If the countries of the Horn of Africa are to prosper, they must cultivate an outlook that turns their borders from walls into bridges.
By Semere Solomon. August 29, 2026
Introduction
The Horn of Africa is currently experiencing significant geopolitical realignment, characterized by two opposing coalitions. On one side, an alliance of Egypt, Somalia, and Eritrea seeks to contain Ethiopia’s ambitions. In contrast, a United Arab Emirates-backed bloc has formed between landlocked Ethiopia and the self-declared republic of Somaliland. This new rivalry is unfolding against the backdrop of a widening civil war in Sudan, the militarization of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and a new Red Sea security initiative led by Saudi Arabia. Collectively, these dynamics raise serious concerns that regional conflicts could escalate into broader proxy wars.
The Roots of Instability: Ethiopia’s Quest for the Sea
The persistent instability in the Horn of Africa stems from unresolved historical political problems, consistently compounded by the interference of external powers. Many analysts argue that the primary driver of current volatility is the race to secure direct sovereign access to strategic maritime choke points.
This dynamic became fully evident on January 1, 2024, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Somaliland President Muse Bihi Abdi signed a contentious Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The agreement would lease a 20-kilometer stretch of Somaliland’s coastline along the Gulf of Aden to Ethiopia for fifty years, allowing Ethiopia to build a naval base and secure direct sea access. In return, Ethiopia pledged to become the first UN member state to formally recognize Somaliland’s independence.
The Federal Government of Somalia vehemently rejected the MoU as an existential threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In response, Mogadishu moved to strengthen its ties with Cairo, culminating in a bilateral security pact and a maritime defense cooperation agreement. Egypt pledged to deploy up to 10,000 troops to Somalia under the new African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) to replace the departing Ethiopian peacekeepers. Egypt’s engagement includes direct arms supplies and positioning its forces along Ethiopia’s borders.
Concurrently, a cooperation agreement was formalized at a trilateral summit in Asmara in October 2025, establishing a de facto alliance among Egypt, Somalia, and Eritrea. In follow-up talks in May 2026, Egypt reinforced its stance that the governance of the Red Sea must be restricted to littoral states, a move designed to isolate Ethiopia. Addis Ababa interpreted this alliance as a strategy of strategic encirclement.
Despite the heated rhetoric, quiet diplomatic backchannels remain open between Somalia and Ethiopia. Following the late-2024 Ankara Declaration, brokered by Turkey, delegations from both countries have held intermittent talks. On June 29, 2026, Prime Minister Abiy and Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud met in Ethiopia to improve interstate relations, emphasizing mutual trust, economic cooperation, and joint counter-terrorism operations against Al-Shabaab as the foundation of their “shared destiny.”
Saudi Arabia’s New Security Framework
On July 30, 2026, Saudi Arabia announced a multinational maritime defense framework to protect the shipping lanes in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and Gulf of Aden. This move was prompted by the deteriorating security situation, particularly the Houthi maritime blockade targeting Saudi shipping on July 20. Although the initiative was backed by 14 governments and involved deliberations with 43 countries, the resulting coalition was less broad than anticipated.
Riyadh is actively flexing its political and military muscle to ensure its security, a move tangibly demonstrated by the historic Mecca Joint Defence Agreement signed on August 7, 2026, between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. These powers have established mechanisms for coordinating air defense, unmanned systems, electronic warfare, and joint exercises.
Notably, analysts argue that Riyadh concluded that including Ethiopia in this framework would carry excessively high strategic costs, embroiling the coalition in pre-existing disputes such as the Nile River conflict and the Somalia-Somaliland territorial issue. Furthermore, as Saudi oil exports transit through Egyptian-controlled maritime chokepoints, Cairo holds substantial diplomatic leverage over Riyadh. Consequently, Saudi Arabia has prioritized its warm relationship with Egypt over its collaboration with Ethiopia. This has created significant concern for Ethiopia, a nation of over 135 million people that depends on Red Sea corridors for more than 95 percent of its international trade.
Sudan’s Proxy War and Gulf Rivalries
The war in Sudan, now in its fourth year, has evolved from a local conflict into a volatile regional proxy war. Saudi Arabia and Egypt support the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Conversely, the United Arab Emirates, despite international sanctions, has thrown its considerable political and financial networks behind the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Hemedti.
This division is directly reflected in the politics of the Horn of Africa. Allegations persist that the Ethiopian federal government, a key UAE partner, is directly involved in the proxy conflicts. Reliable sources indicate that Ethiopia established a covert military training base in the Benishangul-Gumuz region to train thousands of RSF fighters, reportedly financed and logistically supported by the UAE. This has turned Western Ethiopia into a rear base for the war in Sudan.
This mobilization caused immediate alarm in Eritrea, which borders Sudan and is at the center of the anti-Ethiopian security framework. In response, Eritrea reinforced its alliance with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to strengthen its border security and prevent RSF-driven instability or the expansion of Emirati influence. This has added a dangerous border security dimension to the existing tensions with Addis Ababa.
Djibouti’s Calculated Neutrality
Amid intensifying regional militarization, the small nation of Djibouti strives to preserve its stability through a calculated foreign policy. By leveraging its strategic location, Djibouti hosts military bases for numerous rival global and regional powers, including the United States, France, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China. A central pillar of its policy is maintaining sovereign neutrality toward all external stakeholders while cooperating with them against non-state terrorist entities.
While Djibouti has previously permitted foreign bases to launch operations against piracy and terror groups, the recent Red Sea crisis has prompted a stricter diplomatic line. Djibouti prohibited the US and its allies from launching offensive strikes against Houthi forces from its soil. It maintains that the Houthis, who control the capital Sana’a, function as quasi-state actors and not merely as non-state terrorist groups. By asserting this neutrality, Djibouti prevents its territory from becoming an active war theater or a target for Houthi retaliation. This policy is an act of self-preservation, ensuring that its critical port infrastructure—an indispensable economic lifeline for both Djibouti and Ethiopia—continues to operate without disruption.
Ethiopia’s Internal Crisis and Regional Ambition
Ethiopia is entrenched in a severe crisis driven by the leadership’s political myopia. The reform trajectory launched by the EPRDF lost its direction, fostering a climate that accommodates narrow, sectarian interests. The power struggle between the Prosperity Party and the TPLF led to a war in 2020. Although the Pretoria Agreement provided a reprieve, the underlying crisis remains unresolved. Tigray’s constitutional status has not been restored, displaced persons have not returned home, and essential services are lacking.
Beyond Tigray, armed groups like Fano and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) continue to mount violent resistance against the federal government, placing national security in grave jeopardy. However, the factor that exacerbates Ethiopia’s internal crisis the most is the Prosperity Party’s aggressive ambition to secure direct sea access and port ownership. Following the Somaliland initiative’s diplomatic setback, this campaign turned its gaze toward Eritrea, with ongoing diplomatic and military preparations that continue to alarm the region.
Eritrea’s Central Role and Growing Tensions
Eritrea plays an active and intricate role in the current geopolitical landscape. Once a wartime ally of the Ethiopian federal government during the Tigray War, it is now in a state of severe confrontation with Addis Ababa, finding itself at the center of regional efforts to contain Ethiopia’s ambitions.
Following the October 2025 Asmara Summit, Addis Ababa views the alliance with Egypt and Somalia as a hostile encirclement maneuver aimed at countering the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and neutralizing Ethiopia’s sea-access ambitions. A direct military standoff is emerging along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. In March 2026, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timotheos accused Eritrea of forward-deploying troops, calling it an “act of overt aggression.” Eritrea’s Information Minister Yemane Gebremeskel rejected this accusation as a pretext for war.
Tensions have also spilled over into covert operations in the region. An August 2026 report by the Ethiopian News Agency alleged that Eritrea formed an operational coalition with Ethiopian opposition forces, including the TPLF.
Conversely, a 2026 investigative report highlights a quiet diplomatic thaw between Eritrea and Djibouti, two states with nearly two decades of frozen relations between them. Rapprochement could lead to strategic port coordination, potentially altering maritime security governance in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The US–Eritrea Rapprochement and Ethiopia’s Anxiety
Driven by emerging security vulnerabilities in the Red Sea, the United States initiated a diplomatic pivot toward Eritrea in 2026. To counter Iranian influence and Houthi maritime interdictions, Washington is actively seeking to use Eritrea’s roughly 1,000-kilometer Red Sea coastline. To this end, the US has moved to ease the comprehensive sanctions previously imposed under Executive Order 14046.
Through the quiet mediation of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Senior US Advisor Massad Boulos held direct talks with President Isaias Afwerki in Cairo. The discussions centered on sanctions relief in exchange for expanded diplomatic engagement and maritime security cooperation in the region. While US Secretary of State Marco Rubio conveyed a message marking a “new era” of relations in May 2026, the realignment faced scrutiny from human rights advocates over Eritrea’s compulsory national service system.
For Eritrea, US political support is an opportunity to end decades of international isolation and to deter any Ethiopian attempts to seize its territory.
In Ethiopia, this warming relationship is a source of deep anxiety. Addis Ababa views this as a clear signal that Washington does not support its efforts to secure maritime access through forceful means. The combination of the Saudi-led maritime coalition and the US pivot toward Asmara effectively marginalizes Ethiopia and risks accelerating its isolation.
Analysts indicate that an emerging US–Eritrea partnership raises fears in Addis Ababa that Ethiopia’s decades-long historical relationship with the United States is becoming complicated, potentially accelerating Ethiopia’s regional isolation.
Eritrea’s Strategic Policy Choice: A Call for Internal Reform
Any Ethiopian request for port access can be legitimately addressed through international law and diplomatic negotiations. However, when such initiatives violate Eritrea’s sovereignty, they lead to conflicts. The international community must reject Ethiopia’s coercive posturing, and Eritrea’s right to self-defence is legitimate. However, exercising this right requires not only military readiness but also sophisticated political and diplomatic statecraft.
At this critical juncture, relying solely on isolation and internal repression is not a viable long-term national security strategy. For decades, the Eritrean government has operated under a centralized governance model, rooted in domestic control. It shelved the ratified constitution, rejected political pluralism, paralyzed the national economy, and suppressed dissent. This has bred internal grievances that weaken national unity. A government alienated from its citizens cannot effectively confront external threats.
A country facing existential threats cannot rely solely on military power; its ultimate defense rests on its people’s resolve. By treating a large segment of its population as adversaries, the PFDJ regime has fought a war on two fronts: one internal and one external. This is strategically unsustainable. Therefore, the Eritrean government must take the initiative to launch an unconditional national dialogue, establish an inclusive transitional administration of national unity, and guide the country toward constitutional governance. Releasing all prisoners of conscience is a critical first step. The regime must also extend a hand of peace to the Eritrean opposition. This requires abandoning the dismissive policy of demanding citizens “fill out repentance forms.”
Concurrently, Eritrean opposition groups must forge a united front with like-minded internal movements, uniting around a minimum common program focused on inclusive transitional governance and a transition to a constitutional democracy. By coalescing around a shared baseline platform, diaspora organizations can mobilize Eritreans abroad, conduct impactful diplomacy to pressure the government to accommodate dissent, and draft post-transition policy blueprints, compelling the regime in Asmara to take them seriously.
An Eritrea governed by constitutional rule of law and anchored in national reconciliation would deny foreign powers the opportunity to exploit domestic fractures in the country. An inclusive, legitimate government can engage the international community from a position of moral high ground to advocate for peace.
Eritrea possesses every sovereign right to take all necessary measures to avert war. However, the primary focus must be on proactive, skilled diplomacy capable of diffusing conflicts before they erupt. This requires exploring tactical and strategic alliances—not as instruments of war, but as deterrents against aggression—underpinned by inclusive, consensus-driven governance rather than unilateral decision-making.
A unified Eritrea that embraces its populace can put pressure on regional bodies, such as the IGAD and the African Union, to move beyond rhetorical statements, apply firm diplomatic pressure on Ethiopia, and insist that Ethiopia pursue its maritime commercial aspirations strictly in accordance with international law rather than through military coercion.
Equally, historical responsibility requires citizens of both Ethiopia and Eritrea—both at home and in the diaspora—to refrain from warmongering and inflammatory rhetoric. Social media platforms should serve as instruments of peace, dialogue, and reconciliation rather than conduits for amplifying hostility. The IGAD, African Union, and international stakeholders must maintain active diplomatic pressure to ensure a peaceful settlement.
The Imperative of Regional Cooperation: From Walls to Bridges
The geography and history of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Sudan, and Somalia are irrevocably interlinked. These nations are obliged to work toward the common good; failing to do so invites their mutual destruction. Their foremost priority must be consolidating domestic and regional peace while advancing regional integration. This requires a collective rejection of proxy warfare and extreme caution to avoid falling into the geopolitical traps set by external powers.
Regional disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue, traditional mechanisms, and international mediation. Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan must address their internal crises within their constitutional frameworks. Rejecting political pluralism and using violence against citizens generates instability that inflames the wider region.
If the countries of the Horn of Africa are to prosper, they must cultivate an outlook that turns their borders from walls into bridges. Rather than remaining barriers of division and flashpoints for conflict, borders must become corridors of opportunity, fostering trade, cultural exchange, and shared economic development. This paradigm shift is not an unattainable ideal; it is the only realistic foundation for averting recurring crises and ensuring lasting regional stability.
Martin Plaut 
Though your comment looks balanced, but you have not learned the internal politics of Eritrea. There are not opposition groups in Eritrea. Pluralism brings more division in Africa than unity. You can see this experience from Ethiopia and other countries which are bleeding with internal fight.
our only problem is Ethiopia and the meceneries who advocate against the Eritrean right to fight its national interest including the national service program. Eritrea can not fight thirty or forty more population with limited army. Ethiopia with more than million army is not able to defeat it’s internal war. Now Ethiopia is conscripting young children less than eighteen years children to fight itself. Eritrean national service is more balanced better paid and working in all fields. Eritrea knows better it’s propriety than any one else. Keep your hands out of Eritrea.
Selam Ghirmay,
Do you think there is something called Eritrea that is totally detached from its people, an Eritrea that “knows better its propriety than any one else”? You don’t have to agree with but isn’t Eritrean’s priority to be expressed by its sons and daughters like what Sermere is trying to do? The country called Eritrea exists because there are people who collectively accepted to be identified as Eritreans. In the absence of that fact, there will be no country with a clearly identified borders with the name Eritrea. With that truth follows, every Eritrean has the right to express his/her wishes which way should the nation move forward. you may not realize it, but sooner or later, the Eritrean people will be sovereign of their land. Your scare tactics don’t hold water. Eritrea doesn’t have to follow the failed experience of other African countries. We can chart our own path. Please wake up and look around Africa, there are a number of successful countries that adapted multiparty systems.
Your arrogant claim that there are no opposition organizations or groups in Eritrea is denial of reality. We are blessed with many organizations, may be more than we need. Thinking that pluralism brigs divisions in Africa has no truth. what brings division is the absence of institutionalized political system. What we are asking is a political system where a multi-party structure is governed by national constitution enacted by the Eritrean people. It is coming soon.
Finally, do not try to hide in some selective negative experiences happening in other countries. Why can’t you look the positive things taking place all over the world. Peace, democracy, and respect of pluralism is only way to avoid destructive wars, secure stability and progress.
Eritrean Sovereignty Will Neither Be Diluted by External Walls nor by Covert Intrigues The article titled “The Shifting Dynamics of the Horn of Africa and Its Impact on Eritrea,” written under the name of Semere Solomon and published on Martin Plaut’s blog, follows a familiar pattern: it masquerades as a sympathetic analysis, but ultimately presents a toxic narrative engineered to blur and undermine Eritrea’s fundamental interests and sovereignty.
1. The Myth of “Greater Ethiopia” and Western Hegemonic Design The persistent myth of Ethiopia as an inherently “ancient and powerful Empire” is largely a construct engineered by British imperial strategy—particularly around 1941—to serve long-term Western dominance over the Horn of Africa. Inheriting this policy, the United States turned Ethiopia into its primary anchor in the region, orchestrating flagrant violations of international law. Chief among these was the forced federation and subsequent illegal annexation of Eritrea under Ethiopia. To consolidate this proxy anchor, Western powers ensured the African Union headquarters was placed in Addis Ababa, bankrolling the institution to maintain strategic leverage. Yet, through unyielding courage and sacrifice, the Eritrean people shattered these Western intrigues and Ethiopian expansionism, driving out the occupier and securing their independence by force of arms.
2. Eritrean Sovereignty Was Secured Through Bloody Sacrifice, Not External Intervention The article urges Eritrea to lean on “international law and diplomacy.” However, history teaches a paramount lesson: if you do not secure your own existence, peace guaranteed solely by international agreements does not exist. The clearest proof is the Algiers Agreement and the final ruling of the Border Commission. The international guarantors chose their own geopolitical interests for decades rather than enforcing the law while Eritrean territory remained under military occupation. Eritrea holds its territorial integrity today thanks to the firm resolve of its people and government, not the goodwill of the international community.
3. The True Face of Western Proxies and Fabricated “Opposition” Incapable of accepting Eritrea’s fierce independence, Western powers—led by the US and UK—continue to use Ethiopian regimes and manufactured proxies to undermine Eritrea. Operatives like Martin Plaut act as foot soldiers in this campaign. They recruit opportunistic elements and assemble Ethiopian Tigrayans carrying diaspora asylum papers under the guise of “Eritrean opposition” to construct a fake political narrative. In reality, genuine Eritreans remain steadfastly aligned with their state, enduring all hardships to defend their sovereignty.
4. The Relationship Between the Eritrean People and Government Is One of Resilience The author attempts to portray a deep rift between the Eritrean people and their leadership. On the contrary, the relationship is defined by shared defense and resilience. The strict internal measures stem directly from Eritrea’s sensitive geopolitical position and Ethiopia’s relentless obsession with sea access. Driven by the duty to safeguard the nation without leaving the slightest vulnerability for adversaries to exploit, the Eritrean government adopted this firm posture—a reality fully understood and backed by Eritreans at home and in the diaspora.
5. Martin Plaut’s Intrigue: From Overt Defamation to Subversive Poison For years, Martin Plaut’s campaigns to defame Eritrea have been well known. Today, he adopts a new tactic: presenting himself as a concerned observer, only to introduce a toxic message designed to fragment the nation from within. Despite decades of unjustified sanctions, blockades, and Western subversion, Eritrea continues to stand tall, enjoying its peaceful skies and unyielding independence.
The path forward lies not in trusting external forces or their proxies, but in reinforcing internal unity and steadfastly protecting national sovereignty. Eritrea’s borders were drawn by the sacrifices of its martyrs, and they will never be altered by the whims of Martin Plaut, his backers, or foreign analysts!