Eritrea Does Not Need Isolation to Survive
For more than three decades, Eritrea’s foreign policy has been shaped by fear—fear of betrayal, fear of encirclement, and fear that engagement is merely a prelude to domination. That fear was forged in war, and at one time it served a purpose. Today, however, it has calcified into a governing doctrine that no longer protects the country. It suffocates it.
Eritrea’s formal independence in 1993 was a triumph of collective sacrifice. Yet only five years later, the border war with Ethiopia shattered the promise of peace. When the Algiers Agreement was signed in December 2000, Eritreans were told that justice would prevail. The ruling did come—clear, binding, and decisively in Eritrea’s favor. What never came was peace. Instead, the country entered two decades of “No‑War, No‑Peace,” a limbo that normalized emergency rule, indefinite militarization, and political closure.
That unresolved past continues to shape Eritrea’s present. The decision to join the Tigray war from 2020 to 2022, followed by renewed tensions with Ethiopia, shows a nation trapped in a cycle where yesterday’s enemies become today’s allies—and tomorrow’s adversaries. Foreign policy has become reactive, opaque, and personal rather than strategic, institutional, or accountable.
This is why Eritrea’s recent withdrawal from IGAD is so alarming. Announced on the anniversary of the Algiers Agreement, it undermines President Isaias’s recent diplomatic outreach to Egypt, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, revealing a foreign policy that opens doors with one hand while closing them with the other—a pattern that erodes credibility abroad and deepens Eritrea’s strategic isolation. More broadly, it reflects a reflexive rejection of regional engagement, even when Eritrea’s security and economic future depend on it. Isolation is no longer a shield. It is a liability.
Some argue that Eritrea should emulate Djibouti, which has leveraged its geography to host foreign military bases and attract global attention. But this is not a model of sovereignty; it is dependency dressed up as strategy. Eritrea did not fight for independence to become a rentier state reliant on foreign armies and external patrons. Sovereignty cannot be outsourced.
The real lessons lie elsewhere—in countries that faced existential threats yet refused to surrender either their independence or their future.
Finland offers one such lesson. During the Cold War, Finland lived beside a superpower that could have swallowed it whole. Instead of retreating into isolation or provoking confrontation, it pursued active neutrality. It engaged carefully, traded pragmatically, and built institutions strong enough to withstand pressure. Neutrality was not weakness; it was leverage. Multilateralism was not surrender; it was insurance.
Eritrea does not need to copy Finland. But it must learn the principle: survival requires strategy, not defiance alone. No country can remain permanently mobilized without eroding its social fabric. Eritrea’s youth, its economy, and its diaspora are paying the price of a foreign policy that treats engagement as betrayal.
Oman offers a second, more immediate example. In a region defined by polarization and proxy wars, Oman chose restraint, mediation, and balance. It speaks to rivals who refuse to speak to one another. It does not shout; it listens. And because of that, it is trusted. Oman shows that a small state can wield influence without bases, bluster, or belligerence.
Eritrea could do the same. Its position along the Red Sea, its history with Ethiopia and Sudan, and its ties to the Gulf give it every reason to act as a stabilizer rather than a spoiler. But that requires a fundamental shift: diplomacy must serve the nation, not the survival instincts of a single ruler or generation.
Reform begins with a simple truth Eritreans have long been denied: sovereignty is not preserved by isolation alone. It is preserved by legitimacy, by institutions, and by a foreign policy that reduces threats rather than multiplies them. No country can build a future on permanent emergency. No society can thrive when war readiness substitutes for governance.
Eritrea stands at a crossroads. One path clings to siege mentality, endless militarization, and regional withdrawal. The other demands courage—the courage to engage, to reform, and to trust that Eritrea’s strength lies not only in resistance but in renewal.
The choice is not between independence and engagement. It is between stagnation and survival.
Eritrea deserves a foreign policy that opens doors instead of sealing borders, that invests in peace instead of preparing endlessly for war, and that treats the nation’s future as something to be built—not merely defended.
To Contact The Author: weriz@yahoo.com
Awate Forum