Chokepoints, Silence, and Power: How Global Dominance Is Enforced Through Institutions, Not Declarations

The End of the Illusion of Neutrality

Global power does not announce itself honestly. It rarely arrives in the form of open conquest or formal declarations of empire. Instead, it operates through institutions, financial systems, security partnerships, and selective enforcement of “international norms.” What we are witnessing today is not a series of disconnected crises, but a coordinated pattern of dominance responding to a changing global balance.

Recent events have forced uncomfortable questions into the open. The recognition of Somaliland by Israel, the escalation of military actions in Africa, the targeting of leaders resistant to external influence, and the silence or paralysis of regional institutions are not coincidences. They are reactions.

At the center of this reaction lies a strategic reality: control of global chokepoints matters more than rhetoric. And few chokepoints are as vital as the Red Sea corridor — linking Europe, Asia, and Africa, and serving as a lifeline for global trade and energy flows.

As China and Russia deepen relationships across Africa and the Red Sea basin, long-dominant powers are responding not with diplomacy, but with positional maneuvers designed to reassert leverage.

This is not about ideology. It is about infrastructure, access, and control.

Somaliland, the Red Sea, and Strategic Recognition

The decision by Israel to recognize Somaliland was not a symbolic gesture. It was a strategic move that immediately altered the geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa.

Somaliland sits near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Any actor with influence in this region gains leverage over global shipping, energy transit, and military logistics. Recognition confers legitimacy, opens doors for security cooperation, and signals alignment.

This recognition occurred before the dramatic escalation involving Venezuela, not after. That sequencing matters. It suggests preparatory positioning rather than reactive policy.

At the same time, China has been expanding trade, infrastructure, and diplomatic engagement across the Red Sea and Horn of Africa. Russia has pursued security and energy partnerships. These moves challenge a system that has long depended on centralized financial control, Western-aligned institutions, and predictable compliance from the Global South.

When that compliance weakens, pressure follows.

The silence — or perceived hesitation — of the African Union during the early stages of this crisis further exposed an uncomfortable truth: regional institutions often lack the capacity or unity to counter external maneuvers that undermine African sovereignty, even when those maneuvers occur on African soil.

Statements are issued. Condemnations are voiced. But enforcement remains absent.

Africa as the Pressure Point

Africa has long served as both a resource base and a geopolitical buffer zone. When global systems are stable, the continent is managed through aid, development programs, and financial conditionalities. When systems are threatened, the approach hardens.

Recent events reflect this shift.

The United States’ military actions in Nigeria, framed as counterterrorism operations, occurred amid rising global tension and strategic realignment. Regardless of intent, such actions reinforce a pattern: military force is deployed quickly in Africa, often with limited transparency and minimal regional consent.

In Burkina Faso, authorities reported a near-assassination attempt against President Ibrahim Traoré — a leader who has openly challenged Western influence and rejected traditional security arrangements. Whether every detail of such claims can be independently verified is secondary to the broader context: leaders who resist external control face extraordinary pressure.

Meanwhile, the African Union’s response has remained constrained. This is not because African leaders are unaware of interference, but because the AU itself was shaped within a global system that limits its autonomy. Funding dependence, external partnerships, and internal divisions restrict its ability to act decisively against powerful external actors.

The result is a structural contradiction: an institution meant to defend African sovereignty often lacks the leverage to do so.

Ethiopia, Aid, and the Mechanics of Dependence

No example illustrates institutional contradiction more clearly than Ethiopia.

For decades, Ethiopia has been one of the largest recipients of foreign aid on the African continent. Yet despite this sustained inflow of resources, the country continues to experience cycles of conflict, food insecurity, and political instability. This is not an accident. It is a feature of how aid functions within a centralized global system.

Aid, when tied to external priorities rather than local sovereignty, becomes a mechanism of control. It rewards compliance, discourages independence, and often strengthens central authorities without resolving structural problems. Stability is promised, but dependency is delivered.

The Ethiopian case demonstrates that financial volume does not equal empowerment. In fact, prolonged aid dependence can weaken institutions, distort incentives, and entrench conflict — all while preserving external leverage.

This is why the current moment is so dangerous for entrenched systems of dominance. As countries begin to question centralized banking structures, aid conditionalities, and external security guarantees, the tools of influence lose effectiveness. When money fails to persuade, pressure escalates. When pressure fails, force appears.

Exposure, Not Chaos

What we are witnessing is not disorder. It is exposure.

The recognition of Somaliland, the militarization of Africa, the targeting of resistant leaders, and the paralysis of international institutions all point to the same reality: global dominance is enforced through systems, not speeches.

Institutions like the United Nations and the African Union were not designed to challenge that dominance. They were designed to manage it. When the system is stable, they appear functional. When the system is threatened, their limitations become visible.

For Africans, this moment demands clarity. Not emotional reaction, but structural understanding. The question is no longer whether institutions serve African interests. The question is who they were built to serve in the first place.

Exposure is the first step toward sovereignty. And exposure is exactly what this moment has delivered.