African people move across national boundaries for the purpose of earning income through productive employment. They engage in cross-border trading or visiting their relatives. Such movement of people is very common in east Africa. However, the extent to which authorities allow this mobility is based on particular and specific historical and political situations in each country.
Researchers have tried to identify and examine the Ethiopian presence and control of its eastern borders. In this part of the country, they have identified the nature of cross-border movement, including migration, refugee movement, and trade, in the past several decades. Using documented and secondary sources of information, they have registered historical sequences of events on the strong government presence in the border area. They have argued that the important and distinguishable presence of Ethiopia at the border. This is just a result of how the Ethiopian state established the notion of territorial statehood. This is actually recorded in the history of the country.
Popularly accepted notions suggest that local people have strong influence in Africa, including Ethiopia, on border issues. They also have deeper knowledge and influence than the federal government, which is usually confined to the capital city, which is far from the border. The presence of the Ethiopian government at the border areas is consistent with the practice of limited government presence in African borderlands.
The control of territory by the government in the eastern part of the country is historically recorded. Experts in the field have examined the Ethiopian presence at the border by studying the patterns of cross-border movement. They have focused on the manifestation of statehood in eastern Ethiopia. The relation between territorial control and cross border movement revealed the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. Decades ago, after the withdrawal of the colonial forces from the Horn of Africa region, there emerged ideas of what the borders meant for countries of the region.
The ideas of borders related to any country may be seen as directly related to the purpose of marking the limits of strength. Borderlands concern the strength of the government in exercising its power. These lands, however, have similar identifications as spaces that have much of their nature of borders, regardless of whether they are in a country of elsewhere.
According to some experts in the field, identified territory or space is not abstract but real. This refers to the manner in which a government establishes territorial statehood. Others argue that a territoriality is a historically sensitive use of space. Most of the history of the relationship between African countries and their borders is based on colonial experience. Most of the history on African territories does not take into account countries such as Ethiopia, which have a completely different narrative with colonialism. Similarly, recent studies reveal that it has not been simple to assess Africa’s recent past, which is completely different from the colonial records.
Despite the fact that there have recently been a lot of records about Africa, including Ethiopia, most of these do not reflect any form of historical context. However, a different approach has been used by historians to reflect the relationship between Ethiopia and its borders for understanding current practices of territorial integrity. They apply African notions of territorial integrity to understand the current locations after independence.
Studies also refer to Ethiopian understandings of territoriality, highlighting the role of borders in the country. They also discussed the period of rigid state borders in the post independence period. They examined the period that influenced the manner in which the country viewed the border. The studies also explored internal political factors within the eastern border during imperial period. The studies also covered the increased militarization and confrontation with irredentist forces in the eastern border.
Ethiopia has faced several levels of cross-border movement, most of which is characterized by illegal trade and smuggling of goods and unemployed poor people. This situation has led to the confirmation of state failure, collapse or weakness in Africa. Studies have failed to analyze the political development outside and beyond the capital cities. They were, therefore, unsuccessful to explain relations between various countries of Africa. After the Cold War, regional differentiation has emerged as a major guiding principle in Africa, with many countries organizing and cooperating at the sub-regional levels. The inability of those analysts to analyze statehood beyond the nation-state has been a challenge. The preoccupation of Africans with internal “disorder” has meant secession, internal conflict and bloodshed. The focus on internal collapse or disorder has led observers to argue that there is disorder that is current within Africa. However, the African political practices do not conform to practical forms of political organization.
The political practice is based on the decisions reached by newly independent African countries to retain the territorial boundaries “inherited” from the colonial rule. Consequently, there has been a general agreement on the absence of border conflicts in Africa. This happened despite the existence of states that emerged from “arbitrary” boundaries agreed by African states. Observers call this the paradox of African boundaries. There is consent on some of the rationale why this paradox has continued unresolved.
Some historians have noted that the situation of global state system maintain and sustain this paradox, in relation to the popular notion of the nation-state. However others have moved one step forward by trying to show how the global system holds up the paradox. The general consent is that African countries have generally remained peaceful towards each other. This happened despite internal skirmishes, as the global system recognizes them for staying intact.
Historians recorded that the African concept of statehood gained legitimacy in the global system. However, the territorial arrangement and its popular perceptive is being confronted in the Horn. This region is recognized for its unique nature, with focus on other African regions that peacefully retained “artificial boundaries.” Some experts in the field such as C. Young underline that Ethiopia “cries out” for creative imagination and careful study, but does not offer any practical alternatives about it.
However, other experts do not effectively address why lack of recognition for breakaway states does “not deter” secessionist states from fighting for independence in the Horn. These fighters in the Horn appear to be not interested in the “local” power sharing. But, this assertion is challenged as it has not been able to provide the necessary historical analysis that is based on information. It does not investigate the different forms of statehood that continue to emerge in the Horn of Africa.
To understand and appreciate cross border movement in Africa, particularly in the Horn region, it is necessary to focus on history and context. In particular, the context of African state formation is a requirement to conduct historical analyses. The Horn area, in particular Somaliland, raises important issues about the territorial situations. It is suggested to analyze statehood in the Horn where there is no agreement on who comprises a colonial power in the region. This is a serious political issue unlike in other African regions.
A few experts on the issue suggest that some European colonizers might think of Ethiopia as a colonial power in the Horn. But, this silly assumption has to be questioned. The formation of the contemporary Ethiopian state in the late nineteenth century is a historical fact. The study of the Ethiopian state has to enquire how the state had survived in independence for thousands of years. This requires an understanding of the relationship between the centre and the periphery, like other countries.
Territorial integrity refers to the role of peripheries in a given country. The formation of the Ethiopian state in the late nineteenth century has been shaped by the territories located at the borders. These territories have shaped the development of the state bureaucracy and the national border. They also had asserted “imperial” state power and authority in the last century. The state power in Ethiopia was not a complicated process.
Historians, however, are of the opinion that the political and economic Historians, however, are of the opinion that the political and economic transformation of Ethiopian society was “delayed” because of the organization of state power under the imperial rule. This rule extended to the lowland areas, where pastoralists resided within the Ethiopian boundary. The state became increasingly centralized under imperial rule. The boundaries of the state became more real and defined for the first time. Its territory became more recognized and accepted by European and other states. Border movements between Ethiopian and neighboring states became a reality in which people moved freely.
In some parts of Africa, the center-periphery relationship was figured out by colonial history and experience. Thus, it was this practice that defined the structure of the postcolonial state. In most cases, this structure assumed the form of the urban-rural division. Most independent states maintained this division to fit their power and control. They resorted to increasing the power of central authority while weakening local power structures. This experience of strong central authority was transferred to newly independent countries.
The objectives and means with which it was carried out differed in Ethiopia. Unlike the independent African states, the state in Ethiopia had been the authority in deciding its boundaries. As an independent country, Ethiopia had participated in determining the boundaries in the Horn of Africa. Historians pointed out that the center-periphery relationship in Ethiopia was different because the demarcation of boundaries of the state was decisively pursued by its leaders. As a result, they were able to control cross-border movements for asserting political authority.
Editor’s Note: The views entertained in this article do not necessarily reflect the stance of The Ethiopian Herald
BY GETACHEW MINAS
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD THURSDAY 10 OCTOBER 2024
