By: A.Tesfaye

Dear Kumsa,

It has always been a pleasure reading your insider articles on Ethio-U.S. relations. To say the least, all your articles that I have so keenly studied reflect a sense of sober patriotism, which is often hard to find in Diaspora politics.  No doubt you are well positioned to follow the relations between the two countries. Having said that let me come to the reason why I decided to write to your good self.

Your latest article, US policy on the Horn of Africa under a new Obama administration, posted on Ethiopia first website, I felt was a little too grounded on individual decision makers. Facts attest that the Ethio-U.S. relations is based on common interests that supersede the interest of bureaucrats or individual officials'. I am also convinced that the relations have reached a strategic level because of increased U.S. interest in the Horn of Africa and not because the neo-con hawks in Washington love for Ethiopia.

The worst of the Congressional foes of Ethiopia admit that there can be no success to U.S. Horn policy without Ethiopia. Even the twitchiest testimonies in Congress or Congressmen found it hard not to acknowledge the importance that Ethiopia has in the region.

Senator Feingold who has introduced the infamous bill S 23457, had remarked on September 15,2008 at Georgetown University that The US-Ethiopian partnership is a very important one-perhaps one of the more significant on the continent given not only our longstanding history but also the increasingly strategic nature of our cooperation and the serious national security threats throughout the Horn of Africa. Congressman Donald Payne, the title-holder of the most unpopular forerunner bill to S23457, HR 2003, could not resist admitting the importance of Ethiopia in the Horn. On the date his bill was passed in Congress Mr. Payne noted: Ethiopia is one of our most reliable allies as one of Africa's most capable peacekeeping forces and is making positive steps towards a prosperous economy and functioning democracy. I am therefore of the opinion that this sort of sober analysis will continue to dictate the foreign policy of the centrist Obama administration.

The Bush administration's security strategy dubbed Ethiopia one of the anchor states in Africa that could enhance stability in the continent and help ensure U.S. security interests in the region. That policy design did not come about because of the rise of the Valkans, but rather because of recognition of the magnitude of challenges, threat analysis, and, fitting policy responses of the Administration.  So now the question should be, will the new Clinton team in the State Department change the objective threat analysis made by the NSC and the Pentagon during the Bush Administration?

The Horn is a more dangerous place now than when the Bush administration drafted U.S security strategy. Troubled Eritrea is one tough nut, not so easy to crack. Sudan, as you eloquently put it, has been in the front burner of the Bush administration and will likely continue to be during the Obama administration, because of the strong interest among influential groups in the U.S. Somalia on the other hand, had remained a hot potato in a boiling pot left to its own instruments between the time of Black Hawk down and the last years of the Bush Administration. The takeover by the Islamic Courts was the shock therapy that propelled CIA and the State Department in a futile attempt to halt the fundamentalists' advance to control the chaotic part of Somalia and threaten to destabilise the region. However, even today, U.S. engagement in Somalia can't be claimed to have reached the level that the problem necessitates.

The leadership role often played by the U.S. on concerns of this magnitude at leading Europeans, barely existed when it came to Somalia. After having carried the heavy burden for two years on its own, Ethiopia has decided to withdraw its troops, among other things, because neither political nor financial support came from the world powers. Once Ethiopia's withdrawal is complete, there is no doubt that the west will be forced to swallow the bitter pill.

The facts are unquestionable; Sudan and Somalia will continue to pose problems for the stability of the region and Eritrea will surely be on the wrong side of the U.S. and on the right side of terrorists, pirates, and a close ally of countries like Iran- that has continued to find itself on the wrong side of the U.S.  In this unfriendly and often unmanageable setting, the U.S. will surely seek intelligence, political and military support from the proven stable country in the region, Ethiopia. I am sure your good self will agree that such interaction will not work in a lukewarm relationship.

Therefore, sworn foes of Ethiopia in Washington, or those who chose to antagonise Ethiopia for the sake of undermining the policies of the Bush administration, will surely make the proper analysis before they decide on the climate of the relations between the two countries. Although it is very hard to predict the magnitude of the rhetoric that will continue in Congress in the form of bills and resolutions, what is most predictable is that Ethiopia will continue to be the landing strip in a region ridden by conflict, fundamentalism, and, terrorism that no administration or official in Washington can afford to ignore or undermine.

Best Regards,

A.Tesfaye

The opinion stated in the articles submitted to EthiopiaFirst (EF) are those of the writers and not EF or the publisher of EF.