A Backdrop Analysis of U.S. Diplomatic Relations with Ethiopia

The United States has had diplomatic relations with Ethiopia for many decades and despite alleged Ethiopian human rights violations claimed by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, "bilateral" diplomacy continues to be a part of official U.S. foreign policy toward Ethiopia. The context of this 100 year old diplomacy is debated by some Ethiopians who argue little political partnership actually exists outside the official US position.

The question of whether such diplomacy should continue appears to be less a matter of how deep rooted the alliance is, but rather a matter of international political strategy. To shed light on the reasoning behind the continuation of the American-Ethiopian alliance, an analysis of the human rights violation claims, the politics of the region and a brief political cost/benefit analysis can be illustrative.

ETHIOPIAN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:

In a Pulitzer center on crisis reporting article by Nick Wadhams in July of 2007, it was reported Ethiopian forces resorted to actions that are frowned upon and objected to by defenders of human rights. Specifically, it is claimed the Ethiopian troops "burned villages, shot civilians and blocked food shipments to the Ogaden region."

While the Ethiopians were defending their country from rebel groups, their actions have spurred skepticism regarding one of the pillars behind U.S. alliances i.e. respect for human rights. The claim that human rights violations are in difference to U.S. interests is a legitimate one and thus we continue on as to the possible reasoning behind a continued alliance by the Governments of both Ethiopia and the United States.

THE NATURE OF THE ETHIOPIAN-U.S. ALLIANCE:

Ethiopian journalists such as Seyoum G. Hiwat, and others like him seem skeptical a solid alliance actually exists between Ethiopia and the United States. In particular, Hiwat points to a clouded political history in which Ethiopia lost its shore line to a U.N. sanctioned independence of Eritrea and Soviet influence within Ethiopia during the days gone by. Hiwat wrote the following to make his point:

"I can only repeat, and repeat with infinite regret, that our friendly attitude towards American cynical pragmatic foreign policy, which can never be supported by evidence is a pervasive denial of history or a toxic dose of ignorance or at best, an illusion. Poor Ethiopia never had, and still has no ally, even worse, we Ethiopians, continuously refused to admit this recurring theme in her bitter history. America had interfered recklessly with some disastrous reversal of alliance." (addistribune 03/26/04)

Despite disbelief of an alliance between Ethiopia and the United States, an official U.S. position does exist toward Ethiopia making it an ally at least in the sense it is currently not considered an enemy. The question of whether the official US position toward Ethiopia should continue is thought of as a political and economic issue as evident in statements made by U.S. Bureau of African Affairs assistant secretary Jendayl Frazer. Specifically, in an October 2007 testimony to Capital Hill, Frazer stated "Democracy and Human rights issues remain a permanent element in our bilateral dialogue with Ethiopian leaders and civil society, and U.S. officials raise these issues at every possible opportunity." (Assistant. Secretary Frazer, October 2007)

A MATTER OF POLITICS:

At face value, Frazer's testimony before Capital Hill presented nothing but good intentions including interests such as human rights. "US interest in the horn of Africa are to.promote respect for human rights and collaborate with governments to transform their countries by investing in their people and creating conditions for sustained economic growth." (Asst.Scrty Frazer, October 2007)

Frazer's comments indicate a willingness to try and assist Ethiopia become a more vibrant, democratic country that respects human rights, and does not necessarily include the notion that such an alliance must involve great losses to U.S. strategic interests. In other words, human rights violations are not looked favorably upon by the U.S. and government officials are likely to point this out. However, when it comes down to political alliances, the U.S. Government might be thinking whether it is really worth it to toss out the whole bag of political benefits for the sake of opposing human rights violations.

THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF BILATERAL DIPLOMACY:

The current U.S. position is probably what it is because it is more advantageous to have an ally near the horn of Africa, when neighboring countries such as Sudan and Somalia contain entities that do not consider themselves allies of the U.S. at all. Moreover, Ethiopia was presumably serving the interests of the U.S. when Ethiopian troops engaged in a defense of the Somalian capital of Mogadishu in July of 2006 to protect it's neighbor from a potential government overthrow.

On the flip side of the coin, bilateral diplomacy with countries such as Ethiopia may not be without costs be they political, economic or diplomatic. In 2008 Ethiopia is scheduled to receive financing for anti-malaria projects, and Ethiopia's location near the horn of Africa situates it in a potentially volatile area both in terms of the flow of intelligence information and regional turmoil. In other words, any U.S. Government finances invested within Ethiopia, however good intentioned, may end up being both a capital loss in the event Ethiopia loses her political integrity. However, this appears unlikely as Ethiopia is a country with a long history and a 60.8% Christian population which by virtue of religious interest makes it an ally of Western nations.

In summary, an alliance between Ethiopia and the United States of America has existed and will probably continue to exist for some time despite the human rights violations pointed out by Human Rights Watch. The reasons for this continued alliance appear political and strategic in nature and reflect a larger picture in which interests such as regional stability, historical relations, cultural affiliation may be factors. Human rights violations are clearly not looked favorably upon by the United States, however it would seem, at least in the case of Ethiopia, that other equally important concerns hold sway over the decision to maintain the alliance.

Sources:

http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=29
http://www.pulitzercenter.org /openitem.cfm?id=458
http://www.state.gov/p/af/ci/et/
http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2004/03/ 26-03-04/Ethio.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12035106/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/t he-world-factbook/geos/et.html