Eritrea-Ethiopian War: US Double Standard
War Looms between Eritrea and Ethiopia due to U.S. Neglect and Double Standard
By Yohannes Woldemariam*
Oct20, 2005 — Once again, a war is looming between Ethiopia and Eritrea. This potentially tragic war could be prevented, if only the United States would take International Law seriously. The US which negotiated the agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia, in tandem with the African Union (AU), has largely ignored the issue, despite its interest in regional stability. The AU has remained largely silent as well. The UN Security Council remains relatively unengaged and preoccupied with other responsibilities, despite sponsoring the ceasefire and overseeing the legal process which finally awarded Badme (the flashpoint of the conflict) to Eritrea. Ethiopia has balked from fulfilling its end of the bargain and has refused to abide by the verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Abraham McLaughlin+ gives two reasons for U.S. reluctance to pressure Ethiopia to accept the verdict.
– 1. “Ethiopia is a major player in terms of American counter-terror strategy,” Therefore the US is reluctant to push Ethiopia too hard. Ethiopia’s value to the US stems in part from the region’s geography. The nation shares a long stretch of border with Somalia, a lawless country where Al Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups have been known to operate. In fact, according to the International Crisis Group, Ethiopian security forces operate in Somalia, including in the major city of Mogadishu. US officials have warned in recent months that if Al Qaeda operatives ever leave Iraq, they may head for Somalia.”
– 2. “Another reason for US and western reluctance to arm-twist Ethiopia is apparent concern that Ethiopia’s ruling party isn’t strong enough to withstand the storm of domestic criticism that would ensue if it gave up Badme and other disputed areas. There’s worry the already fragile country could well fall apart.”
The two reasons given above are in contradiction with each other. How can a country that is unable to fulfill an international agreement and might even collapse if it does so, be an anchor for U.S. policy in the Horn of Africa? Ethiopia is a fragile empire state held together by western aid. U.S. policy doesn’t make sense!
Sadly, such flawed geopolitical calculations that historically privileged Ethiopian rulers over the other people of the Horn of Africa had fueled conflict and defined the entire 20th century history of the region. The Horn of Africa had never experienced peace and stability. The cause of the chronic conflict is embedded in the socioeconomic structure and the power differentials that exist between the Abyssinians (Amharas and Tigreans) vis-à-vis the various ethnic groups that inhabit the country and the neighboring states including Eritrea and Somalia. The role that global powers have played served to tilt the balance of power in favor of the minority Abyssinians. There is a firmly held consensus among scholars that aid affects the balance of power among competing actors which in turn perpetuates inequality. British, German and American policy makers and others have been susceptible to the academic reproduction of the Ethiocentric views.
In the latest American view, Ethiopia is the key country in the Horn for fighting terrorism. But this perception ignores the intrinsic complex dynamics and the make-up of the Ethiopian empire state. The assumption fails to appreciate the diversity of the various identities in the country. One hopes that the lesson learnt from the attacks of September 11 2001 is that, where repression and despair rule, extremism and violence breed. Ethiopian meddling in Somalia, instead of preventing terrorism, provides the fodder for the birth of al Qaeda-linked Jihadists. Somalia’s 10 million populations are historically hostile to the hegemonic regional influence of their large neighbor Ethiopia. U.S policy is misguided in using Ethiopia to fight terrorism in Somalia. It does not take much insight into the regions politics to predict that it will have the opposite effect.
The second reason given is also unjust and will not serve U.S. interests. Meles continues to use Eritrea to prove his authenticity as an Ethiopian. As the Economist aptly observed: “Mr Meles saw the war as a chance to establish his nationalist credentials. A Tigrayan from the north, he was linked with the Eritreans in the war against Mengistu Haile Mariam’s dictatorship, and had long been suspected of being Mr Issaias’s pawn.” Since then, his fall out with his Tigrean comrades has made his power base increasingly narrower and his position much more untenable. Meles is in even more of a political tight rope since that comment was made and particularly since the summer 2005 elections, with his legitimacy widely challenged by the Ethiopian opposition which accuses him of rigging the elections.
Internal political dynamics in Ethiopia had historically sought catharsis by scapegoating Eritrea. The literary anthropologist Rene Girard writes about sacrificial crisis and the notion of the Katharma. For the ritual of catharsis, the Katharma plays a central role. It is the sacrificial victim that stands in for an “evil object.” The Katharma’s suffering is equated with the “expulsion of impurities,” not only in the human body, but also in the entire community. It cleanses while it suffers. Girard notes that “the word catharsis refers primarily to the mysterious benefits that accrue to the community upon the death of the human Katharma.” In medicine, a catharsis is a form of treatment that aggravates “the symptoms, bringing about a salutary crisis that will lead to recovery.” It appears that Ethiopian nationalism needs Eritrea as a Katharma to maintain a semblance of coherence. Without a process of sacrificial regeneration, the presumed ideological coherence of Ethiopia falls in crisis. Leaving Eritrea and Eritreans alone, and the resulting absence of adequate sacrifice puts Ethiopia in a state of collective identity crisis. In other words, hostility, war and rituals of violence against Eritreans give Ethiopia a form of domestic ideological coherence and allow the inherent tensions of Ethiopian society to be temporarily dispelled. Badme is again being offered as a cathartic moment and space, a cleansing time and place that return things to a level of “normality” through the renewed play of ritualistic hatred and violence against Eritrea and Eritreans. Meles is determined not to be outdone by the Ethiopian opposition, which desperately wants to again use Eritrea as its Katharma in order to regenerate itself. The Hague verdict seems to have been overtaken by domestic political and strategic considerations. Does the U.S. really want to be used in this Ethiopian game which thrives by victimizing Eritrea?
It is more fitting of a superpower to support international law and norms. If the U.S. takes international law seriously, even Koffi Annan will follow suit. Unfortunately, the Bush doctrine seems to be emerging from the post-9-11 era deeply committed to double standards as a means of preserving U.S. hegemony. This can only weaken the human-rights institutions and International law. However, there is no substitute to International law to put forward the best face of America, the activist face that promotes human rights and the rule of law which can be internalized into the domestic law of even resistant nation states like Ethiopia.
*Yohannes Woldemariam is an Eritrean living in the U.S.
+ Abraham McLaughlin, Tensions rise in Horn of Africa: Ethiopia’s prime minister said Wednesday, that Eritrean forces are sneaking into a demilitarized border zone, The Christian Science Monitor, 10/25/2005.