At the 12th Tana High-Level Forum on Security in Africa, held in Bahir Dar, National Intelligence and Security Service Director General Ambassador Redwan Hussein delivered a strategically consequential message: the security of the Red Sea cannot be entrusted exclusively to a handful of littoral states. Amid escalating militarisation, external power rivalries and attacks on commercial shipping, he called for collective action by regional states and reliable international partners. His intervention speaks to a fundamental weakness in any security architecture that fails to account for the interconnected interests of the countries whose stability depends on this vital maritime corridor.

The rationale is compelling. The Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait connect major commercial networks linking Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Disruptions to navigation generate consequences far beyond the immediate theatre, affecting trade costs, supply chains and regional economic stability. The growing militarisation of these waters, compounded by competition among external powers, further risks turning a shared commercial artery into an arena of geopolitical confrontation. No arrangement can credibly address these challenges if it neglects the broader regional interests at stake.

Redwan’s argument is particularly pertinent to Ethiopia, whose dependence on maritime trade makes the security of these routes a direct economic and national-security concern. A country need not possess a coastline to be materially affected by threats to maritime commerce. Ethiopia’s interest, therefore, extends beyond access to the sea: it encompasses the stability of the routes through which its trade moves and the prevention of threats capable of undermining its economic security. That interest warrants meaningful participation in cooperative security discussions, while remaining subject to international law and the sovereignty of coastal states.

Nor can the responsibility for securing the Red Sea rest indefinitely on a narrow group of regional actors or distant naval powers. Maritime threats are transnational, their economic consequences widely distributed, and their effective management dependent on intelligence-sharing, coordinated responses and sustained political cooperation. Regional states bring proximity and contextual knowledge; international partners can contribute additional capabilities and resources. An effective framework must reconcile these complementary roles rather than allow strategic competition to undermine collective action.

Redwan’s intervention thus raises an essential policy question: how can the region construct a security order that respects coastal sovereignty while recognising the legitimate interests of all states materially affected by maritime instability? The answer lies in practical cooperation, clearly defined responsibilities and a shared commitment to protecting commercial navigation from geopolitical rivalry and security threats. His message is ultimately a call to align the organisation of Red Sea security with the realities of regional interdependence – because a maritime corridor of global importance cannot be secured sustainably through fragmented responsibility.

By Dagim Yohannes, Researcher, Horn Review