately designed to fail, as it “stripped Eritrea of national sovereignty” and lacked any “enforceable guarantees” ⁴⁷. Ethiopia, with U.S. backing, immediately began violating the federation, suppressing Eritrean autonomy ⁴⁸and, in 1962, unilaterally and illegally dissolving it, annexing Eritrea as its 14th province ⁴⁹. The UN, which had brokered the deal, remained silent^50505050.

Part III: The Revolution for Liberation and Social Transformation (pp. 33-54)

This section, the longest in the study, details the 30-year armed struggle, its internal dynamics, and its foundational social programs⁵¹.

The Launch of the Armed Struggle

The document asserts that the armed struggle was a last resort. Peaceful resistance, such as the 1958 general strike, was met with lethal force⁵². Diplomatic appeals to the UN were consistently ignored ⁵³. The illegal annexation in 1962 proved that “armed force alone could counter the violent oppression”⁵⁴.

The Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) was formed in 1960 ⁵⁵, and the first shots of the revolution were fired by Hamid Idris Awate on September 1, 1961⁵⁶.

Internal Struggles and the Rise of the EPLF

The study frankly discusses the internal crises that nearly destroyed the revolution. The ELF’s initial structure, which divided its forces into four regional zones, is described as a critical error⁵⁷. This structure “devolved into arenas of conflict and exploitation,” fostering competition along regional and religious lines rather than national unity ⁵⁸. This internal “decay” ⁵⁹ led to the emergence of dissident factions. In 1973, several groups consolidated to form the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) ⁶⁰. The EPLF is distinguished from the ELF by its focus on coupling the armed struggle with a deep “social revolution”⁶¹. The EPLF eventually became the dominant revolutionary force, and by 1981 had expelled the ELF from Eritrean soil⁶².

Navigating Superpower Betrayal

The geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically in 1974 with the overthrow of Haile Selassie by the Derg military junta in Ethiopia⁶³.

• The Derg realigned Ethiopia with the Soviet Union⁶⁴.
• The USSR, which had previously supported Eritrean self-determination, reversed its position and provided massive military backing to the Derg to crush the revolution ⁶⁵.
• The U.S. (under the Carter administration) began to distance itself from the Derg66.

  The study notes the profound irony: the U.S. and USSR had “swapped” sides, but Eritrea was now an enemy or non-entity to both superpowers67676767. This isolation, the document argues, reinforced the EPLF’s core principle of self-reliance68.

The EPLF’s Social Revolution: “The Other Face of the Revolution”

The study dedicates significant space to the EPLF’s social programs in liberated areas, arguing this is what built a new, unified nation⁶⁹. Key programs included:

1. Land Reform: The EPLF implemented a “revolutionary” land reform⁷⁰. It revived the traditional “Diesa” (communal) system but made a critical modification: women were granted land rights for the first time in Eritrean history⁷¹.
2. Women’s Liberation: The EPLF viewed the liberation of women as “essential to the success of the revolution”⁷². Women were integrated into all aspects of the struggle, serving as fighters (making up a significant percentage of the army), organizers, teachers, and administrators⁷³.
3. Healthcare: A comprehensive health system was built from scratch. The EPLF established hospitals, mobile clinics for nomadic populations, and even small factories to produce its own medical supplies, such as IV fluids, to overcome supply blockades ⁷⁴.
4. Education: The EPLF launched a mass literacy campaign, designing it to “promote the idea that education should benefit the common good” and “elevate the status of manual labor,” in direct contrast to the “elite” colonial education model ⁷⁵.
5. Governance: The EPLF established its own administrative structures, including local councils and justice systems, effectively running a state long before official independence⁷⁶.

Victory and the 1993 Referendum

After 30 years, the EPLF achieved a total military victory in 1991⁷⁷. The study emphasizes a crucial political decision: instead of immediately declaring independence, the EPLF established a Provisional Government and opted to wait two years to hold an internationally-monitored referendum⁷⁸  This was done to “demonstrate the EPLF’s commitment to legality” and secure a democratic, undeniable mandate ⁷⁹. In April 1993, the referendum was held⁸⁰. The result was a 99.8% vote for independence ⁸¹, an outcome declared “free and fair” by the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity, and other international observers^82828282.

Part IV: Independent Eritrea and the Geopolitics of Self-Reliance (pp. 55-69)

The final section analyzes Eritrea’s post-independence trajectory, framing its policies as a “game changer” and its subsequent international isolation as a deliberate U.S.-led policy to punish its independence⁸³.

A New Regional Game (1991-1998)

Following independence, Eritrea initially sought regional integration. The new EPRDF government in Ethiopia recognized Eritrea’s referendum ⁸⁴, and the two nations signed a Friendship and Cooperation Agreement in 1993⁸⁵. This agreement established open borders, duty-free access, Ethiopian use of Eritrean ports, and the continued use of the Ethiopian Birr as a common currency ⁸⁶. Eritrea also played a key role in reforming the regional body IGAD in 1996⁸⁷.

The “Self-Reliance” Doctrine: A Game Changer in Aid

The study identifies “Self-Reliance” as the “cardinal principle” of the PFDJ (the post-independence EPLF) and the new Eritrean state ⁸⁸. This doctrine is defined by:

• Rejecting Conditionality: The document argues that the “donor-recipient relationship” is inherently unequal and undermines sovereignty⁸⁹. Eritrea refuses aid tied to political or economic “prescription”⁹⁰.
• Avoiding Dependency: The policy stems from observing how aid in other countries led to “social underdevelopment, political dependency… corruption, and nepotism”⁹¹.
• National Ownership: The document states that Eritrea’s greatest asset is its “human resources,” not “external capital”⁹². The government insists on “national ownership” of development projects, preferring “partnership” over “aid”⁹³.
  
   

A “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”: The 1998-2000 War and Renewed Hostility

The study presents the 1998-2000 Ethio-Eritrean war as the turning point that triggered “renewed U.S. hostility”94. It claims the U.S., as an “ally of both countries,” was positioned to mediate but “chose to side with Ethiopia”95. The core of the argument rests on the Algiers Agreement (2000), which ended the war. Both sides agreed to a “final and binding” border arbitration by an independent commission⁹⁶. In 2002, the commission issued its ruling, awarding the flashpoint town of Badme to Eritrea⁹⁷. The study alleges that Ethiopia “reneged” on the agreement and refused to withdraw⁹⁸. More critically, it accuses the United States, as a guarantor of the peace deal, of “helping [Ethiopia] evade its international obligations”⁹⁹. The document claims this is when the U.S. and its allies began a “demonic propaganda” campaign against Eritrea, fabricating accusations of human rights abuses and support for terrorism, to “lay the groundwork to punish Eritrea” for winning the legal case and refusing to bend ¹⁰⁰.

Refuting the “Bad Example” Narrative

The study frames all major criticisms of Eritrea as part of this coordinated political campaign. It cites a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable (via WikiLeaks) that allegedly called Eritrea a “‘bad example’ of a ‘good example'”—a country that achieved development and stability without following the Western aid-dependent model¹⁰¹.

The document offers rebuttals to the main accusations:

• On National Service: It is defended as a noble program ¹⁰²essential for “national defense,” “economic development,” and, crucially, “fostering national unity” (citing the 1995 proclamation) ^103103103103. The study claims Western asylum policies for “deserters” created an “artificial pull-factor” for migration¹⁰⁴.
• On Religious Freedom: The study rejects the U.S. “Country of Particular Concern” designation as geopolitical ¹⁰⁵. It argues Eritrea has centuries of religious coexistence ¹⁰⁶and that its regulations are necessary to prevent “the hidden motive of dividing and weakening the nation”¹⁰⁷.
• On “Support for Terrorism”: The study calls the 2009 UN sanctions (Resolution 1907) “baseless”¹⁰⁸. It points to the fact that the sanctions were lifted in 2018, immediately following the peace agreement with Ethiopia, as “the best evidence of the hypocrisy of the system”¹⁰⁹.
  
   

The Way Forward: A Multipolar World

The study concludes with an optimistic look at the “demise of the unipolar” world order¹¹⁰. It sees the declining ability of the U.S. to “control everyone” ¹¹¹and the rising independence of the “Global South” as an opportunity¹¹².

It warns that this transition carries risks, particularly of regional powers rushing to fill the vacuum and creating conflict, citing Sudan as an example ¹¹³.

The document’s final message is for the Horn of Africa. It states that “Eritrea cannot secure peace… unless there is peace… in the entire region”¹¹⁴. It calls for a new era where the region’s nations “abandon indefensible hegemonic ambitions” and “rid themselves of the comprador mentality”¹¹⁵. The nations of the Horn, it concludes, are “destined by geography to either swim together or sink together”¹¹⁶.