|
United States (US) Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice's visit last week comes at a crucial time in
the Horn of Africa. It is certainly of significance
to all parties involved in the ministerial meetings
that the leading diplomat of the world's hegemonic
power would step foot on the continent. But the
outcome of any such consultations remains ambiguous.
With tensions simmering - and in some cases boiling -
across the region, Rice's trip seemed in order.
High-level diplomatic shuttling is usually symbolic
in nature, at least to the public eye.
The second visit to the continent and first to Addis Abeba,
headquarters of the African Union (AU), is
definitely a statement that the US feels the need to
engage diplomatically with the conflict-ridden area,
or at least appear to. Taking time out from the
recently intensified efforts to broker peace in the
Middle East is a stance in itself.
But the US, like most of the international community,
appears hesitant to take firm positions on many of
the deeply-entrenched conflicts. History bears this
out.
For many Americans, the talk of Somalia brings to
mind the foreign policy blunder of 1991 when Siad
Barre was overthrown and the fated 'Black Hawk'
incident brought brutal images of US troops being
dragged through Mogadishu's streets into living
rooms. The same has tragically happened to Ethiopian
forces though the nature of self-censored media here
means that these pictures need to be sought out.
Past aiding diplomatic endeavours and peacekeepers on
financial terms and heaving a few missiles from
battle ships stationed in the Red Sea, the US
appears unwilling to go much farther. One of few
concrete statements made by Secretary Rice was to
allot 59 million dollars to the lone representative
of the promised 8,000 African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM),
the 1,500-strong Ugandan force. This is a most
welcome commitment.
With bigger fish to fry as Russia resumes its adversarial
position and the quagmire in Iraq sending disabled
Americans home almost daily, it is surprising to see
any US engagement in one of the poorest regions on
earth. Official statements from the State Department
show the strategy of buying time and passing
responsibility to other parties for these messy
matters that do not offer immediate solutions or
concrete gains.
Regarding the recently heightened tensions with the
dissolution of the United Nations Ethiopia-Eritrea
Border Commission (UNEEBC), the US official stance
simply encourages dialogue - which is sadly lacking
- and respect for previous conventions, namely the
2000 Algiers Agreement. More tellingly, State
Department releases on the seldom recognised
Somaliland state defer to decisions coming from the
AU. The area that has enjoyed relative stability
compared to its southern neighbour is now attracting
oil exploration investment, thus upping the ante for
stakeholders.
But the US's reliance on action from the AU here and on
Nigeria and Burundi to send their forces to Somalia
is not likely to pay-off in providing an exit
strategy for Ethiopian troops in Somalia anytime
soon. The usual calls to make good on promises last
week probably will fall on deaf ears, though the aid
to Uganda may provide positive incentive for others
to follow in its footsteps.
It may be that the AU is just unreliable and slow to react
to such crises. But placing blame on an
under-resourced organisation that represents most of
the poorest countries would not be entirely fair.
While AU forces should obviously replace Ethiopian forces
in the peacekeeping mission to the East, as they
would be a little more neutral than a country
sharing a border and with strong ethnic ties, it may
not be just a question of resources. The situation
in Somalia has proved to be more of a headache than
was anticipated.
After announcing victory over the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC),
guerrilla warfare has raged for almost a year now.
It is more than reasonable for any of the other
African nations to be hesitant to get involved in
what could be considered nation-building. Moreover,
the dangers of entering a conflict that is depicted
as having religious dimensions is more than most
nations faced with their own set of domestic
problems would want to enter.
The sad truth for the Horn of Africa as reflected from
Rice's visit is that the gains for most of the
self-interested international community are limited
from throwing huge resources here as opposed
oil-rich Iraq. Though it would be in the interest of
all parties, locally as well as internationally, to
see lasting settlement to the variety of conflicts,
it appears to be too costly or complicated for those
influential outside forces to stomach.
For now it appears as if most are willing to let tensions
simmer and keep a watchful eye to insure they do not
spill over to unacceptable levels. This leaves an
eerie unsettled feeling in the Horn's regional
superpower.
|
