banner
Nov 11, 2021
3 Views
0 0

Ethiopia as a single state is not needed in the politics of globalism

A complete disintegration of the country is on the horizon, but the chances of a settlement remain

The situation in Ethiopia is deteriorating sharply. Armed groups, primarily those representing the Liberation Front of Tigray (one of the states of Ethiopia), expanded their operations. The Ethiopian government has declared a state of emergency in the country.

In recent days, the UN Security Council has considered the situation in the country twice: on November 4 – behind closed doors, on November 8 – openly. Through the efforts of a number of Security Council member states (primarily Russia and China), the situation in Ethiopia is not considered separately, but within the framework of the theme “Peace and security in Africa.” However, Western powers have long been trying to “judge” Ethiopia. The current aggravation of the situation (civil war, humanitarian catastrophe) is a way to “UNOize” the situation in the largest African country. The discussion of the situation in Ethiopia in the UN Security Council on November 8 once again confirmed this conclusion. In the speeches of Western representatives, the idea of ​​”equal responsibility” of the bandits and the government, which suddenly turned into some kind of equal “parties” with “equal obligations”, was constantly carried out. For some reason, Western members of the Security Council call the “national dialogue” a solution to the war unleashed by armed groups.

The constant talk of “national dialogue” is actually a demand for the subordination of the majority to the minority. Moreover, an aggressive minority that does not want any dialogue. Even from the name of the organization of the Tigray separatists, it is clear that they do not want dialogue, but “liberation.” This “liberation” can take place not only as a separation, but also as overthrow of the government and the seizure of the entire state or a number of states This is evidenced by the unification of nine military groups, representing not only the tygrai, but also a number of other peoples of the federation, in particular, the Oromo.

This is not about another secession of one province (this already happened in 1993, when the province of Eritrea seceded). On the horizon is the complete disintegration of the country. Ethiopia has never faced such a threat. The West takes part in the tragedy of this state with delight: Ethiopia has always been a reminder of “shame” for it (the only African country that has never been colonized!).

So far, the situation in Ethiopia retains the chances of a settlement. The guarantee of this is the obstacle to full “UNization”, set by some permanent members of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the involvement of the African Union in the settlement process, on the other.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Map

What is happening now in Ethiopia is too reminiscent of the events of the late 1960s in Nigeria, when separatists from the people Igbo started the war and proclaimed the independent state of Biafra. In response, the federal authorities in Nigeria used military force, many people died, including as a result of starvation due to the blockade of “independent” Biafra.

It is worth paying attention to the special envoy just appointed by the African Union to resolve the Ethiopian crisis. It was the former President of Nigeria, Olasegun Obasanjo. The main thing in this appointment is the biography of General O. Obasanjo. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was the commander-in-chief of the federal forces in Nigeria, which eliminated the Biafra revolt!

Thus, the African Union, which formally takes a neutral position, has de facto expressed its attitude towards the Tigray separatists quite definitely. However, today the experience of the federal authorities in Nigeria in the late 1960s is hardly applicable to Ethiopia. Firstly, because it led to the death of tens of thousands of people. Secondly, the current conflict has an all too obvious external component. In the situation with Biafra, there was no such external component. In addition, with the help of the separatists of Biafra from the Western countries, there was an alternative from the USSR. Today there is no alternative (a little below about Russia’s role in the current Ethiopian conflict).

So what can a Nigerian general really offer in the current Ethiopian conflict? It seems to us that the most likely plan of the African Union is to use a different Nigerian experience. Not military, but federal. After all, Ethiopia and Nigeria are federal states. Against the background of a small number of federations on the continent, this feature should not escape attention.

Despite the fact that the principles of the exercise of power in Nigeria are not officially enshrined in laws, they have, throughout the entire period of independent existence, been an effective mechanism for the separation of powers between ethnic groups and the basis for the preservation of a single state. Not everything in this system is perfect, but the system worked.

It is worth noting another parallel between the Nigerian and Ethiopian states: powerful Christian and Muslim parts coexist and compete in them.

In this context, the Nigerian mediator can act as an experienced politician (General Obasanjo came to power twice: first after a coup d’état, and then many years later as a democratically elected president). The Nigerian system of power change, which has developed in the country through trial and error, could benefit Ethiopia as well. First of all, in terms of the customary legal representation of all major nationalities in power and the principles of their change. Let us venture to suggest that the choice of O. Obasanjo was due precisely to these reasons.

Both Nigeria and Ethiopia are the two largest countries in Tropical Africa, which are aiming at a breakthrough in their economic development. Recall that three years ago, Nigeria snatched the first place on the continent in terms of development from South Africa (which held the lead for several decades). As for Ethiopia, it prepared for the jump, which was thwarted by the Tigray war. The jump is associated with the full provision of electricity to both the economy of Ethiopia itself and neighboring countries, with the help of the Great Ethiopian Renaissance dam. The large-scale project provoked fierce opposition from the countries of the capitalist center. At first, they tried to block the Ethiopian project by imposing “good offices” on Ethiopia by the UN Security Council; the formal reason was the complaints of Sudan and Egypt, which were at a disadvantage in connection with the shallowing of the Nile, on which the dam was built. However, this plan did not work, partly because Russia refused to support the idea of ​​UNizing the Ethiopian dam. The current war in Ethiopia is an all too obvious weapon against attempts by the federal authorities to achieve genuine economic independence for the country.

Photo: Reuters

If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply