Following the signing of the Pretoria Agreement, the inauguration of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), and, notably, Ethiopia’s stated ambition for Red Sea access, diplomatic relations between Egypt and Eritrea appear to have strengthened.
This evolving alignment is evidenced by frequent high-level exchanges, such as President Sisi’s trips to Asmara and President Isaias’s visits to Cairo, and many view it as being rooted in the long-standing tensions shared by both Egypt and Eritrea with Ethiopia.
But how does this alignment affect Ethiopia’s security and economic prospects and the role of external powers like the United States, China, and regional Middle Eastern actors?
RELATED POSTS
Dareskedar Taye (PhD), lead researcher at the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA), offers his insights into the alliance between Egypt and Eritrea, as well as the broader security implications for the Horn of Africa in his interview with Yared Nigussie of The Reporter Magazine. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter Magazine: In your view, what implications does the growing Egypt-Eritrea alignment pose for security in East Africa and the Horn?
Dareskedar Taye (PhD): Before examining the Egypt-Eritrea alliance, it’s important to first understand the relationship between Egypt and Eritrea. Eritrea, in many ways, serves as a playing field for both nations, but it is not directly involved in either the problem or the solution. Due to differing national interests, particularly between Ethiopia and Egypt, Eritrea has become a strategic point of competition for both.
Although geographically distant, Ethiopia and Egypt are closely connected by a common issue: water, specifically related to the Blue Nile River (Tikur Abay). This geographical connection creates an intertwined relationship, with Egypt as the downstream nation and Ethiopia as the upstream one. Egypt constantly faces the threat that if Ethiopia begins to utilize its water resources more extensively, it could jeopardize Egypt’s own water supply. Conversely, Ethiopia, seeking economic growth through the use of its water resources, fears that Egypt’s interest will be endangered.
Egypt has long been involved in international politics, and its strategic diplomacy has played a key role in encircling and weakening Ethiopia over time. Eritrea has been a key player in this ongoing diplomatic maneuver. Why Eritrea? The answer is straightforward: Egypt’s primary target is Ethiopia. It’s not a complex issue. The two countries are deeply intertwined over the Blue Nile water dispute, and the Red Sea also factors into the equation.
To touch on the Nile River negotiations, when the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) was signed in 2010, Egypt neither welcomed the decision nor signed the agreement. Now, that agreement is in the process of becoming more institutionalized.
Ethiopia recently inaugurated the long-awaited Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), and has since shifted its focus toward gaining access to the sea. Meanwhile, Egypt’s long-term efforts to counter Ethiopia’s ambitions have largely failed. As a result, Egypt’s alliance with Eritrea appears to be a strategy to deter Ethiopia and keep the country locked in a cycle of conflict.
This alliance has significant implications. First, it places a burden of insecurity on Ethiopia. Second, it causes us to lose out on the potential benefits of cooperation with Eritrea. Historically, Eritrea has been a culturally close neighbor, yet due to a lack of mutual understanding and collaborative efforts for the common good, we (both Ethiopia and Eritrea) missed out on nearly 30 years of potential cooperation. Now, this continued conflict risks pressuring Ethiopia, keeping the country in a perpetual state of insecurity.
Middle Eastern powers like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Turkey play a significant role in the Red Sea by pursuing strategic and economic interests through military engagement, infrastructure investment, and political alliances. The United States, China, Russia and other powers are also present in the region. What kind of geopolitical role do these nations play here?
These nations each play a distinct role in the region. Almost all countries, including the superpowers and regional powers, rely on the continuation of the established rules-based order. However, this order is now being reassessed by many of these nations. Superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia, as well as middle-level powers like Saudi Arabia, have both convergent and divergent positions on the matter.
For example, both China and the US agree that the Red Sea should remain free from militant attacks and conflicts, and they both want the sea to facilitate trade, given that it is one of the world’s busiest trade corridors. However, they differ on which country should take the lead and dominate the region.
Meanwhile, Russia has recently shown a trend of increasing its presence in the Sudanese islands. When we ask why these countries are seeking to build military bases and strengthen their influence in the region, the answer is clear — the region is a critical hub for global trade. At the same time, terrorism remains a threat, and if these countries do not assert control over the region, the international economy could be disrupted. This is why they are focused on ensuring stability and securing their interests in the area.
The Red Sea and its surrounding area has become a region where these countries can display their rivalries, leading to divergent interests. Fortunately, so far, we have not witnessed any direct confrontations between the superpowers.
The middle-level countries surrounding the Red Sea, commonly known as littoral states, also seek to ensure the region’s security and governance align with their own interests. At the same time, some nations aim to dominate the region, exporting their rivalries into the Horn of Africa. What complicates international politics in this area is that various countries are competing within a confined space, each with diverging interests. The Red Sea, while located in this region, is a crucial international trade artery, which intensifies the competition for control and safety. This dynamic fuels the rivalries and geopolitical tensions in the area. This is where Ethiopia’s concerns should be addressed. Ethiopia needs access to the Red Sea, which means access to a vital sea outlet and trade corridor. Secondly, as a landlocked nation, Ethiopia faces significant disadvantages. Its demand for a say in the governance of the sea is rooted in the logic of historical injustice and the desire to rectify this longstanding disadvantage.
Both Egypt and Eritrea assert that Red Sea security is exclusively the domain of its coastal states, a position aimed at challenging non-coastal state involvement and implicitly, Ethiopia’s push for sea access. What kind of support Egypt can offer to Eritrea to oppose Ethiopia’s interests?
I think the alliance between the two nations is primarily a means of providing political backing and very limited military support—nothing more than that. Egypt serves as the primary provider of this support. I say this because Egypt itself has significant security burdens, and most of its security efforts are under the oversight of the United States of America. As a result, it’s unlikely that Egypt would commit fully to supporting Eritrea, which remains isolated from the global order.
While Egypt can offer political support by showing solidarity with Eritrea, it’s unlikely that this will extend much further. Many point to historical precedents, such as the military support Egypt and Syria provided during Eritrea’s armed struggle, and assume Egypt will do the same now. However, the political landscape then and the current international order are totally different.
Ethiopia was once a socialist nation, and during that time, the Western world sought to overthrow its socialist regime. The support given to Eritrean fighters was viewed as justifiable by many Western nations in that context. However, today, there is no globally accepted justification for supporting Eritrea’s Isaias government, as it opposes the established international order. From this perspective, Egypt is unlikely to risk deteriorating its relationship with Western nations, and it is not expected to provide full-fledged support to Eritrea, especially military support. What is likely to happen is that Egypt will portray Isaias as a victim, using political and legal patronage in a way that erodes Eritrea’s sovereignty.
What about the international community view on the budding Egypt-Eritrea alliance?
In the first place, the recent ties between Egypt and Eritrea cannot be classified as an alliance. So far, there are no signed agreements or details between the two countries. I don’t think any nation would trust Eritrea enough to sign a formal agreement. Egypt’s relationship with Eritrea seems more like an alignment, standing together on certain issues, rather than a full-fledged alliance. This understanding shapes how other nations view their relationship.
What kind of relationship do Egypt and Eritrea have? If it’s merely about spreading propaganda against Ethiopia, the international community may not respond. However, if there were a more opaque arrangement, like a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) where an attack on one is considered an attack on both, or if the two countries were to provide weapons to each other, that would immediately attract global attention. Countries would then take varying positions on the matter. At that point, I believe the international community would not allow the Eritrean government to secure such an agreement, which would deter Egypt from pursuing such arrangements. I also don’t think the superpowers would want to see that happen.
In general, nations are working to resolve the current tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea through peaceful means, and this aligns with Ethiopia’s position. However, if the situation escalates, we will see how things unfold together.
Furthermore, superpowers do not view Egypt and Eritrea in the same way. For instance, the United States considers Egypt a major security ally in the Middle East, while it generally perceives Eritrea as a threat.
As for Russia, there isn’t a truly cordial relationship, even though Eritrea tries to present itself as having strong ties with Russia.
When it comes to China, it is a country that aims to maintain peaceful relations with all nations. From this perspective, since the Eritrea-Egypt alignment is not yet fully clear, the position of the superpowers remains uncertain as well.
I don’t believe any superpower would offer support to the Eritrean government.
