US Foreign Policy and the Horn of Africa

Peter Woodward

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754635802
• eBook ISBN: 9781317003274
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Examining US involvement in the Horn of Africa, this volume addresses the relationship between the US and the Islamic movement in this region. Peter Woodward explores the interests of the United States in the region through two cases: Sudan and Somalia. He also discusses the effects of the Eritrean-Ethiopian war on US policy and posture in the region, along with the effects of other regional wars. The book looks at the relationship between US perceptions of Islamism and brings a unique perspective to the ongoing debate over US policy in the Islamic world. It will be of interest to those working in or researching foreign policy, as well as peace, security and conflict issues.

Chapter 1
US Foreign Policy Making and the Horn of Africa

The United States’ foreign policy making towards the Horn of Africa combines a number of elements. The Horn itself has been a source of concern for decades and developed its specialists with their own expertise and experience. Interest originally lay predominantly in Ethiopia, and to some extent ‘the Horn of Africa’ has grown around it. Early interest as the US became involved after World War II usually referred to Ethiopia and Somalia, which became linked in an antagonistic relationship over borders as the old colonial powers, Italy and Britain, departed from the scene. Certainly until the early 1980s, it was unusual to include Sudan in the Horn, but it became increasingly connected in a realisation of common problems resulting from the famine that raged across the eastern Sahel (the southern fringe of the Sahara desert), into northern Ethiopia, and also affected Somalia. At that stage people spoke more frequently of ‘the Greater Horn’, sometimes including parts at least of East Africa. This book will simply refer to ‘the Horn’ as comprising Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia (including what is now known as Somaliland), Sudan and since 1993 Eritrea. While Somalia and Sudan are the focus of most attention here, having caused particular dilemmas for US policy makers, it is very appropriate to refer to ‘the Horn’ since, though separated from each other geographically by Ethiopia, the latter has been very significant for its two major Muslim neighbours and the ways that the US has conducted its policy towards them.

The policy itself has developed not only since the end of the Cold War, the main concern of this book, but essentially since the end of World War II. In doing so it has involved different concerns at different times, and with it received attention from different agencies of the US government. Given the generally low levels of interest in, and knowledge of, Africa, questions about who gets involved in decision making, when and why may be crucial to understanding the policies pursued and their outcomes.

Policy Makers

It is common to speak of the Cold War as contributing to the growth of presidential involvement in the determination of US foreign policy. Yet the question here is whether any president should ever have an interest in developments in the Horn? The most obvious answer, in relation to the Cold War at least, is when there have been geo-strategic reasons for so doing. Though in Africa, the Horn is not always of Africa: its history is as much linked to Arabia as to Africa, including the influence of Islam. Thus the broad context for Middle East policy, including the Arab-Israeli dispute, may be as relevant for understanding US policy towards Ethiopia in particular as that country’s role in Africa. Indeed Emperor Haile Selassie was an important ally of both Israel and US, as well as first chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and the question of Israel and the Horn was to recur. Furthermore from the standpoint of great powers, for many years the Horn has been as much as a strategic concern with regard to the Red Sea shipping lanes, especially the potential southern pinch point of the Bab al-Mandeb Straits, as it has been a concern in relation to the rest of Africa. In this regard the Horn has offered opportunities for base facilities not only for the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, but also with potential use for the Gulf which was off limits for great power bases during much of the Cold War and in effect until the Gulf War of 1990-1991. After the Cold War it was to appear less significant in terms of security, but rose again as the dangers of Islamism were perceived. Thus in 1998 President Clinton was to authorise the missile attack on a factory in Khartoum North, Sudan; while his successor George W. Bush was to include in his response to the attack on the US on 11 September 2001 (9/11) the deployment of American troops to Djibouti.

Thus from time to time the Horn appeared on the agenda in the White House mainly for geo-strategic reasons, and also occasionally at times of the greatest humanitarian need. This was to be the case for President Bush in 1992 when the Somali famine received wide media attention and led to his decision to deploy American troops for humanitarian intervention. In addition, some presidents are more interested in foreign policy than others, being temperamentally and perhaps politically more attuned to global issues. For example, as will be seen, George Bush was regarded as a foreign policy president and his pursuit of the holy grail of a New World Order also contributed to his commitment of forces to Somalia, when a more domestically focused president might have kept away. However Bush’s action was the exception that proves the rule. Years before, Kennedy had seen clearly the moral case for involvement in development in Africa, though it was to be through new initiatives such as the Peace Corps rather than American forces that he had in mind. However, once involved in Vietnam the moral sheen was largely taken off much American involvement in far flung parts of the world and it gave way once more to the predominance of the Cold War, which had only a limited impact on Africa compared to some other regions.

In addition, in US government circles it was often thought that Africa should be essentially a responsibility of the former European colonial powers, though in reality it was France that took this most seriously, partly accounting for the absence of American involvement in West Africa in particular. In any case, the end of the Cold War appeared likely to weaken presidential leadership in foreign affairs. Successive presidents had been unifying figures in the struggle with the USSR, but deprived of that rival superpower, the role of the president was less clear. President Clinton was originally reluctant to become involved significantly in any field of foreign policy, ‘Foreign Policy was to be minimized and, if at all possible, kept on the back burner’ (Halberstam, 2002, p.168). Nevertheless no American president is able to avoid the issues of the Middle East, including after the Cold War the rise of Islamism, and Clinton duly became involved (Gerges, 1999). Moreover, he did eventually recognise the need to give Africa some of his attention, remarking ‘When I became President, it seemed to me that our country didn’t really have a policy towards Africa’ (Africa Confidential, 22 September 1995). He even went as far as visiting the continent while in office, which was very unusual for any president; and later supported the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Al Gore also made four visits to Africa during his time as Clinton’s Vice-President. Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, was not expected to show much interest having had little international experience before taking office, but the attack on America on 9/11 was a wake up call. Middle East insecurity brought more attention on Africa’s existing and potential contribution to US oil supplies; while Africa’s domestic decay held out possible security problems such as providing bolt holes for terrorists, especially when al-Qaeda’s connections there were examined.

With presidential input on Africa, let alone the Horn, usually limited, expectations are more likely to be that the State Department will play a leading part in policy making. The State Department is after all the institution that is supposed to ‘know’ about ‘abroad’. Unlike the presidency it is expected to have continuous knowledge drawing on its staff in post abroad, and filtered through its own bureaucracy in Foggy Bottom. Yet there are problems. First, the department will be influenced in its priorities by the Secretary of State, appointed by the President. During the presidency of George Bush, Secretary of State James Baker showed little interest in Africa; and nor did Warren Christopher, Clinton’s first Secretary of State. However later in the 1990s Madeleine Albright was to be particularly important in focusing attention on the continent which she visited every year that she held the office; and on Africa, as on many things, she held forthright views. She was, for instance, to be very involved personally in US encouragement to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda in their efforts in 1996-1998 to destabilize the Islamist regime in Sudan. Second, the ‘knowledge’ in the State Department is not always as full or accurate as it might be. It may be that relations with the US and/or conditions in certain countries deteriorate to a point at which the department’s staff cannot remain at their posts and can only watch events from a distance – perhaps from a neighbouring country. As will be seen, for much of the post-Cold War era the US had no official representation in Somalia, and none in Sudan from 1996-2001. Or, third, it may be that for certain information the State Department is relying on another agency, or even a foreign government. Furthermore, though the staff at the department have considerable expertise, professionally many may prefer postings to what are perceived as more important or less demanding areas of the world than Africa; or if their careers do develop an African specialism they may prefer places not regarded as hardship posts, especially the likes of capital cities such as Khartoum in Sudan and Mogadishu in Somalia with ferocious climates and few facilities.¹ Ambassadorships in these two countries have not been keenly sought and often went to officials who were nearing the end of their careers. And when they have been posted to those cities, they will probably have more experience of Africa generally than of the Muslim world to which the majority in both countries adhere, for the State Department regards both Sudan and Somalia as parts of its Africa operations.² But whatever the background, the continuity and professional concern of State Department officials can lead to charges of over-concern for the host country – sometimes known as ‘clientitis’ or ‘going native’ – being levelled against them.

At the top of the State Department’s Africa personnel stands the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, who heads the Bureau of African Affairs, which was created in 1958 as European de-colonization accelerated in sub-Saharan Africa. This is a political appointment, which has sometimes gone to State Department professionals and sometimes to people from outside, such as academia or business. But whoever is appointed may cut little ice, since Africa is generally low in the pecking order in Washington being regarded as marginal to US interests. Times change though and occasionally an Assistant Secretary of Sate for Africa will come to prominence and appear to have a significant role. One such was Chester Crocker and his wide identification with the policy known as ‘constructive engagement’ with regard to South Africa, its relations with its neighbours, and efforts to end apartheid in the 1980s. However, by the early 1990s, where this book really starts, Crocker had been succeeded by a career diplomat, Herman ‘Hank’ Cohen (Cohen, 1999). Other sections in the State Department with some interest in Africa include the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, which includes seeking support of the many African states in the United Nations, and those dealing with human rights, refugees and humanitarian affairs (Schraeder, 1994). Another of significance for this book is the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was established in 1998.

Reference above to State Department links to other agencies includes necessarily the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The agency is generally represented by one or more officials operating in country under embassy cover, but usually quite easily identifiable. These agents will create their own intelligence webs and report back to their bosses in Washington as well as liasing with other embassy staff. In the Cold War, it was the CIA more than the State Department that focused on the activities of the USSR and radical regimes in Africa, and gave less weight to the domestic origins of many of the continent’s problems and conflicts. The agency has also worked closely with European counterparts, and even the security services of ‘friends’ in the continent, including Zaire, Morocco and apartheid South Africa (Schraeder, 1994). Over the years questions have been raised about the CIA, including the quality of its information, with concern that it has come to rely too much on technical devices of one form or another – from bugging to aerial surveillance – perhaps at the expense of human intelligence (‘humint’). Yet the latter can also be problematic. If the US is for some reason unrepresented for periods in particular countries, as has been the case in Somalia and Sudan, then human intelligence may be weak. In contrast, when there are agents on the ground they may be able to obtain more information, but still give rise to questions about evaluating the quality of material which locals may be all too happy to impart, perhaps sometimes for personal reasons. For the CIA, as for the US government generally, Africa may not have high priority, but due to such factors as the weakness of the state and the increasingly international character of crime, there are reasons for concern, including the activities of those regarded by Washington as terrorists. However if and when the activities of African terrorists or criminals extend to America itself, they become the concern of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which has not always worked closely with the CIA.

The Department of Defense may also have its own interests in foreign policy issues. In general its perspectives are likely to be similar to those of the CIA but the means are different, involving support to friendly African militaries including weapons and training. In a continent in which military coups and military regimes have been so common, especially in the Cold War, US military support could be an important prop for regimes, as the Horn illustrates clearly. Contrary to some expectations, the military were not always warmongers. It has been argued that after the Vietnam War the military became more cautious, not only in the commitment of regular troops, but even special forces that might have seemed the obvious choice for the kind of unconventional action that African countries appeared at times to call for (Halberstan, 2002; Shultz, The Weekly Standard, 26 January 2004). Sometimes it was the politicians who were keener for action than the military: President Reagan, in particular, several times rejected the caution of his senior military advisers to send US forces into various trouble spots in the Third World (Schraeder, 1992, p.39). The foreign policy team put together by President George W. Bush also pushed military power in foreign policy, especially after 9/11. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsveld was particularly hawkish and military spending rose rapidly in support of a policy of developing and maintaining US military superiority over any other potential power in the world, for the indefinite future. In addition there were threats of pre-emptive action whenever and wherever the US deemed necessary, whatever the views of other countries. In contrast it was the former senior military figure in Bush’s cabinet in the first term, Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was seen generally as the most cautious on military intervention. However in the major use of US forces discussed here, that of Somalia in 1992-1993, there was little disagreement between the political and military leaderships about the suitability of deploying them.

Other agencies involved in Africa include the Agency for International Development (USAID). In the years after independence swept across Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s the symbol of clasped hands of friendship became ubiquitous across the continent, whether on the doors of 4-wheel drive vehicles bearing experts, or sacks of humanitarian food relief when development was failing. In later years USAID was sometimes a target for cuts, especially by the right, and humanitarian crises could be useful in defending the agency in Washington. While it was concerned primarily with development issues, it could not fail to be aware of the scale of humanitarian crises and of the extent to which they were man-made, especially in the Horn. Such humanitarian crises were primarily the responsibility of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance which is a special section within USAID. In such circumstances attitudes in USAID could become politicized and feed into the policy process. With the right political connections and links to the NGOs it could be a very powerful voice, perhaps, in times of humanitarian crises, as big as any other government department or agency.

In Sudan in the 1990s, USAID was to be very active in areas under the control of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) and it also maintained a small local staff in the capital, Khartoum, at a time when there was no US diplomatic representation actually in the country. In addition, the 1990s emphasis on US economic interests globally, together with growing concern for the security of oil supplies from the Middle East, had departments such as Commerce and the Treasury giving more consideration to Africa’s potential. Indeed it was a boast of the Clinton years that by the start of his second term most US government agencies had active programmes and staff on Africa-related activities.

The various departments and agencies of the executive branch also conduct their own brands of bureaucratic politics (Halperin, 1974). It is natural for each agency to have its own views on what its role should be, sometimes leading to conflicting policy proposals, as for instance between political (State Department) and military (Defense Department) moves in particular countries. A further dimension of bureaucratic politics is provided by the actions of departments and agencies to maximise their own resources, sometimes at the expense of each other, or if not that much in conflict, perhaps leading to envy at the success of one rather than another and a consequent lack of cooperation. There was a general perception in the 1990s that with the threat of the USSR removed there was an emphasis on saving money in the Treasury and increasing America’s international trade that helped the Commerce Department. In contrast the State Department and USAID saw budget cuts that restricted their activities, and for the latter in particular its significant role in relief in the Sudan situation, with its growing political importance as well, was a useful resource in the bureaucratic struggles in the capital. Also in the 1990s as peacekeeping rose on the post-Cold War agenda in response particularly to the situations in Somalia and the Balkans it led to new strains over responsibilities and resources between Defense and the State Department (Hersman, 2000, pp.39-40). Overall the likelihood of such bureaucratic rivalries has grown since the end of the Cold War and after 9/11. The former made foreign policy making more complex than it had been in the days of two rival superpowers bringing more claims for involvement from many different departments and agencies. The latter meant that in searching for explanations of failure there was more intense rivalry and mutual criticism.

It was in part to coordinate these various parts of the executive that the National Security Council (NSC) was created in 1947. It includes the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. Traditionally the NSC has been an advisory rather than an executive body, and in reality its actual work depends largely on the president of the day, and Africa has rarely been high on the agenda of the NSC. However, it was notable that President Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, did become engaged in the Horn in particular when war broke out between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998. For Africa the route to the NSC generally came through various departments and committees leading to the Deputies Committee. It was chaired by the Deputy National Security Advisor and included the deputies of the departments and agencies, where a decision could be taken to make a recommendation to the NSC. The eventual outcome of the process could be the NSC issuing a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) (Cohen, 2000, p.4). At these various levels there was plenty of room for bureaucratic infighting, not only between the departments and agencies, but sometimes involving NSC staff as well. Disagreements about the content of intelligence as well as about its significance for policy were to proliferate with regard to the Horn, and after 9/11 were to lead to many recriminations when it was realised how central the region had been to the development of al-Qaeda in the 1990s.

Congress also plays its part in the foreign policy process though most of its members are well aware that foreign affairs, let alone Africa, are of little concern to the majority of their constituents. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have Africa sub-committees of their foreign relations committees, and these sub-committees have tended to grow in influence within Congress, though little reported outside (Hersman, 2000, p.14). Some members have real concern for the continent and its problems which they take very much to heart, though others may tend to see it as the first step towards what are perceived to be more important positions. However Congress can be important in its granting of appropriations that generally entail economic and military aid. The ending of the Cold War, and with it the lessening of the immediate concern of the president for foreign policy, led to attempts by the Congress to be more asse...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Map
• Introduction
• 1 US Foreign Policy Making and the Horn of Africa
• 2 The US and the Horn in the Cold War
• 3 Facing Sudan’s Islamist Regime
• 4 Intervention in Somalia
• 5 New Friends for the US? Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti
• 6 Confronting Sudan
• 7 Peacemaking in Sudan
• 8 Somalia’s Long Shadow
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index