United States Interventions And Conflict In Multinational Ethiopia

By combining the case study approach with in-depth historical and political analyses, this study examined U.S. intervention in multi-ethnic Ethiopia. Most studies of U.S. intervention in Ethiopia and the Horn have exclusively focused on the benevolent humanitarian aid aspect of intervention involving food aid and emergency assistance during and after civil wars. This research not only problematizes the traditional notion of intervention in Ethiopia, but most importantly it makes fundamental departures from traditional perspectives and examines the various forms of intervention as justifications for choosing narrowly-based authoritarian elites from Ethiopia's north. The objective of the study was to understand and describe why the United States has chosen the elites-led Ethiopian state as a linchpin in checking, containing or stamping out communism during the Cold War and terrorism during the era of the Global War on Terrorism. Multi-layered issues relating to the international aspect of U.S.-Ethiopia relations were examined using Morgenthau's and Mearsheimer's theory of realism. It applied Johan Galtung's theory of structural and direct violence theoretical lens and investigated the local structural and direct violence dimensions of U.S.-Ethiopia relations, which spans over a century and is probably the longest-running of U.S. ties with any countries in the sub-Saharan Africa. The study finds that during the eras of the Cold War and the Global War on Terrorism, the U.S. has militarized its foreign policy-driven interventions towards Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. The priority of this militarized relationship has focused on strengthening the military capabilities of known repressive Horn/Ethiopian regimes. As the U.S. militarized its relations with its communist and Islamic extremist rivals in the region, Ethiopia's northern elites also militarized their relationship with internal ethno-nationalist arch rivals and challengers, which the study confirms has contributed to massive human rights violations with impunity. As can be extrapolated from the study, U.S. foreign policy elites have starkly failed to analyze exactly whom they are entering into alliance and what the long-term impact of that would be among local groups in Ethiopia and the Horn. In the case of Ethiopia, America has chosen and legitimated narrowly-based unelected authoritarian leaders who oppress ethnic "Others" ACand whose terms of office go from two decades to four decades at times. The approach has alienated peoples of the political and power periphery who seek reform and representation in the state system privately owned by the centrist (northern) elites. If this trend is not addressed, the popular perception of the U.S. as a major benefactor of a brutal dictatorship is likely to further fuel legitimate popular resentments and threaten U.S. interests in Ethiopia and the Horn. It is recommended that present approaches need to be revised in order to ensure the sustainability of stability and counter-terrorism by empowering the majority who have long suffered massive human rights violations and structural injustices. The problem of U.S. intervention in Ethiopia is largely a problem of power politics. The U.S. has long sought to maximize its power in order to counter or defeat its ideological and Islamic extremist rivals in the broader Horn of Africa region. The study found that America's pursuit of stability has indirectly abetted pre-existing protracted ethno-nationalist conflicts by tacitly choosing to be on one side of the conflict because it wrongly perceives that its interest are best served that way. U.S. policy elites have been in denial about America's leverage in inducing positive change in Ethiopia although empirical evidence suggests the U.S. is one of the largest donors to Ethiopia. Thus, the main U.S. objectives have been achieving security and stability even when those objectives are expressed rhetorically/morally in terms of humanitarian assistance, the promotion of human rights and democratization. On the domestic front, the study finds that the new Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law, the legislation of which is inspired by America's counter-terrorism campaigns in the Horn, has served as a tool for legitimizing massive human rights violations. The law has effectively institutionalized structural and direct violence against opposition parties and members of the non-ruling ethnic groups such as the Oromo and the Ogaden-Somali peoples. The use of the law has taken on a whole new trajectory that even the United States did not anticipate as its victims are so far mainly civilian opponents as opposed to proven terrorists. This study finds that the law has systematically contributed to dismantling dissent and freedom of speech, which are structural issues. The mono-ethnic state ownership itself is proof of the power imbalances in favor of one group in a fundamentally multiethnic state where the majority are systematically silenced and disadvantaged. The study reviewed negotiation theory and practice and pinpointed that the application of negotiation as a method of conflict resolution in Ethiopia has been precarious thus far. The study recommended that viable formal and informal negotiations must begin with a view to altering the power asymmetry between northern elites and south Ethiopian peoples. Attempts at negotiated settlements that do not take into account ways of addressing the entrenched problem of mono-ethnic state ownership is bound to face rejections from armed and peaceful opposition in the periphery. It proposed comprehensive negotiations that can lead to the creation of innovative sustainable social contracts in the interests of all local and international stakeholders in the conflict.

By combining the case study approach with in-depth historical and political analyses, this study examined U.S. intervention in multi-ethnic Ethiopia. Most studies of U.S. intervention in Ethiopia and the Horn have exclusively focused on the benevolent humanitarian aid aspect of intervention involving food aid and emergency assistance during and after civil wars. This research not only problematizes the traditional notion of intervention in Ethiopia, but most importantly it makes fundamental departures from traditional perspectives and examines the various forms of intervention as justifications for choosing narrowly-based authoritarian elites from Ethiopia's north. The objective of the study was to understand and describe why the United States has chosen the elites-led Ethiopian state as a linchpin in checking, containing or stamping out communism during the Cold War and terrorism during the era of the Global War on Terrorism. Multi-layered issues relating to the international aspect of U.S.-Ethiopia relations were examined using Morgenthau's and Mearsheimer's theory of realism. It applied Johan Galtung's theory of structural and direct violence theoretical lens and investigated the local structural and direct violence dimensions of U.S.-Ethiopia relations, which spans over a century and is probably the longest-running of U.S. ties with any countries in the sub-Saharan Africa. The study finds that during the eras of the Cold War and the Global War on Terrorism, the U.S. has militarized its foreign policy-driven interventions towards Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. The priority of this militarized relationship has focused on strengthening the military capabilities of known repressive Horn/Ethiopian regimes. As the U.S. militarized its relations with its communist and Islamic extremist rivals in the region, Ethiopia's northern elites also militarized their relationship with internal ethno-nationalist arch rivals and challengers, which the study confirms has contributed to massive human rights violations with impunity. As can be extrapolated from the study, U.S. foreign policy elites have starkly failed to analyze exactly whom they are entering into alliance and what the long-term impact of that would be among local groups in Ethiopia and the Horn. In the case of Ethiopia, America has chosen and legitimated narrowly-based unelected authoritarian leaders who oppress ethnic "Others" ACand whose terms of office go from two decades to four decades at times. The approach has alienated peoples of the political and power periphery who seek reform and representation in the state system privately owned by the centrist (northern) elites. If this trend is not addressed, the popular perception of the U.S. as a major benefactor of a brutal dictatorship is likely to further fuel legitimate popular resentments and threaten U.S. interests in Ethiopia and the Horn. It is recommended that present approaches need to be revised in order to ensure the sustainability of stability and counter-terrorism by empowering the majority who have long suffered massive human rights violations and structural injustices. The problem of U.S. intervention in Ethiopia is largely a problem of power politics. The U.S. has long sought to maximize its power in order to counter or defeat its ideological and Islamic extremist rivals in the broader Horn of Africa region. The study found that America's pursuit of stability has indirectly abetted pre-existing protracted ethno-nationalist conflicts by tacitly choosing to be on one side of the conflict because it wrongly perceives that its interest are best served that way. U.S. policy elites have been in denial about America's leverage in inducing positive change in Ethiopia although empirical evidence suggests the U.S. is one of the largest donors to Ethiopia. Thus, the main U.S. objectives have been achieving security and stability even when those objectives are expressed rhetorically/morally in terms of humanitarian assistance, the promotion of human rights and democratization. On the domestic front, the study finds that the new Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law, the legislation of which is inspired by America's counter-terrorism campaigns in the Horn, has served as a tool for legitimizing massive human rights violations. The law has effectively institutionalized structural and direct violence against opposition parties and members of the non-ruling ethnic groups such as the Oromo and the Ogaden-Somali peoples. The use of the law has taken on a whole new trajectory that even the United States did not anticipate as its victims are so far mainly civilian opponents as opposed to proven terrorists. This study finds that the law has systematically contributed to dismantling dissent and freedom of speech, which are structural issues. The mono-ethnic state ownership itself is proof of the power imbalances in favor of one group in a fundamentally multiethnic state where the majority are systematically silenced and disadvantaged. The study reviewed negotiation theory and practice and pinpointed that the application of negotiation as a method of conflict resolution in Ethiopia has been precarious thus far. The study recommended that viable formal and informal negotiations must begin with a view to altering the power asymmetry between northern elites and south Ethiopian peoples. Attempts at negotiated settlements that do not take into account ways of addressing the entrenched problem of mono-ethnic state ownership is bound to face rejections from armed and peaceful opposition in the periphery. It proposed comprehensive negotiations that can lead to the creation of innovative sustainable social contracts in the interests of all local and international stakeholders in the conflict.

Increased tensions along the Ethiopian- Eritrean border —in a context of internal political turmoil in Ethiopia, increasing political repression in Eritrea, and recent developments in Somalia —raise concerns of expanding instability in the strategically important Horn of Africa. Avoiding Conflict in the Horn of Africa urges the United States to take the risks and spend the resources necessary to resolve the Ethiopia-Eritrea border conflict and thereby reduce tension in the region. It argues that Washington should pressure Ethiopia to demarcate the border and Eritrea to lift restrictions on the UN peacekeeping mission that monitors the border. Washington must also make clear to both countries the costs of continuing to suppress internal dissent —and highlight the benefits of initiating real internal reform and regional cooperation. In addition, the administration should be prepared to cut bilateral assistance programs and enact sanctions if political conditions deteriorate further. Finally, the United States, international donors, and organizations should support long-term peace-building initiatives.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted again the precarious situation aid agencies find themselves in, caught as they are between the firing lines of the hostile parties, as they are trying to alleviate the plight of the civilian populations. This book offers an illuminating case study from a previous conflict, the Italo-Ethiopian war of 1935-36, and of the humanitarian operation of the Red Cross during this period. Based on fresh material from Red Cross and Italian military archives, the author examines highly controversial subjects such as the Italian bombings of Red Cross field hospitals, the treatment of Prisoners of War by the two belligerents; and the effects of Fascist Italy’s massive use of poison gas against the Ethiopians. He shows how Mussolini and his ruthless regime, throughout the seven-month war, manipulated the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) – the lead organization of the Red Cross in times of war, helped by the surprising political naïveté of its board. During this war the ICRC redefined its role in a debate, which is fascinating not least because of its relevance to current events, about the nature of humanitarian action. The organization decided to concern itself exclusively with matters falling under the Geneva Conventions and to give priority to bringing relief over expressing protest. It was a decision that should have far-reaching consequences, particularly for the period of World War II and the fate of Jews in Nazi concentration camps.

Shows how regional and international interventions, combined with piracy, have compounded pre-existing tensions in the Horn of Africa.

"The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic marks the most significant, singular global disruption since World War II, with health, economic, political, and security implications that will ripple for years to come." -Global Trends 2040 (2021) Global Trends 2040-A More Contested World (2021), released by the US National Intelligence Council, is the latest report in its series of reports starting in 1997 about megatrends and the world's future. This report, strongly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, paints a bleak picture of the future and describes a contested, fragmented and turbulent world. It specifically discusses the four main trends that will shape tomorrow's world: - Demographics-by 2040, 1.4 billion people will be added mostly in Africa and South Asia. - Economics-increased government debt and concentrated economic power will escalate problems for the poor and middleclass. - Climate-a hotter world will increase water, food, and health insecurity. - Technology-the emergence of new technologies could both solve and cause problems for human life. Students of trends, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, journalists and anyone eager for a glimpse into the next decades, will find this report, with colored graphs, essential reading.

This book chronicles foreign political and military interventions in Africa from 1956 to 2010, helping readers understand the historical roots of Africa's problems.

This book identifies the conditions under which foreign countries intervene in civil wars, contending that we should consider four dimensions of civil war intervention. The first dimension is the civil war itself. The characteristics of the civil war itself are important determinants of a third party’s decision making regarding intervention. The second dimension is the characteristics of intervening states, and includes their capabilities and domestic political environments. The third is the relationship between the host country and the intervening country. These states’ formal alliances and the differences in military capability between the target country and the potential intervener have an impact on the decision making process. The fourth dimension is the relationship between the interveners. This framework of four dimensions proves critical in understanding foreign intervention in civil wars. Based on this framework, the model for the intervention mechanism can reflect reality better. By including the relationships between the interveners here, the book shows that it is important to distinguish between intervention on the side of the government and intervention on behalf of the opposition. Without distinguishing between these, it is impossible to consider the concepts of counter-intervention and bandwagoning intervention.

Responsibility to Protect: Research, bibliography, background. Supplementary volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty