Beyond Conflict Intervention: Unmasking Gulf Supremacy Rivalries and Strategic Interests in the Horn of Africa

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the Horn of Africa has emerged as a strategic arena for Gulf states seeking to extend their power and influence beyond the Arabian Peninsula. While Gulf states defend their continued infiltration in the Horn of Africa on grounds of conflict intervention, a more critical analysis reveals the extension of their regional supremacy rivalries, economic and security imperatives as the main motivating factors. Endowed with mineral-rich countries, proximity to strategic maritime routes, extensive arable land, and opportunities for military expansion, the Horn of Africa has been an opportune ground for Gulf states’ pursuits. This strategic penetration has produced a complex intersection of external rivalries with local conflicts. Rivalry among dominant Gulf countries has shaped conflict dynamics by influencing local actors, deepening internal divisions and complicating chances of amicable resolution of conflicts in the fragile states in the Horn of Africa. Based on the Regional Security Complex Theory developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, the study demonstrates that the HoA and the Gulf are geographically proximate regions with deep security interdependence in which their national security concerns are so intertwined that they cannot meaningfully be analyzed or resolved in isolation. By interrogating the hidden agendas underlying Gulf interventions, this study examines how Gulf supremacy rivalries shape conflict dynamics in the Horn of Africa and assesses the subsequent impacts of such interventions. To achieve sustainable peace in the Horn of Africa, the study recommends transparent and inclusive interventions that transcend elite interests and prioritize community-level benefits.