Dear Kumsa,
Having read your usual fascinating analysis of US policy in the Horn of Africa, I was intrigued once more to make few comments of my own. Let me start from the first paragraph upon which your commentary is based. "Is America using Ethiopia or is Ethiopia using America". The relation between the two countries, in my opinion, is not about who uses who most, but about how much of their interests intersect. As you so eloquently put it, Ethiopia is not the sort of state that can be taken for a ride especially now when its foreign policy is based on a solid foundation of principles and its economic growth and influence in international politics growing ever stronger.
Ethiopian policy makers don't spring from the illusive fear- 'what will the Americans say?"- in their policy making process, but dwell on the realistic notion of 'how will the US fit in the implementation of Ethiopian Foreign Policy objectives". Therefore, if at all either country has used the other more; it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a negative development merely because the situation is created from the natural foreign policy approach of advancing one's interest. I am sure neither the laypersons in US diplomatic circles nor Ethiopian diplomats say Ethiopia is being exploited because it creates thousands of jobs for Americans by buying Boeing planes doing its part in helping the US economy pick up. One might add these are items the country could get, perhaps with a better deal, from airbus. So why waste time on an argument that doesn't hold water. Here, I wouldn't want to appear divergent from what you stated as not being true but only remarking on what should be.
Although the fundamentals of advancing one's own national interest is a classical and realist approach in understanding foreign policy, the process upon which such interests are defined is also important in understanding the foreign policy options that each country implements in the process. For Ethiopia, the process is also based on a long culture of keeping friendship intact and at times paying one's neck for the sake of promises and even bogus friendships. Ethiopians usually find it very hard to betray a friend in need for the sake of expediency. Historical ties and long standing friendship are values that carry more meaning than temporary marriages of convenience. As it is often the case, Ethiopian policy makers, even the dictators, were keen to observe historical ties and were willing to make friends even out of enemies than vise versa. They are also adamant that they would rather listen to even discordant counsel from friends, than even seemingly rational warnings from powers that appear to be dictating terms.
In the US, on the other hand, where interests from a multitude of group and individual sources have to be juggled by policy makers, pragmatism far out weigh sentiments and historical ties. Sentiments such as longstanding friendships could overnight be changed for the sake of wining a certain policy interest in the horse trading market of Washington.
The way the American policy makers think and the environment of working with a multitude of interests is therefore alien to Ethiopia. Even years after the lessons of the US position taken during the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia and then the way the Imperial regime was treated by the US in the presence of a clear danger to the country's security, Ethiopians still couldn't fully comprehend that the US gives more worth to current interests than a century old relation and friendship. To add fuel to the flame, Ethiopia has never really been seen as a partner but as a horse to ride on until very recently. Even now, the US has continued to put emphasis on the pragmatism of its foreign policy, giving Ethiopia invaluable and timeless lessons of how its interaction with the US should be handled.
As your good self has observed, the current situation in Somalia is an issue of great importance that could put the relations between Ethiopia and the US to a test. The Obama administration, instead of revisiting and revising its policy as some had hoped, has continued advancing the interests that were defined and were being advanced with a military hat during the Bush Administration, with a diplomacy hat; namely, advancing US interest of dealing with an impending doom to the US with little regard to its consequences to the countries of the region. We should never forget that US fundamental interest in Africa is Security and Oil. The other clichés such us Democracy, Human Rights, Good Governance and Free Trade are mostly a means to achieve a US end. This is vividly demonstrated in the case of Eritrea where in spite of the mind-boggling negative human rights, religious rights, democracy and good governance records of Eritrea, the US remained to be a paper tiger that issues endless warnings that began with the Bush administration. Risking being tagged a skeptic; I never really believed that the Bush Administration would put Eritrea in the Terror sponsoring state list. It was only a brilliant stunt to make Ethiopia believe that the US is on the side of the right. We shouldn't also forget that Eritrea is not an oil state that the US should go through the troubles of putting it side by side with Sudan.
The US never failed to look for ways to work with classical dictators such us Eritrea's President H.E. Issayas Afeworki. It should not be a surprise if the Obama Administration continues to do the same. It only shows continuity of the US foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. The Eritrean regime very well knows that the stick will not be used and has made sure that there is no carrot that hangs on the tip of the stick against its policy of being the havoc bull in the barn. Especially during the time of the Obama administration where the likes of Donald Payne are in the most influential persons list on US Africa Policy.
The Obama Africa team has also continued in the same tempo, even ignoring the African Union's effort to make Eritrea accountable for its actions. That is a clear continuation of the US posture of hoping to be seen as an independent arbitrator and getting everything that each country could offer regardless of the common clichés that the US boasts as pillars of its foreign policy engagement.
The US will naturally continue to advance its interest and so will Ethiopia. So far Ethiopia and the US have found many crosscutting interests that made cooperation possible and discords manageable. Those crosscutting interests defined what diplomatically is narrated as a mature relation between the two countries decorated with the oratory of a hundred years of friendship. If however, Ethiopia finds itself cornered into having to live with disregard to its regional security interest; will it make a historical error of compromising interests for the sake of blank friendships? I personally doubt that it will make use of such harmful cultural practices.
Currently, Ethiopia's outstanding interests that often bring issues with the US appear to revolve around 4 major issues.
1. Rapid economic development
2. Democratization
3. The security of its internal peace and stability
4. The peace and stability of the region.
In all these major interests, Ethiopia has been playing a decisive role on its own. But these very broadly and perhaps incompletely enumerated interests are often raised as issues of contention with the US.
The US is often defined as ardent supporter of economic growth in Ethiopia. No doubt it was once defined us the highest ranking bilateral aid provider to Ethiopia in terms of the total sum of money that it grants. At times the US friendship was defined by laypersons who don't fully comprehend the domestic dynamics of US aid as being stable even at times of political turmoil in Ethiopia. But the US never failed to ignore the repeated appeals of Ethiopia to change the seasonal emergency aid to meaningful aid package that would help get the country out of poverty. I should add, though with regret, this is in direct correlation with US foreign policy objectives that resulted from the strong farm lobby in congress that no person in Ethiopia should cry over. I personally wonder if the US has any positive role in the Mega projects in Ethiopia that obviously are making a visible dent on poverty.
As much as the US has made it its business to help democracy grow in Ethiopia, it never failed to periodically insult the credibility of the system while down playing the obvious advances in the process of democratization, decentralization and the protection of human rights. That has lately been the loudest contention between the two countries. Issues such as laws that guide NGO, anti Terror and Press are only part of that posture of the US, of never failing to ridicule the Ethiopian government efforts to assert rule of law in the country. The US has, deliberately or naively, has negatively impacted the natural growth of democracy by giving moral and ideological direction to opposition parties. How these issues of governance will be handled in the future will no doubt affect the cordial, inherently quite and under the table dispute management mechanisms between the two countries to a more verbal and public roar.
US policy makers don't seem to realize that their oath- I solemnly swear to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic...-also is an oath in Ethiopia. The US is willing to entertain groups that would, if they can, wreak havoc in Ethiopia. The US does not mind to let them spread hate propaganda from the US and is letting them raise money and function in all possible manners even in the capital of the US. If a high ranking ONLF official, a decision maker in a terrorist organization responsible for massacring civilians, can travel to the US and/or reside or even ask to have talks with US government officials and be allowed to do so under the highest possible secrecy, indeed the friendship between Ethiopia and the US is superficial. I will not dare go as far as saying the friend of my enemy is my enemy but maybe at times ought to dare to say the reverse. I am sure US policy makers will not be too happy with that comment but that is not the intention of this commentary.
Regional peace and stability in the horn is a common goal for both the US and Ethiopia. But how it is being handled can at times don't require a close observer to see the divergence. US diplomats could go as far as appearing in peace negotiations and slam Ethiopia's efforts to bring an amicable solution to the Somali problem.
I have no issue over the fact that US policy will not change in the Horn in the foreseeable future. But I am also inclined to deduct that the Ethiopian position towards the US may shift given the dynamics in the Horn of Africa and particularly in Ethiopia.
The good news however is that, Ethiopia today has the economic, political and military capability to decisively deal with any security threat from any direction unlike during the Emperor's time where no American help meant a big blow to the very existence of the system itself. Even the food aid to which till now, I like most Ethiopians am so grateful for, but which the US used to systematically subsidize its farmers in spite of uproar from Europe, is very unlikely to continue much longer as a tap in the back in the present back drop of continuous economic growth.
I do hope my analysis and understanding of the issues are in addition and complementing your own. Once more appreciating your insight in the relations between Ethiopia and the US, I bid you farewell until next time.
Best Regards,
A.Tesfaye