|
Every issue has two sides. This is especially the
case with a topic as controversial as the degree
of international presence in a developing country.
Power asymmetries between wealthy influencers and
poor host nations, as well as discrepancies between
cultural and legal systems conflate an already
sensitive subject.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on numerous occasions
proudly proclaimed that Ethiopia will not be a
Western pawn. A recent interview with the United
Kingdom (UK) newspaper, The Guardian, bears
this out as Meles lambasted the international
community for not understanding the local context.
Comments about the country not being a ‘banana
republic’ after the July political pardons show this
firm stance.
Nonetheless, in the age of globalisation, and with
Ethiopia seeking World Trade Organisation (WTO)
membership that only comes after a comprehensive
package of economic liberalisation, it is difficult
for the any nation to avoid significant foreign
influence, no matter how dogmatically opposed.
An interesting debate in the United States (US) may
come to weigh-in on the degree of real sovereignty
Ethiopia holds over its own affairs. Long lacking a
strong formal military presence on the continent,
President George W. Bush announced last February
plans to establish a new unified Africa Command (AFRICOM)
to be operational by October 2008.
The plans are currently in question as domestic
advocates criticise the move as a cover to grab
African resources by helping prop-up corporate
interests in volatile regions and as a new tactic in
the developing ‘Cold War II’ with China. Whatever
the motives, efforts to find a base of operations
have thus far returned fruitless.
After consultations in with Arab North African
nations turned sour, US envoys seek alternatives in
the Sub-Saharan region. President Bush’s visit to
West Africa next week may have this goal in mind.
There are important reasons to consider the
possibility of Ethiopia as hosting AFRICOM’s
headquarters. The Prime Minister’s comments in
support of the project last November along with
historical ties led the Sudan Tribune to
speculate on just this scenario.
Moreover, AFRICOM’s continent-wide role and
important differences from the world’s five existing
US unified combatant commands should puts the
disputed capital of Africa at the high end on the
list of possibilities.
While other commands have one central headquarters,
AFRICOM appears to be planning three separate
locations for each of the military branches. US
spokespeople have also stressed the proposed unit’s
humanitarian focus.
Whether a mere selling strategy to pitch an idea to
leaders whose populations may be suspicious of a
foreign army on their territories, other military
forces, with the 1,800-strong force in neighbouring
Djibouti as a prime example, have done positive
humanitarian works, especially in the realm of water
projects with engineering expertise.
This, however, does not mean a large military
presence should not be suspect.
US military involvement has come under scrutiny
before. A 2007 report by the Associated Press
claimed secret prisons inside Ethiopia in which US
military personnel treated terror suspects in more
than questionable manners was denied by both
governments. Its large international dissemination
no doubt tainted both countries nevertheless.
Ethiopia’s close military ties and strategic
location in a volatile region also buoy its chances
of being selected as AFRICOM’s headquarters. Even
the controversial HR 2003 bill passed by the US
House of Representatives contains clauses allowing
for military aid to continue to Ethiopia even in
light of potential human rights abuses if it was
deemed in national security interests.
Thus comes one of AFRICOM’s many critics’ main
points. No matter where the headquarters are
located, they claim it would help bolster the
continents’ many questionable and outright
undemocratic regimes. This point may have some
grounds to be examined further given a cursory
glance at US military involvement.
It further bears heavily on the degree of benefit or
harm the probable following increase in business
interests that tend to come on the shoulders of the
military, critics second main point. Citing
concessions to foreign companies for resource
extraction starting to pickup in many African
countries, commentators complain that businesses are
‘stealing’ local wealth. Without healthy local
governance this is often the case.
In the Ethiopian case, a brief examination of the
footings of international presence here now reveals
mixed results on the degree of benefit they do. Home
to one of the largest contingents of NGOs, anywhere,
lots of good work is done. The boost in humanitarian
projects, governance and other development works is
on the balance advantageous.
Criticisms of stunting local growth by bringing in
foreigners for technical work, more the case in the
private sector, or creating a state of dependence
are probably outweighed by development compliments
as they become savvier with local involvement.
However, on the whole, a large US military presence
in Africa is probably not a good thing. Though
Chinese business interests are not the holiest of
alliances, the military that no doubt has
competition with the most populous nation in mind is
probably the greater of two problematic
relationships. For now, it appears as if most
leaders, including locally, agree with that and the
US plans will find great difficulty.
|
