What the recent bilateral talks tell us about U.S.-Ethiopia relations
Annette C. Sheckler 11/06/09
A great deal has been written predicting a shift in the United States’ relationship with Ethiopia under the new Obama Administration. After yesterday’s bilateral talks between Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, these dire predictions can finally be put to rest. It is clear that Ethiopia and the United States share fundamental values and interests in democratization, economic growth and development, and the security and military matters that affect not only the region but the security interests of the United States as well.
Democracy, as Americans understand it, is a core American value and most agree that democracy-building should be a core value of U.S. foreign policy. However, there is a great deal of debate today, particularly within the Democratic Party, as to, tactically, how the U.S. should pursue this foreign policy goal. While there is general agreement within the Democratic Party to repudiate the blunt force of the Bush Administration’s democracy-promotion (especially through regime-change), there are differences between those who favor a more traditional, quiet diplomacy and those who question whether American democracy can—or should—be exported abroad.
What seems clear in this debate is a recognition and acknowledgement of the context of democracy-promotion, which ideally, will shape and drive a foreign policy agenda with more substance than form. In the words of President Obama, he said that he wanted to promote democracy abroad “through a lens that is actually delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.”
And this is where the Ethiopian government and the Obama Administration appear to be in agreement in terms of democracy-promotion. No one can reasonably argue against the challenges of advancing democracy in a country with a legacy of bad governance, crippling poverty, a fractious political culture and hostile neighbors, just to name a few of the major challenges. All in all, Ethiopia lives in a bad neighborhood that will get worse before it gets better. In the meantime, the Government of Ethiopia is actually, quoting President Obama, “delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.”
What is also clear is the agreement between Ethiopia and the United States concerning “good aid” and “bad aid.” “Bad aid” perpetuates dependence, erodes institutions and can increase rent-seeking and corruption. “Good aid” is a long-term investment in breaking the cycle of dependence, building institutions and lays the groundwork for sustainable growth. Initiatives such as the U.S. Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative that address agricultural production share the core economic principles laid out in the Ethiopian Government’s Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization.
Finally, the United States and Ethiopia see what is real in the Horn of Africa as opposed to what we want it to be. Somalia is a failed state. Eritrea is a failed state. Al Shabab is a threat not only to the Horn of Africa but to the United States as well. Eritrea provides major support to al Shabab. These are facts. The close military and security cooperation between Ethiopia and the United States is crucial to Ethiopia, to the region, to the continent, to the United States and to the global community.
Does this mean that there will not be disagreements between Ethiopia and the United States? Of course not—both are sovereign states with national interests that may, at times, diverge.
The bottom line, however, is clarity about the U.S. Government’s views towards Ethiopia under the new Administration. Let us congratulate both delegations on a job well done.