Main Articles
How Global Powers Sold Eritrea: U.S. and U.K. Manipulation Exposed in Declassified Files
By: Sirak Bahlbi
https://africanviews.net/how-global-pow ... ied-files/
6 hours ago
I am entirely fascinated—and frankly mesmerized—by the hundreds of declassified U.S. Foreign Relations documents, especially those revealing how the U.S. and the U.K. worked to help
Haile Selassie unjustly transfer the European colony of Eritrea to the African empire of Ethiopia.
Their motives were driven purely by geopolitical interests, not by justice or self-determination. What Eritrea has argued for decades is now written clearly, in black and white, straight from the horse’s mouth.
As this particular document (attached) shows, Ethiopia cared very little about Eritrea’s territorial integrity. Haile Selasie was perfectly willing to see Eritrea carved up—its western lands pushed into Sudan and the rest absorbed by Ethiopia—so long as the Emperor secured access to the sea. This alone is a telling sign that Eritrea was never historically ruled by Ethiopia; if it were, Ethiopia would not be bargaining away its “
own” territory so casually.
The British, meanwhile, behaved like a child let loose in a cookie shop and they were still convinced that the British Empire would endure for centuries, they busied themselves redrawing borders to suit their imagined imperial future. Their goals were clear:
1. To place the arable and mineral-rich western lowlands of Eritrea, under the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (today’s Sudan).
2. To merge British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, and the Ogaden into a Greater Somalia under British protection—an idea Haile Selassie was willing to entertain as long as he received Assab and its surrounding areas.
3. To flirt with the idea of a Tigray–Tigrigni territory, under British influence.
The Americans, new on the global stage, were also carving out spheres of influence. Partly out of sympathy for Haile Selassie—humiliated during his exile—and partly because they saw him as a useful anti-communist ally during the early Cold War. The U.S. viewed Ethiopia, as a strategic asset. Eritrea, became collateral.
The Italians, defeated in World War II, had little leverage. Their demands were modest: trusteeship over Asmara and Massawa, and guarantees for the rights of Italians living in Eritrea.
Against this backdrop, this March 1950 declassified U.S. State Department document shows how the U.S. and U.K. were preparing for the upcoming vote in the UN regarding Eritrea’s fate. It exposes the clear sabotage, maneuvering, and manipulation outside the formal UN process:
Washington feared, the rapidly deteriorating situation in Eritrea. Rising tensions among Eritreans, Italians, and Ethiopians threatened peace—and raised the possibility that the UN Commission of Inquiry might favor independence, something neither the U.S. nor the U.K. wanted.
The U.S. and U.K. were anxious, that the UN Commission might fail to reach a clear recommendation. Without a decisive outcome, the General Assembly might not achieve the required two-thirds majority—or worse, might vote for Eritrean independence. The U.S. and U.K. therefore agreed on a shared position to split Eritrea into two:
Most of Eritrea → to Ethiopia
Western Province → to Sudan
This plan reflected the dominance of the emerging post-WWII powers, not the will of Eritreans. The U.S. advised Ethiopia to appear flexible—to signal acceptance of partition—so that the UN would view Ethiopia as reasonable and deserving of a favorable outcome.
The U.S. State Department warned Ethiopia not to threaten unrest, if it did not receive Eritrea. Such arguments could backfire, portraying Ethiopia as aggressive or coercive in its approach.
The U.S. and U.K. sought to jointly reaffirm their position, in order to steer the UN deliberations and shape the final outcome.
The U.S. also pushed for renewed Italian–Ethiopian negotiations, preferring talks based on the previous Geneva formula and ideally held in London.
This was part of keeping the entire process within Western control. Most strikingly, Eritrean self-determination was completely absent. The discussion focused entirely on:
• U.S. strategic interests (Red Sea access, Cold War calculations, and control of the Kagnew Station intelligence base in Asmara)
• U.K. imperial interests
• Italian and Ethiopian demands
Eritrean voices, were almost entirely excluded. The fate of Eritrea was negotiated by powerful states, over a territory whose people were denied a seat at the table.
@hawelti
