Prepared by the researche : Ahmed Hussein Abo deif ELbadawey – Political researcher
DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH
Eritrea’s withdrawal from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) represents a politically significant development within the complex and fluid dynamics of the Horn of Africa. This decision cannot be understood as a purely procedural or administrative step; rather, it reflects the accumulation of long-standing Eritrean skepticism toward regional organizations, as well as the persistent tensions characterizing its relations with neighboring states, most notably Ethiopia. Historically, Asmara has perceived IGAD not merely as a development-oriented framework, but as a political platform that frequently exceeds its declared mandate and becomes entangled in regional and international power balances. As political rhetoric and strategic friction between Eritrea and Ethiopia have intensified over the past two years, IGAD has re-emerged as an arena for indirect confrontation rather than cooperative engagement. Consequently, any serious attempt to interpret Eritrea’s withdrawal must adopt an analytical approach that connects IGAD’s institutional role with the sovereignty-driven and security-centered considerations that fundamentally shape Eritrean foreign policy. The decision thus signals deeper structural disagreements regarding the nature, neutrality, and legitimacy of regional governance mechanisms in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.
Regional Context and Institutional Challenges Facing IGAD
Eritrea’s withdrawal comes at a particularly sensitive regional moment, characterized by the convergence of domestic crises within Horn of Africa states and broader geopolitical rivalries. Originally established to promote stability, food security, and regional cooperation, IGAD has, over recent years, faced mounting criticism related to its limited effectiveness and its inability to manage complex and protracted conflicts. From Eritrea’s perspective, its return to IGAD in 2023 failed to generate renewed trust or meaningful institutional reform. On the contrary, according to official Eritrean narratives, re-engagement exposed persistent structural deficiencies in the organization’s operational mechanisms and decision-making processes. At the same time, the escalation of disputes with Ethiopia over issues of sovereignty and access to the Red Sea has introduced a new strategic dimension to Eritrea’s withdrawal. As a result, the decision reflects not merely dissatisfaction with IGAD as an institution, but a broader vision concerning the role and limitations of regional organizations operating in an environment marked by instability, asymmetrical power relations, and conflicting national interests. The withdrawal therefore underscores Eritrea’s reassessment of multilateral frameworks that it perceives as incapable of safeguarding equitable participation.
Eritrea’s Role within IGAD
Since its initial accession to IGAD, Eritrea’s relationship with the organization has been characterized by fluctuation and persistent instability. In the early stages, Asmara viewed IGAD as a potentially constructive regional framework capable of addressing shared challenges such as drought, development deficits, and security concerns. However, this perception quickly deteriorated as political disagreements—particularly with Ethiopia—began to dominate the organization’s internal dynamics. During its periods of membership, Eritrea repeatedly accused IGAD of lacking neutrality and of favoring specific actors in regional disputes, which ultimately led to the suspension and subsequent termination of its membership in 2007. When Eritrea rejoined the organization in 2023, expectations were minimal. The Eritrean leadership demonstrated limited engagement with IGAD’s institutional mechanisms and high-level meetings, signaling an absence of genuine confidence in the organization’s capacity to operate impartially. In practical terms, Eritrea’s participation remained marginal and largely symbolic, reinforcing the perception that the trust deficit between Asmara and IGAD was both deep-rooted and unresolved.
First Cause – Institutional Loss of Confidence
One of the primary drivers behind Eritrea’s withdrawal is its profound loss of confidence in IGAD as an independent regional institution. According to official discourse in Asmara, the organization has deviated from its founding principles and has become incapable of fulfilling a consensual role that serves the collective interests of its member states. Eritrea argues that IGAD’s decisions are frequently shaped by political calculations that advance the interests of specific countries rather than reflecting a genuinely collective agenda. This perception of institutional bias has reinforced the belief that continued membership offers no tangible political or security benefits. Instead, remaining within the organization is viewed as a constraint on Eritrea’s diplomatic autonomy and strategic flexibility. From this standpoint, IGAD is no longer seen as a neutral platform for cooperation but as a politically compromised body whose internal dynamics undermine its legitimacy. Consequently, withdrawal is framed as a rational response to an institution that, in Eritrea’s assessment, has failed to uphold impartial governance and equitable representation.
Second Cause – Perceived Bias in Favor of Ethiopia
The strained relationship with Ethiopia constitutes a central factor in Eritrea’s decision to withdraw from IGAD. For years, Asmara has accused the organization of systematically favoring Addis Ababa in both bilateral and regional disputes. This perception is reinforced by Ethiopia’s significant political, demographic, and diplomatic weight within IGAD, as well as the presence of prominent Ethiopian figures in the organization’s leadership structures. Against the backdrop of escalating tensions over sovereignty issues and access to maritime routes, Eritrea has come to view IGAD as an extension of Ethiopia’s regional influence rather than a neutral mediator. From the Eritrean perspective, IGAD no longer functions as an impartial forum but rather reflects existing power asymmetries that disadvantage smaller or less influential member states. This perceived institutional alignment with Ethiopian interests directly contradicts Eritrea’s strategic priorities and reinforces its conviction that continued participation would expose it to political marginalization rather than meaningful engagement.
Third Cause – Sovereignty and Rejection of External Interference
Since achieving independence, Eritrea has adopted a rigid and uncompromising approach to the principle of national sovereignty. The Eritrean state exhibits heightened sensitivity toward any regional or international frameworks that could be interpreted as encroachments upon its internal affairs. Within this context, IGAD is perceived as a potential conduit for the internationalization of doestic issues or the imposition of external agendas under the guise of regional cooperation. This perception is not merely theoretical; it is rooted in past experiences in which IGAD supported international measures, including sanctions, targeting Eritrea. Such actions entrenched the belief that the organization does not equally defend the sovereignty of all its members. Consequently, Eritrea regards withdrawal as a necessary step to safeguard its political independence and prevent the recurrence of external pressure exerted through multilateral mechanisms. Sovereignty, in this sense, is not negotiable but constitutes the cornerstone of Eritrean foreign policy.
Fourth Cause – Limited Political and Strategic Returns
From a pragmatic standpoint, Eritrea has found little justification for maintaining its membership in IGAD due to the absence of tangible political or economic returns. The lack of concrete joint development projects, coupled with weak and ineffective security coordination, has rendered membership largely symbolic rather than substantively beneficial. For Eritrean decision-makers, participation in a regional organization that fails to deliver measurable strategic advantages does not warrant the political or symbolic compromises associated with continued engagement. Instead of serving as a platform for mutual gain, IGAD is viewed as an institutional space that imposes obligations without offering commensurate benefits. This cost-benefit assessment has played a significant role in shaping Eritrea’s withdrawal, as the leadership prioritizes bilateral arrangements and self-reliant strategies over multilateral commitments that yield limited practical value. In this light, withdrawal is framed as a rational recalibration of foreign policy priorities.
Fifth Cause – Escalating Regional Instability
Eritrea’s withdrawal cannot be divorced from the broader regional context, which is marked by escalating conflicts and systemic instability across the Horn of Africa. With renewed confrontational rhetoric between Asmara and Addis Ababa, alongside fragile political conditions in several neighboring states, Eritrea has opted to reduce its regional entanglements and focus on a self-centered security approach. From this perspective, withdrawal is perceived as a preventive measure aimed at avoiding entanglement in regional arrangements that could be leveraged for political or security pressure. By disengaging from IGAD, Eritrea seeks to preserve strategic autonomy and minimize exposure to collective decisions that may not align with its national interests. The move reflects a broader trend toward unilateralism driven by uncertainty, mistrust, and the absence of credible regional mechanisms capable of managing crises impartially and effectively.
Eritrea’s withdrawal from IGAD represents a new milestone in the trajectory of its relationship with the regional environment and reflects the depth of the challenges confronting regional cooperation in the Horn of Africa. The decision is not merely an administrative dispute with a regional organization; rather, it expresses a broader crisis of trust among member states and highlights the limits of institutional effectiveness in a volatile political context. For IGAD, the withdrawal constitutes an additional challenge to its credibility and its ability to play an inclusive, unifying role. For Eritrea, it underscores the primacy of sovereignty and independence in its foreign policy, even when this comes at the expense of institutional engagement. Ultimately, this development draws attention to the need for a profound reassessment of the regional cooperation framework, in a manner that ensures balance and neutrality and strengthens the capacity of institutions to manage disputes rather than exacerbate them.
