People-to-people rapprochement as a new form of regional diplomacy
The recent visit by Ethiopian artistic troupe and high level officials to Eritrea was no doubt a success story and can be taken as a model of people to people or public diplomacy in action. Previously, an Ethiopian public diplomacy group had paid a working visit to Kampala, Uganda with the same objective of bring the peoples of the two countries together not only as neighbors but also as members of the East African or the Horn region with great potentials for economic cooperation and development.
Public diplomacy is nowadays a buzzword in our region and a tool of people to people rapprochement for better understanding, cooperation and joint economic development. The Horn of Africa is slowly emerging from a long period of political hibernation or isolation. This part of Africa has remained enclosed in a kind of geopolitical cocoon where outside powers were engaged in defining the determining the fate of tens of millions of people who were kept prisoners of internal and cross-border conflicts, famines, and massive population displacements. A year or so ago, the region was still kept a victim of its own failure and no one seemed to come up with a workable solution to break the diplomatic paralysis and liberate the region from long years of not decades of dysfunctional alienation, when violence and terrorism reigned supreme.
The Ethio-Eritrean peace deal was in fact a godsend that broke the diplomatic ice and ushered in a new era of state to state, and more importantly people to people diplomacy. The GERD project was another important factor that helped promote public diplomacy. Ethiopian delegations of public diplomacy were engaged in a kind of shuttle diplomacy conventional and public diplomacy all in one. It has increasingly become evident that some of the challenges that are agitating the Horn region and bilateral relations in this age of globalization could not be fully addressed through conventional diplomacy that consisted of state to state dealings whereby powerful politicians crowded the corridors of power in their search for solutions to specific political problems or conflicts.
GERD diplomacy was the first comprehensive attempt to engage members of the public in conflict resolution efforts. The GERD diplomacy offers both opportunities and challenges. It offers opportunities in the sense that misunderstandings between the main antagonists could be addressed through bilateral consultative meetings that proved instrumental in averting or preempting possibly violent scenarios between the members’ states of the Horn geopolitical entity.
More than any region in Africa, the Horn region is turned into a region where public or people to people relations are replacing conventional diplomacy that excluded them from any bilateral or multilateral bargain. The Ethio-Egyptian, Ethio-Sudanese and Ethio-Eritrean public diplomacy dynamics are proving not only effective in preventing active conflicts but also serve as models to follow by other countries in the region. One of the characteristic features of public diplomacy is its directness, casualness and the easy with which the players conduct their business of conveying goodwill towards overcoming their shared challenges and opportunities.
This is not the case in conventional diplomacy whereby professional diplomats brush shoulders and speak in innuendos and leave the public guessing as to what they were up to in their dealings. The outcomes of conventional diplomacy are often kept secret and the public was left in the dark as to the practical consequences of the agreements signed between and among the deal makers. In public diplomacy, ordinary members of society with different backgrounds, educational levels and experiences come together to discuss specific issues in a friendly atmosphere within an environment free from intimidating conventions and diplomatic etiquettes. The role of public diplomacy in GERD controversy was crucial in creating the atmosphere conducive for better deals although the objective of public diplomacy is not to reach agreements or sign documents at the end of their meetings.
Public diplomacy in the case of GERD controversy was instrumental in conveying the goodwill the Ethiopian people feel towards their Egyptian brothers and sisters, something that cannot be done through conventional diplomacy. Once a conducive atmosphere is created by delegations of public diplomacy, it is often up to the professional diplomats to sit down and discuss issues in a relaxed and positive attitude. The outcomes are often promising if not positive. It is also a force of deterrence in the sense that it allows negotiators to take their time and engage in prolonged and patient talks rather than hastily resorting to other non-peaceful options as it was often the case during the heydays of conventional diplomacy. In conventional diplomacy, the breakdown of talks often leads to a dead end active conflicts or armed confrontations. This was the case in the conventional diplomacy between Ethiopia and Eritrea before the 1998-2000 border war.
Public diplomacy is now taking centre in bilateral efforts to seal the Ethio-Eritrean peace initiatives with concrete deals. The recent visit to Eritrea by Ethiopian artistic group and the enthusiasm and euphoria that Eritreans welcomed the delegation is clear proof that the time has indeed come for the two sides to consummate the process with a detailed peace agreement serving as a road map for future bilateral relations between the two countries.
It may be time now to think about the positive potentials of public diplomacy in averting conflicts and paving the way for lasting peace. The Ethio-Eritrean or the Ethio-Egyptian model of public diplomacy can thus serve as a model to be duplicated in other bilateral relations in the Horn of Africa. There is no reason why Somali public diplomacy delegation could not travel to Asmara and engage in people to people contacts through the arts or sports. This can be duplicated in the case of Ethio-Djibouti, Ethio-Somali and Djibouti-Somali public diplomacy efforts.
One of the greatest advantages of public diplomacy as opposed to conventional diplomacy is the chance it creates for the peoples of the various countries to know one another, enjoy their music and exchange ideas directly instead of relying on second hand reports by the media that may not always be reliable or accurate. The old conventional diplomacy is generally conducted behind the backs of the people that are directly affected by the issues involved. Public diplomacy on the contrary allows the peoples who are the main actors to directly participate in the process or at least pave the way for a positive outcome. Public diplomacy is thus a process of mutual learning, information sharing, and eyewitness experience by the people involved.
The ultimate objective of public diplomacy in the context of the Horn region is of course the creation of an environment of peace and stability so that bilateral economic cooperation and development initiatives can take place between and among member countries. Again the Ethio-Eritrean peace deal has the objective of facilitating bilateral development efforts as it was specified during the early rapprochement between the leaders of the two countries.
On the other hand, public diplomacy in the case of the GERD controversy has gone from initial and mutual acquaintance and experience sharing to facilitating constructive talks. It has now entered a more passive phase but it can also be triggered or reactivated at any time. Yet, public diplomacy in the case of the GERD controversy or in any other case for that matter tends to follow the steps of conventional diplomacy by professional diplomats rather than lead the process for obvious reasons.
The countries of the Horn, namely Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Djibouti and Somalia now face an unprecedented opportunity for peace and stability. All these countries are more or less emerging from a long period of bilateral conflicts or internal civil wars. The only exception might be Somalia that is slowly turning from chaos to order thanks to the near defeat of the terrorist Al-Shabab. Terrorism can only thrive in an atmosphere of fear, chaos and unpredictability. As the Horn region is progressively leaving the bad times behind and face a promising future, terrorist groups not only lose the reason for their very existence but also their relevance. This is actually what Al-Shabab is going through these days before its deadly end. Peace is too slow to come to South Sudan but come it will sooner than later.
The recent visit by Ethiopian artists and members of public diplomacy to Eritrea is something one should pay attention to. The visit by Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki to Ethiopia came the same week the Ethiopian delegation finished its cultural shows in Eritrea. President Isaias’s visit might have some other reason but there is no doubt that the Ethiopian cultural troupe did pave the way or created a conducive environment for the Isaias-Abiy face to face encounter.
The end of conflicts release unprecedentedly powerful forces and energies for economic cooperation and development. There is no more powerful incentive than the incentive created by hope of a better future and this is within the grasp of the peoples of the Horn of Africa that deserve a life free from anxieties, famines and all kinds of disasters. Public diplomacy will certainly have a role in paving the way or expediting the arrival of such a peaceful and normal period. It all depends how creatively the countries of the Horn region will be using the potentials of public diplomacy to this end. Even if conventional diplomacy will not come to end any time soon, public diplomacy will continue to play a supplementary role in the search for lasting and irreversible peace and economic development in the Horn of Africa. With a little more luck and hard work, this new diplomacy might even become the model for African diplomacy to follow in the future.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday January 5/2020
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
