|
Ethiopia made a bold diplomatic move this past week
as six of the eight members of Norway's Embassy
staff were given until September 15, 2007, to cease
duties in Addis Abeba. The decision to expel
representatives of one of the larger donor countries
came as a "surprise" to the Nordic country's
officials; the circumstances leading to the decision
leave many questions about the manner in which the
move was made public.
Staying true to established political character, the
Ethiopian government released the information of the
dismissal along with non-specific statements
lambasting Norway's behaviour in the Horn of Africa.
Telling Norway to refrain from "clandestine and
underground activities contravening international
law" and claiming it used "spoilers" which
destabilise peace and security represent harsh
language.
The problem with the statements is that they leave a
critical observer wandering just what dastardly
actions could elicit such denouncements.
It is not uncommon for the government to rely on
strong language and catch words over documented
evidence to justify its actions. The same approach
was seen two weeks ago when the Human Rights Watch
report on the Somalia war was denounced as
uninformed propaganda meant to destroy Ethiopia's
reputation. Upon closer examination, it gave clear
instances of 'insurgent' inhumanity and could have
been used to explain some of the harsh actions of
the Ethiopian military in the heat of battle.
The strategy of the government in these two media
campaigns appears to be one of using vague language
to completely discredit outside sources of authority
on local matters. However, by attempting to
monopolise truth in this manner, the discerning
individual seeking more detailed information is
forced to go to the same sources that the government
is attempting to wrest clout from, the international
media. It is only then that a deeper, though not
always correct, view of the situation may be
garnered.
When Norway is accused of playing a "negative role"
in the region, it certainly deserves an explanation
when it results in drastic diplomatic moves.
On the Norwegian part, Raymond Johansen, state
secretary in the Foreign Ministry, was quoted as
saying "Ethiopian officials were not pleased with
Norway's efforts to arrange a meeting of the United
Nations (UN) Ethiopian-Eritrea Border Commission"
later this month. This eight-year conflict that has
caused tragedies on both sides and cost the UN over
one billion dollars no doubt is a pressing issue and
sensitive for the Ethiopian government.
The point is not that there is no reason to suspect
that Norway may have acted out of line. In fact, it
has faced harsh criticism for its diplomatic
relationships in developing countries such as Sri
Lanka and Nepal for its strategies in dealing with
the Tamil Tigers and Maoists, respectively.
It is rather necessary for the Ethiopian government
to distinguish its complaints on Norway's behaviour
from the numerous other groups it categorises as
hindrances to peace and friends of Ethiopia's foes.
Otherwise, such broad generalisations will only
result in more scepticism of the government's
actions as incoherence throws the door open to
speculation in the motives of a government often
criticised for its human rights record.
The timing of the event has spurned rather negative
comparisons in the international media that should
not be welcomed by a country putting great efforts
into polishing its world image. The recent decision
by Sudan's government to expel Canadian, European
Union (EU) and the United States (US) country
director of the international aid group CARE, have
given ample room due to geographical position for
the press to spin Ethiopia's actions as part and
parcel of the strategy of Horn of Africa countries
to suppress outside criticism.
Whether warranted or not, this is not the type of
publicity the country needs and signals the
necessity to send a more clear message to avoid such
groupings.
The effect of the diplomatic message appears to have
two immediate reactions. The first step by the
Norwegian government is to announce the possibility
of a reduction of Embassy managed aid from about 100
million Kroner (153 million Br) to around 30 million
Kroner (46 million Br), though the majority of its
annual aid is filtered through organisations such as
the UN. Despite the fact that the move was said to
originate from a lack of Embassy capacity because of
the reduced staff and not because of retaliation, it
is money a poor country could make good use of.
The firmer message encoded in the Ethiopian
government's actions seems to be one of independence
from perceived manipulation by donor countries in
the face of possibilities of aid reduction. This
significance will sound louder to remaining
diplomatic and aid entities to take care in their
decision-making as the government is not afraid to
lose money for standing strong in its aims.
While it is laudable for a government to remain
independent from foreign money in its policy
pursuits, this tamer message is not what emanates
from expelling the Norwegian Embassy staff. Rather,
without sufficient explanation, the government is
saying to other organisations 'do not go against our
interests in any way or else'.
This is not the positive and pragmatic diplomacy
that will enhance Ethiopia's image and make for good
relationships.
|
