PAPER: The Constructivist Face of Ethiopia’s Foreign Policy for the Last Two Decades in the Horn of Africa

Gentle Reminder: This text was written in April 2015 as part of an assignment for the course entitled "Theories and Practices of International Relations and Diplomacy" I was attending in partial fulfillment of an MA Program in Diplomacy and International Relations. It has been published for experimental research purposes only.

Introduction

With the emergence of alternative approaches in the description, analyses, explanation and the understanding of various scenarios in the field of Diplomacy and International Relations, the need and urgency in addressing events in light of those new alternative methods is of crucial importance. Among the newly emergent alternative approaches in the discipline, constructivism with all its kaleidoscopic origins and multidimensional explanations of issues is worth remembering. What constructivism brought to the already dominant table of values in the field of International Relations is its renewed and subjective interest in the formation of ideas, discourses and narratives (otherwise, “IR myths”) is of pivotal importance in the attempts made to comprehend issues on the global political scene.

On the other hand, Ethiopia, officially known as the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is Horn African nation that shares common boundaries with its neighboring states of Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and Djibouti. As the biggest and most influential nation in sub-region the perceptions it has of its neighbors and the ideological power it commands in its foreign policy should be understood as part of the general efforts invested in the analyses of its foreign policy initiatives, foundations, and imperatives in the Horn. In the case of this essay, this could be done with the aid of constructivism, one of the nascent approaches in the interpretation of issues in the context of the ideational powers states wield in their respective spheres of influence, either regionally or internationally.

Hence, the main focus of this essay is to explain the ways and extents to which the nation’s foreign policy pursuits were constructivist so far, for the last two decades. As such in the following sections, attempts will be made to define the concept of constructivism (though parsimoniously and holistically), to put forward and elucidate the general framework for the diagnosis of the case in point (Ethiopia’s Foreign Affairs and National Security Policy and Strategy) and at last, to summarize the what the whole discussion is all about in a way that helps the reader grasp the gist of the essay with relative ease.

Conceptual Framework

The coinage of the technical term, “constructivism” in the theoretical arena of International Relations goes back to the publication of Nicholas Greenwood Onuf’s pioneering book?World of Our Makingin 1989. As a matter of fact, Onuf was the first International Relations theorist to employ the word in his interpretation and analysis of states’ behavior in the international system. For him, states much the same as individuals are living in a “world of our making,” as the title of his famous book bears(Onuf, 1989s cited in?Behravesh, 2011). In the same token, for Stephen M. Walt, in his famous essay?International Relations: One World, Many Theories,constructivism emphasizes how ideas and identities are created, how they evolve, and how they shape the way states understand and respond to their situation(Walt, Spring 1998, p. 41). As correctly stated by Nugroho, constructivismrecognizes the importance of discursive power (knowledge, ideas, culture,language, and ideology) as well as material power(Nugroho, 2008, p. 92).

According to Cynthia Weber,?Professor of International Studies at the University of Lancaster, constructivism [otherwise known as, social constructivism] is a tool for the interpretation of states' behavior in light of what she calls “the myth function in IR theory.”?By extension,?the?myth function?in IR theory is the transformation of what is particular, cultural, and ideological (like a story told by an IR tradition) into what?appears?to be universal, natural, and purely empirical?(Weber, 2005, pp. 6-7)?. Hence,?according to constructivist assumption, interest is determinedby state identity which is depending on historical, cultural, political, and social backgrounds?(Nia, 2011, p. 281). Consolidating further for Weber, the character of international anarchy is not pre-given but the outcome of state interactions, and that self-help is not an immutable feature of international anarchy?(Weber, 2005, p. 63). It is as?Wendt,?put it, “what states make of it” (1992, p. 134).

Per se, constructivism is not a theory, an originally conceived theory proper, which makes it a meta-theory. Meta-theory, as defined by Willis F. Overton is “a set of interlocking rules, principles, or a story (narrative), that both describes and prescribes what is acceptable and unacceptable as theory – the means of conceptual exploration – in a scientific discipline”?(Overton, 1998). It could also mean “a theory whose subject matter is some theory”?(Wikipedia, 2014). As illustrated by Stefano Guzzini, constructivism emphasizes three major inspirations of recent theorizing, namely the interpretivist, sociological, and linguistic turns in the social sciences?(Guzzini, 2003, p. 2). Constructivism, unlike realism or liberalism, is not a theory of politics per se. Rather, it is a social theory on which constructivist theories of international politics — for example, about war, cooperation and international community — are based?(Adler, 1997, p. 323).

As to the precedent that led to birth of constructivism, the end of the Cold War set thestage for the rise to prominence of the constructivist school of thought in IR which caused a profoundremolding of debates within the dominant discourse of international relations theory?(Behravesh, 2011). The failure of realism and liberalism to predict the end of the Cold War stalemate and their inability to prognosticate the closing chapter of the bipolar system of the day “played an important role in legitimatingconstructivist theories”(Walt, Spring 1998, p. 41).Central toconstructivist arguments are such core concepts as “discourses,” “norms,” “identity,” and “socialization” thatare frequently used in contemporary discussions over various issues of international concern including “globalization, international human rights, security policy, and more”?(Checkel, 2008, p. 72).

Coming to the main focus of constructivist’s in International Relations, to quote Walt:

Whereas realism and liberalism tend?to?focus on material factors such as power or trade, constructivist approaches emphasize the impact of ideas. Instead of taking the state for granted and?assuming?that it simply seeks to survive, constructivists regard the interests and identities of states as a highly malleable product of specific historical processes. They pay close attention to the prevailing discourse(s) in society because, discourse reflects and shapes beliefs and interests, and establishes accepted norms of behavior. Consequently, constructivism is especially attentive to the sources of change, and this approach has largely replaced Marxism as the preeminent radical perspective on international affairs(Walt, Spring 1998, pp. 40-41).

The focus of [constructivism] is on human awarenessor consciousness and its place in world affairs?(Robert & Georg, 2006, p. 162). Furthermore, Ole?R. Holsti stated that, “because the social gives meaning to thematerial, many core concepts, including anarchy, power, national interest, security dilemma,and others, are seen as socially constructed rather than as the ineluctable consequences of system structures”?(Holsti, 2002, p. 19). For Holsti, “interests and identities--for example, those who are designated as ‘allies’ or ‘enemies’--are also social constructs, the products of human agency, rather thanstructurally determined” (Ibid.).Consequently, the studyof international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors on theinternational scene as well as the shared understandings between them(Robert & Georg, 2006, p. 162).

Wendt in his 1992 well-known article,Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,goes as far as explaining international relations among states in the context of social structures. In his understanding,?

“Social structures have three elements: shared knowledge, material resources, and practices.First, social structures are defined, in part, by shared understandings, expectations, or knowledge.These constitute the actors in a situation and the nature of their relationships, whethercooperative or conflictual. A security dilemma, for example, is a social structure composed ofintersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-caseassumptions about each other’s intentions, and as a result define their interests in self-help terms.A security community is a different social structure, one composed of shared knowledge in whichstates trust one another to resolve disputes without war. This dependence of social structure onideas is the sense in which constructivism has an idealist (or ‘idea-ist’) view of structure”(Wendt, 1992, p. 73).

To paraphrase Robert and Georg, the “social world” that humans inhabit is “a world of human consciousnessof thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses, of signs, signals and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings, such as states and nations” and “an intersubjective domain…meaningful to people who made it and live in it”. Ceteris paribus, what states perceive as threat or friendliness or project otherwise could only be understood in the context of the ideational they have made.?

In conclusion, constructivism challenges the mainstream “titans” of International Relations, realism, and idealism in particular reference to their material and rational assumptions and attempts to address neglected issues of interest in the field (gender relations (feminism), race politics (eugenics), labor relations(Marxism)…etc.). Constructivism is the view that?the manner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world?[originally italicized](Adler, 1997, p. 322).

Discussion

As the most populated, fast-growing economy, relatively peaceful nation, and the founding member of the sub-regional intergovernmental organization IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development and above all, as an aspiring, potential hegemon of the Horn Ethiopia’s foreign policy narratives are worth studying. One way of analyzing the Foreign Affairs and National Security Policy and Strategy (FANSPS, henceforth) vis-à-vis the country’s perceptions of its neighbors: either as friends or enemies, and analyses, the role it plays in the Horn of Africa and interpretations of threats and opportunities in sub-region for the last twenty years is through the employing a constructivist approach discussed above.?

The FANSPS under the EPRDF with its three basic pillars: democracy, development, and globalization start with the criticism of the foreign policies pursued by past governments, especially the Imperial and the Military regimes. The concluding remark in the assessment of the foreign policy pursuits of past governments is that their foreign policies: (1) disregarded internal problems; (2) were in part founded on “siege mentality; and (3) did not adequately consider the detrimental impact of domestic vulnerabilities on the nation’s national security and survival.?

By way of introduction, the FANSPS states that the foreign policy that has been in operation for the last two decades?was“designed to bring about a fundamental change of attitude regarding the essence of foreign relations and national security”?(FDRE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2002, p. 3). Owing to the paradigm shift undertaken so far which could be understood in the context of a constructivist approach to foreign policy analysis, “(t)he external environment is viewed from the?prism of our national situation and condition[Italics mine], and this ensures that the policy and strategy have relevance to our national security and survival” (Ibid., p.4).

Cutting to the chases, from the beginning to the end to the end of the foreign policy document, our attempts to uncover the constructivist tendencies of the FANSPS in the Horn of Africa, either bilaterally or generally as a sub-region (e.g. as the found member and current chairperson of IGAD) will be met with fascination. The ways in which Ethiopia’s foreign policy reiterates the national interest of the country in light of national security and national survival, domestic vulnerability, national pride, and prestige is imbued with constructivist phrases such as “hostile/friendly”, “identity formation”, “identity preservation”, “spirit of tolerance and cooperation”, “individually/as a group”, “internal nature/inside-out”, “misguided and misconceived perceptions”, “symbiotic linkage”…etc.

As a country situated in a sub-region that has been constantly mired in famine, poverty, drought, and civil wars and depicted on the world stage in almost most cases, the efforts Ethiopia has capitalized in the making of new narratives of peace, cooperation, integration…etc may not come as a surprise but shouldn’t be neglected without caution. The roles it plays in the Horn of Africa vis-à-vis its national interests together with its interests in becoming a democratic and developed regional hegemon have necessitated the need for making up narratives and discourses that could portray its image among its neighbors and beyond as a role model, interlocutor, beacon of hope and peace and a hub of regional integration. Hence, the constructivist manifestations of the foreign policy of Ethiopia in the aftermath of the downfall of the Derg Regime could be expounded in the following paragraphs.

In his 19 December 2014 article in?Addis Standard Newspaper, “Ethiopia and Its Regional Diplomacy: Ethiopia’s Dominant Interpretation of the Horn of Africa”, Dr. Mehari attributed one of the reasons the ideological narratives of Ethiopia in the Horn have been dominant to its primary focus on attempts to address domestic issues of national security and sources of national vulnerability.??To quote,?

“Partially attributable to the inward looking orientation of its Foreign Affairs and the disciplined application of its National Security Policy and Strategy (FANSPS), Ethiopia’s views have been widely accepted and accordingly acted upon by IGAD...”?(Maru, 2014).

In the same accord, for the last 20 years of rule under the EPRDF regime, one of Ethiopia’s Foreign Affairs and National Security (FANS, henceforth) strategies of pursuing the national interests of the country is “devoting the prime focus to activities [development and democratization] at home”.?The priority of FANSPS should, first and foremost, be conducting foreign relations with its neighbours and overseas that is “not beholden to foreign prescriptions”(FDRE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2002, p. 25). The main theme of this argument is that mutatis mutandis, it is only the people of Ethiopia based on their needs and abilities who could “accurately define?how best?and?to what effect?we can utilize external assistance” (Ibid., p.26). Hence a foreign policy that prioritizes the domestic before the external in a relatively synergetic manner i.e. a “domestic first, external second” approach. As such the devotion that has been paid to solving and mitigating internal political, social, and economic problems that could be sources of domestic vulnerability such as poverty, lack of good governance, corruption, the right to self-administration of the nations, nationalities and people’s, democratization …etc that are clearly outlined in the FANSPS could be said to garner the attention of Ethiopia’s neighbours towards the formulation of foreign relations policies and strategies that begins be reiterating the burning issues at home.

In addition to emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to domestic sources of vulnerability and insecurity, the FANSPS has specifically identified the current situation of the economy (among others,?underdevelopment, poverty, and backwardness)?to be the main breeding ground for the nation’s insecurities. In this aspect, it could be said that Ethiopia’s foreign policy strategies are relatively successful in making the economic vulnerability myth the dominant narrative in the Horn of Africa. The neighboring states are also convinced that an economy-centered foreign policy is halfway across solving problems that could originate externally like terrorism and religious fundamentalism and are ravaging the regional peace and security of the people of the Horn.?

The other frontier where Ethiopia’s foreign policy tries to maintain a dominantly constructive position in the Horn is in the leadership role Ethiopia plays in the sub-regional intergovernmental organization, IGAD. So far, as a country that enjoys relative peace, a fast-growing economy, and the biggest military power compared to its neighbors the role Ethiopia played in shaping the agenda of discussions and debate has been pervasive. This amounts to influencing the member states to accept the inside-out approach explained above and to put peace, economic development, and regional integration, among others at the top of the list of issues that should be kept under constant “surveillance”. In essence, it has convinced them of the adverse effects of not paying attention to domestic crises i.e. the need to be immune, as much as possible, from the “hubris-nemesis complex” of civil wars and foreign threats emanating from the already ripe sources of instability and chaos.

The aspiration to be a regional hegemon in the Horn is also another arena of Ethiopia’s dominant role in the assertion of its foreign policy values and principles in the regional discourse. This, in part, originated from the country’s “sheer [geographical] size and its large population”?(Dehéz, 2008, p. 4). In the views of Dusting Dehéz, Senior Fellow at the Düsseldorf Institute on Foreign and Security Policy (DAIS), this scenario could be explained in terms of Ethiopia’s historical status as “an atypical case for hegemony in Sub-Sahara Africa?as its hegemonic aspirations predate colonialism and the state is, in contrast to its African peers like Nigeria, the DRC, and South Africa, not?simply a product of randomly drawn colonial borders” (Ibid.). Sharing the commonly accepted view notion of Ethiopia he adds that, “Ethiopia has been a rather?strong, independent, even imperial power well into the twentieth century” that has strongly overcome Italian imperialistic ambitions, for instance. In sum, the image Ethiopia conjures as an independent, peaceful country that gives and builds a sense of confidence and security among its neighbours in the Horn has been a pivotal element in the understanding of its relatively unquestionable hegemonic aspirations to lead, represent, and in a way “discipline” the sub-region. This in turn has helped Ethiopia overcome some of the problems related to its land-locked nature that has forced it to find a reliable regional partner to have among others, access to the sea. A good example, in this case, is Ethiopia’s use of the Port of Djibouti.?

Ethiopia’s conventionally de facto hegemony in the Horn of Africa as such has won her reputation among its neighbouring, despite differences of opinion. This gives the impression Ethiopia’s neighbours have of its command power to make them “safe and sound” if they cooperate in favour of her sub-regional hegemony on various aspects of regional mutual cooperation with a prospect of a well-integrated regional integration based on the comparative advantages each member state could bring to the table politically, economically and socially.

As a country with a powerful and well-disciplined military force in the Horn of Africa “ranked the first in the Sub-Sahara, third (next to Egypt and Algeria) in the entire Africa and fortieth in the world”?(Maru, 2014)?Ethiopia has been, is and will most probably be the major contributor of peace-keeping troops in the major conflicts of the region ranging from Darfur (UNAMID)?to the recent deployments in the Abyei Region. Per se, “Ethiopia’s military strength has an excellent track record in its role in the regional peace and security, counter-terrorism, and mediation which creates demand for long-term partnership and alliance in the region and beyond) (Ibid.). The constant deployment of peace-keeping troops under the auspices of the UN, the AU, and bilateral agreements between the warring parties, in the most fragile and war-torn states of the Horn with a possibility of failure, in the words of the Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-moon “one of the best in the world — one of the largest contributors of peacekeeping” mostly on proactive grounds has accorded it the status of a subliminal regional super-power with a duty to stabilize the region for the common benefit of the states of the sub-region. In those peace-keeping duties Ethiopian troops have been deployed to maintain peace and order in the Horn of Africa region the humanitarian activities they have been undertaking with a sense of decency and discipline have bore fruits in Ethiopia’s attempts to be a regional hegemon.

When it comes to addressing and mitigating sources of domestic vulnerability like terrorism, religious fundamentalism, and attempts to invade it, Ethiopia has demonstrated strength and efficiency in the IGAD region. This in consequence has helped secure the alliance of other countries in the fight against those “evils”.??Considering the costs of their vulnerabilities and the possibility of opportunities “all African, Western and Eastern countries, partner with Ethiopia as a genuine and strong military ally in the fight against terrorism”?(Maru, 2014). Apart from this, Ethiopia’s role in the fight against terrorism and religious fundamentalism in a region that has its “umbilical cord” attached to the most fertile ground for breeding terrorist threats and religious extremism, the Middle East has won her international acclaim, especially among the super-powers, like the US. Though paradoxical and ironical to some, the failure of the great powers to effectively contain such threats has gradually forced them to look for reliable allies in the Horn like Ethiopia, and to learn some lessons worth acquiring their decade-long “war on terror” that has been launched against forces such as Al-Qaida and the Taliban in the aftermath the 9/11 incident.?

In affirmation of Ethiopia’s success stories in its fight against Al-Shabaab (otherwise known as Al-Qaida in the Horn (AQH)) President Barack Obama has emphasized the extent to which the efforts the West so far have been launching large-scale military campaigns in the “war on terror” with a particular reference to the Middle East and its adjacent region, the Horn of Africa. To quote,

“…obviously we’ve been talking a lot about terrorism and the focus has been on ISIL, but in Somalia, we’ve seen al-Shabaab, an affiliate of al Qaeda, wreak havoc throughout that country. That’s an area where the cooperation and leadership on the part of Ethiopia is making a difference as we speak. And we want to thank them for that. So our counterterrorism cooperation and the partnerships that we have formed with countries like Ethiopia are going to be critical to our overall efforts to defeat terrorism”(As cited in Maru, 2014).

From this, it could be concluded that the FANSPS has, since 1995, been successful in the implementation of the FANS strategies of “minimizing threats on the basis of?proper analysis” and “reducing vulnerability to threats” that are of domestic and external nature. The FANSPS repetitively underlines the undeniable, imperative fact that “external?threats are extensions of the national or domestic challenges that we face”?(FDRE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2002, p. 35). An illustration given to elucidate this premise is the attacks launched to invade Ethiopia by Eritrea under Isaias Afewerki (Shabia) and Somalia under the leadership of Siad Barre. For both cases, the FANSPS attributes their failure to “their misguided and misconceived perceptions” (Ibid, p.36). It could be said that this is another way of favouring Ethiopia’s foreign policy narratives that in claim of the FANSPS could only be understood by its neighbours by putting themselves in its shoes. Put another way, in order for the perpetrators to understand either its vulnerability or strength they are expected to think and act like Ethiopia, in the spirit of the socially constructed foreign policy discourses as structured by the FANSPS.?

As a country that is landlocked and surrounded by its neighbors Ethiopia is geopolitically in an advantageous position to serve as a hub for regional integration. But this could only be achieved by a foreign policy that actively and proactively engages in regional trade and commercial activities. This, in turn, necessitates the need for assessing the opportunities available in its dominion and among countries of the Horn, based on comparative advantage. If Ethiopia is to serve as a center for the integration of the sub-region, it is a matter of obligation to proactively engage in give-and-take economic diplomacy. This primarily has been addressed in the FANSPS that the whole rubric of foreign relations of Ethiopia will primarily be guided by economy-centered diplomatic activities abroad.??But this shouldn’t be pursued to the detriment of “undermining … its role in regional peace and security (Maru, 2014). The efforts geared towards having a share in the regional economic pie must be coupled with building the capacity of the diplomatic community of Ethiopia vis-a-vis the multiplication of force in the defense and intelligence sectors.?

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, a deeper analysis and interpretation of the FANSPS as a foreign policy document and as means of pursuing Ethiopia’s national interests it could be said that it has been conducting a middle-ground, constructivist foreign relations for the last twenty years in line with the identified areas national interest, national security and regional cooperation. It has been trying to shape the general foreign policy discourse of the Horn of Africa region as seen through the eyes of Ethiopia. That is to say, it was trying to convince the states of the region to affirm and uphold, if possible, to adopt the interpretations and analyses of the trends in a globalized political-economic arena. It was a means of building the lines of distinction in between Ethiopia and its neighbors.

Works Cited

Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.?European Journal of International Relations, 3, 319–363.

Behravesh, M. (2011, February 3).?Constructivism: An Introduction. Retrieved April 8, 2015, from e-ir.info: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/03/constructivism-an-introduction/

Checkel, J. T. (2008). Constructivism and Foreign Policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield, & T. Dunne (Eds.),?Foreign Policy: Theories. Actors. Cases.?Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dehéz, D. (2008). Ethiopia – A Hegemon in the Horn of Africa Region??Hegemony, African Style.?Exeter: BISA Annual Conference,.

FDRE Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2002).?Foreign Affairs and National Security Policy and Strategy.?Addis Ababa: Ministry of Information.

Guzzini, S. (2003).?Constructivism and the Role of Institutions in International Relations.?Copenhagen: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.

Holsti, O. R. (2002).?Theories of International Relations.

Maru, D. M. (2014, December 19). Ethiopia and Its Regional Diplomacy: Ethiopia’s Dominant Interpretation of the Horn of Africa.?Addis Standard.

Nia, M. M. (2011, March ). A Holistic Constructivist Approach to Iran's Foreign Policy.?International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(4), 279-294.

Nugroho, G. (2008, January-June). Constructivism and International Relations Theories.?Global & Strategis, 85-98.

Onuf, N. G. (1989).?World of Our Making.?Columbia: University of South California Press.

Overton, W. F. (1998, October 25).?Metatheory and Methodology in Developmental Psychology. (Temple University, PA) Retrieved April 8, 2015, from http:\\www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/metatheorybk01.htm

Robert, J., & Georg, S. (2006). Social Constructivism. In J. Robert, & S. Georg,?Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches?(pp. 161-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walt, S. M. (Spring 1998). International relations: One world, many theories.?Foreign Policy, 29-46.

Weber, C. (2005).?International Relations Theory: A critical introduction?(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.?International Organization, 391–425.

Wikipedia. (2014, May 3).?Metatheory. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from Wikipedia, th free encyclopedia: http:\\en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatheory