Introduction: The Horn of Africa is a region that has been infested with conflicts. These conflicts arise between neighboring countries due to claims on their respective borders. Some of these claims are difficult to justify on historical grounds. Historical claims may not be accepted by all contenders if it counters their cause. Some newly independent countries have been accused of being expansionists. The AU decision to accept boundaries as they existed at the time of independence was meant to prevent such conflicts. Despite this decision the conflicts continued creating havoc in the region.
It is now common to see lives and properties annihilated by conflicting parties. To add fuel to the fire, the superpowers now give political and material support to each side. Such supports have not brought the conflicts to an end. In fact, the battle grounds of the Horn have been a scene of display of strength short of nuclear weapons.
The regional conflict in the Horn has been extreme and intense. Here rivalries and contentions have lasted for centuries. But, the clash between neighbors has developed into more than a simple local war because of the involvement of the superpowers. The wars are also intensified by the so called regional powers. Moreover, it is a rivalry brimming with sudden and dramatic changes of allegiance. These changes become melodramatic and sensational as they took place in the course of the war. It changes or shatters the close military relationships between the Horn countries and superpowers.
Situational Analysis: The historical causes of conflicts in the Horn of Africa require a deep analysis of the situation. Dr. Mohammed Ayoob examines the realities in the Horn, the impact of the European colonial powers and the rise of superpower involvement in there. In his analysis, close attention is given to the great changes which have occurred and contradictions which have taken place both in the “internal politics” and the “international alignments” of the Horn countries engaged in conflicts. After analyzing the wars in the Horn, Dr. Ayoob arrives at a conclusion related to the real influence the superpowers have on the region.
The problems on the Horn seem to have been intensified by the intrusion of the superpowers. But these problems have their roots in the colonial history of the region. Also, the problems of the post-colonial nation building have been compounded by the notions of the “borders drawn by the colonial powers.” These borders cut across ethnic, linguistic, tribal and national boundaries, and they are considered inviolable. Some of these countries have been faced by potential threats of secessionism.
To avoid these threats, the post-colonial elites or leaders tended to impose “sanctity on these boundaries.” The sanctity of these borders has proved to be difficult to sustain. Actual control of peripheral areas has been difficult to maintain. Also, actual interactions within political forces operating in these areas have proved to be nearly impossible.
The creation of an independent country intensified the development of national consciousness among its people. This required charismatic personalities who have been able to combine the “roles of religious messiah and national leader.” Such leaders are known for their “tactical brilliance and political virtuosity.” The consolidation of the colonial possessions by the powers ignited the national consciousness among the colonial subjects. It also provoked national aspirations among inhabitants in the colonies.
Frugal Existence: The effort of these brilliant leaders resulted in influencing the young activists to organize youth clubs. These clubs transformed themselves into opposition movements against colonial powers. Appreciating the strength of youth movements, the colonial powers experimented with programs of alleviating the economic miseries of the colonial subjects.
They removed artificial political boundaries to traditional sources of pasture and water to nomadic peoples. These nomadic people had been denied their “frugal existence” due to the political hindrance of the colonial powers. The economic experiment of the colonial powers to help the indigenous people in the colonies was a flawed one. It was perceived as a strategy of imperial expansion.
The colonial subjects have rich cultures; they enjoy rich oral literature, organize communal life around social institutions. They distinguish themselves from neighbors by emphasizing genealogies that stretch back to centuries. They manifest extreme devotions to religions that lead to intermittent conflicts. These conflicts served as inputs to “a shared sense of nationhood.” The political divisions imposed initially during the colonial scramble constitute the root cause of the problem in the Horn of Africa.
Superpower Involvement: The existing tensions and basic contradictions between neighboring countries of the Horn have exacerbated with superpower involvement in the region. This involvement has taken place for reasons which are not directly related or relevant to the rivalry of the Horn countries. The conflict potential of the region has been developed by its proximity to the areas of Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also, the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb are strategically important to Israel as they are located between the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Because of the West’s commitment particularly that of America, to the “absolute security” for the Jewish State, the powers are induced to be involved in the Horn. This commitment determined the policies of the West towards the Middle East. Thus, the conflicts in the Horn have been viewed by the West as extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The accession to power of radical regimes in the Horn attracted political support from Russia (former USSR). This situation further convinced the policy-makers in the West, particularly the US that the Horn had become an important area for the expansion of Russian political influence. On the Russian side, its involvement in the Horn has evolved from its desire to find forces that counter the US-supported regimes on the Red Sea area.
Russia’s interest was partly determined by its active role in the Indian Ocean and by its desire to acquire facilities on the coast of the ocean for its expanded naval deployment. Historically speaking, the Russians are late comers to the Horn. They started to form their official links to the governments of the Horn a decade or two after the US has established itself in the Horn as major external supporter and arms supplier. Russian relationship with some of the Horn countries started late to acquire warmth.
The superpowers tried to have foothold for their military bases in the Horn. Sometimes, they switched their affiliations with the different countries of the Horn. The US was convinced that defense of a friendly country of the Horn was essential to the defense of the “Free World.” The US has arms assistance agreement with which some countries of the Horn have been provided with military assistance and economic aid.
Dramatic Shifts: During the initial years of independence, some of the countries of the Horn were primarily dependent upon their former colonial masters. They were able to obtain external political support and supply of a limited amount of military hardware. These support tilted the regional balance of power from time to time. The affected country normally turned to the only other major source that could help “redress the regional imbalance.” This reflects that the superpowers played the game of balancing the power between the Horn countries. They are rather the pawns in superpowers’ games.
The superpowers attained strategic parity in terms of military and political capabilities. Having achieved such parity, Russia has not been averse to extending aid if it helped reduce the military superiority of US allies in the Horn. However, the relationships of the superpowers with the Horn countries have not been smooth. Unexpected dramatic events have caused “dramatic shifts” in international alignments. These made obsolete all traditional theories on regional conflicts and superpower involvement in the Horn.
Outbreak of wars in the Horn has led to great losses of equipment and trained personnel. The shift in international alignments in the Horn has changed the composition of arsenals as well. In exchange for military assistance, the Horn countries provided certain base facilities at their sea ports. Treaties of Friendship and Cooperation have been signed between superpowers and the countries of the Horn for the provision of training of the military personnel and the mastering of weapons and equipment. These treaties were designed to enhance the defense potential of the countries at war. These treaties were abrogated with switching of allegiance with the superpowers. These weapons contributed to the loss of both armed forces and a lot of equipment and trained personnel.
Domestic Changes and International Re-alignments: Change of governments and overthrow of leaders in the Horn created power vacuum. Their eventual replacements faced great upheavals. The people wanted political, economic and social reforms, which they had been denied for decades. Those leading the changes sometimes found themselves divided on the basis of policies and personalities. The leading groups locked themselves in a power struggle which results in a series of purges. This normally led to the emergence of a strongman as a leader. Such leaders associated themselves with the superpowers in order to shore up their power against local dissidents and secessionist forces.
There are colorful factors that attract superpowers to the Horn countries or disassociate with them. “Dependency and dependability” are crucial characteristics that attract superpowers to the region. “Self-confidence of the regimes in the region repels these powers by means of switching allegiance. Furthermore, these powers become confident enough of their leverage-political, military and economic- to retain loyalty of the Horn countries.
Tilt in Military Balance: The superpowers are optimistic about their capacity to impose their policies on the Horn by acting as Godfathers. Such optimism usually suffered from setbacks in the Horn. However, the pitfalls of breaking relations with a superpower and becoming exclusively dependent on another superpower could make the Horn country defenseless and desperate.
Its desperation arises from the probable dangers hidden in the unknown partner. Whatever the consequences may be the decision to break with a superpower is considered “historic.” Given unstable conditions in the Horn, military action against an inimical neighboring country “bolsters image.” It also reduces domestic oppositions supported by the hostile neighboring country.
The warring countries of the Horn worry about the adverse effects of a “tilt in the military balance.” To reverse this tilt, the affected country looks for insurgent groups against the government of a neighboring country. Insurgent groups engage in an all-out offensive against the enemy. This is prompted by the desire to take advantage of the military superiority one country has over the other.
This strategy is effective only until it is challenged by superior weaponry. This requires adaptation of the armed forces to superpower weapon-systems. Added to this is propaganda of discrediting of one regime by another and advocating for replacements. In the meantime, the regimes of the Horn are shopping for weapons whatever their sources may be for augmenting their military strength through the good offices of a third country. This country is neither partner nor supporter to the warring countries. It is only arms dealer.
A superpower gives time to re-assess its policy following statements and moves of a country of the Horn against it. It also looks for and steps in to fill the military and political gap left by another superpower in the Horn. One superpower challenges the other for influence in areas that are crucial to both. It consults “friends and allies” on how to supply arms to a Horn country. Normally weaponry is sent through third parties. Sometimes, superpowers vacillate in supporting a country in the Horn because of mistaken re-assessment of relations with it or due to influences of third countries in the area.
Distrust in the Horn: A superpower sometimes faces a dilemma on committing itself to assist a country in the Horn. It may have second thoughts about a major military and political commitment to make. If its commitment to provide weapons is to be a bone of contention with parliament, the superpower has to make realistic assessment of situations acceptable by all.
Pressure from parties or lobby groups interested in the Horn also affects the nature of superpower commitments. Also, outbreak of intensified conflicts in the region contributes to decisions to favor or reject supply of weaponry. Decisions to discontinue supply of weapons to traditional ally may have unintended result. It may affect future relation of the superpower with other warring countries. They may become suspicious of its intent in supporting them to fight against their enemy.
The Horn is part of the world where distrust of superpowers has become a matter of “political instinct.” Although some countries of the Horn gained their independence, they are still under the military protection of their former colonial masters. The former colonial powers intervene if they assess that their former colonial subjects were about to lose war.
They put pressure on the superpowers for consultation before taking any action. The superpower would also make its own assessment of what a projected victory of one country would mean to the regional political dynamics. They try to avoid “adding fuel to the fire.” Actually, a superpower considers teaching those countries “lessons for deserting their camp.” They use friendly “messages” to assuage rogue leaders. These messages are the last steps to break diplomatic relations with such leaders.
The political leverage of the Horn countries revolved around their claims of non-alignment. Managing such claims was a difficult task for the superpowers, making their diplomacy in the Horn a classic case of “incompetence and mismanagement.” After having made major investments in the Horn, superpowers made changes in their policy to completely transform the nature of conflicts in the region.
Each of the superpowers tried to simultaneously engage two or more countries that are engaged in conflicts. Studies pointed out that such a strategy was a misconceived one. The regimes of the Horn refuse to comply with superpowers’ proposal to change their stance and engage constructively with their fighting neighbors. Thus, they intend to maintain their relationship with a country that is abusive and expansionist. As a result, they find themselves on the “wrong side of history.”
Conclusion:
Natural and man-made conflicts in the countries of the Horn of Africa have caused the intrusion of superpowers in their internal affairs. These powers delivered weapons to the fighting parties that created havoc to the region. People perished in a conflict they have no idea about. It is only the nationalist ideologues and expansionists that lead their people to wars. These ideologues enlist with the superpowers seeking political and military support for their cause. These ideologues have nothing, but the desire to secure power for themselves in the name of their clan, tribe, ethnic, or national group. The superpowers, on the other hand, come into the picture with multiple purposes. The official purpose is to assist the downtrodden people of the Horn in their struggle against the ruling class.
Other purposes include exploitation of natural resources of the countries of the Horn. These countries have great potential in minerals, oil, fish, cattle and agriculture among others. The other attraction of the Horn is its strategic position in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The superpowers are causing trouble among the Horn countries or exacerbate existing ones just to have a foothold in the region. This is possible if only they could influence a country or two through economic assistance as an entry point. Once these purposes are achieved there is no reason for a superpower to leave the Horn. In fact, the region continues to attract other powers for the above stated purposes.
The countries of the Horn have the ambition of building their nation. They rejected the borders drawn by the colonial powers, which were considered inviolable. This led to conflict with neighboring countries. Such conflicts have been welcome by the superpowers as they provided opportunity for their involvement in the Horn.
As a major stakeholder in the region, Ethiopia has suffered from recurrent and interminable losses in all types of wars that occurred in and around it. It lost its people, property and land in these wars. The superpowers had been involved in creating or exacerbating its wars with neighboring countries. The losses are absolute and irredeemable, arresting the country’s political and socio-economic progresses.
Despite its rich and attractive potentials for development, the people of the country are being humiliated being shrouded in poverty, hunger, homelessness, landlessness, unemployment and emigration is search of jobs and better income abroad. The root of these problems though domestic in its nature, it has been amplified by its antagonistic traditional foreign powers who seek to dismember Ethiopia.
Yet, it survived for thousands of years as an independent country whose people live with pride, though rendered impoverished by divisive and undemocratic leaders. These leaders proved to be subservient to and guided by superpowers to selfishly maintain their personal power. I think that our current young leaders should take lessons from our past and be careful of invidiously divisive external influences.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 4 August 2019
BY GETACHEW MINAS
