Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. George Washington.
The modern history of most African states has been marked by violent pendulum swings between the two ideological forces that dominated and shaped the world at the time of their births, communism and its variants and capitalism and its variants. From one foreign sponsor to another, the political elite parlayed whatever value they possessed to whoever could guarantee their stay in power. Mobutu parlayed Zaïre’s minerals, Mubarak and Sadat before him parlayed Egypt’s strategic location as did Ethiopia’s Mengistu and Selassie before him and Somalia’s Sharif and Barre before him.
The States in horn of Africa strategically located in the Gulf of Aden, through which ten percent of Persian oil passes have become strategic pawns in the great game. More than most Somalia has paid a bitter price for the interplay between the internal and the external. Without a functioning central government since 1991, plagued by brutal raids by each of the four horsemen, it was hoped that the process started by the TFC and the formation of the TFG would at the very least form the foundations of a new and representative Somalia. However, this is not to be as once more the interplay between the internal and the external have once again cast the deciding vote.
LE PLUS CA CHANGE
In 1976, Jimmy Carter assumed power in the United States, and, everything seemed to indicate US foreign policy would be dictated by norms and values. In a commencement speech to the University of Notre Dame in June 1977 he concluded by saying ‘Our policy is based on an historical vision of America’s role. Our policy is derived from a larger view of global change. Our policy is rooted in our moral values, which never change. Our policy is reinforced by our material wealth and by our military power. Our policy is designed to serve mankind. And it is a policy that I hope will make you proud to be Americans.
All over the world, this change in America’s position would have far reaching implications. In Africa in general and the Horn of Africa in particular a sea change was in the works. For two men, Siad Barre of Somalia and Haile Mariam Mengistu of Ethiopia war between their two countries became a reality.
Siad Barre had been consumed with the vision of a greater Somalia, a conglomeration of all ethnic Somali areas into a single country. To that end he has supported irredentist movements in Northern Kenya and the Ogaden province of Ethiopia which through a quirk of colonialism had been separated and formed integral parts of separate nations, Kenya and Ethiopia respectively.
Ethiopia, his primary target had lost the support of the United States largely due to the Marxist leanings of the Dergue but also as a result of the bloody purge of enemies real and perceived carried out by the ruling Dergue under Haile Mengistu. The internal situation in Ethiopia was characterized by civil unrest. Internally Mengistu was reeling; externally he had lost the support of a key ally. For Barre this represented an opportunity that he had to take.
In July 1977, a month after Carter made his speech, Barre attacked Ethiopia. By 1978 the war was effectively over and the last regular Somali Army units had retreated into territorial Somalia, Somalia had lost. For Somalia, the butchers’ bill was 10,000 casualties of which 6,500 were KIA, it also lost 28 Aircraft, 72 tanks and 30 armored personnel carriers.
What went wrong? In the weeks leading up to the invasion there had been attempts by socialist countries to mediate. Both Somalia and Ethiopia professed Marxist leanings; however the mediation attempts floundered on the rock that was Barre and his ambitions for ‘Greater Somalia’.
Barre’s near perfect storm of strategic circumstances was undone by his unwillingness to forego his vision of greater Somalia. The loss of the Ogaden war caused a shift in allegiance. Barre quit the socialist camp, and became a client of the United States. He effectively parlayed Somalia’s strategic location in the Gulf of Aden, a vital oil conduit to the west, and a counterweight to Soviet influence in Ethiopia and in South Yemen.
Perhaps the most important shift that took place in the wake of the Ogaden conflict was the inception of armed resistance against Barre and his regime. The war had decimated his army, this made him vulnerable. To keep power he needed to rebuild his army, the United States was the route that he chose.
The purpose of the foregoing is not to rehash the troubled history of the horn of Africa nor is it to assign blame for all the things that have gone wrong, no Africa has been plagued by political opportunists, men and women who have taken every opportunity to make ‘good ‘for themselves even if in the process they destroy a nation. Barre may be long dead but, someone in Somalia is still reading from his playbook.
