Last week’s shenanigan by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at the South African summit of Progressive leaders was shameful to say the least. In Orwellian tongue he accepted Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, as a progressive leader. He then proceeded to characterize Ethiopia’s brutal experience of the last seven months as a mere over reaction by a government that behaved within the bounds of normal democratic practice. He raised neither international nor human rights paradigms as a point of reference for his characterization and simply blurted it out in a vacuum of context and honesty.
In fact, unprincipled chicanery of English officials in their policies regarding Ethiopia is not unprecedented. The breach in agreement between the government of Great Britain and Ethiopia during Emperor Yohannes’ reign as well as the contortions that London had to go through to legitimize the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia prior to WWII and its colonial ambitions later on present great lessons in the history of relations between the two nations.
In the late 1860s an English expeditionary force was sent to Ethiopia to crush the rule of Emperor Tewodros. He was seen as a threat to British interests as he asserted his independence and pursued a tightly controlled project of nation building. The facilitator to the expedition in Ethiopia, the later Emperor Yohannes, was to receive lavish arms and diplomatic support during his rule in the 1870s and 80s for his support in the British adventure. This came at a high price however.
British policy in the region was geared towards securing the Red Sea and Suez Canal as well as establishing functional colonies in Egypt and The Sudan. Another nationalist movement in the form of the Mahdists was presenting major obstacles in The Sudan resulting in Emperor Yohannes being contracted yet again to secure an exit route for the defeated Egyptian forces through Eritrea and the Red Sea as well as for he himself to apply military pressure on the Sudanese from the South East. In return the British promised that the Egyptian held port of Massawa would remain open to him while he could control much of highland Eritrea and the western lowlands up to Kassala.
While the Emperor seemed to fulfill his side of the bargain, the British proceeded to invite the Italians into Eritrea as a way of securing their interests. The sense of betrayal was to stay with the Emperor until his death in one such battle with the Mahdists. To the Emperor, the British behavior was slimy while to the British it was pragmatic.
During the mid 1930s the British were to impress another Ethiopian Emperor with their ever more ingenious gimmicks. Hitler’s rise to power in Europe had France and England, the traditional leaders in Europe, in a condition of panic and despair. One element that they believed would deter Hitler was to keep Italy on their side of the confrontation as they had done during the WWI. Ethiopia was a member of the League of Nations and invoked the principle of collective security at the time that Mussolini attempted his invasion but France and England literally turned a blind eye or worse, supported him.
Eventually the British were to work hard at recognizing the Fascist invasion and the expulsion of Ethiopia from the League of Nations while still maintaining an overt policy of collective security. The fact that the British gave Emperor Haile Selassie harbor during the war had less to do with their interest in protecting Ethiopian sovereignty as it did with acquiring a negotiating chip against Mussolini who desired the submission of the Emperor to legitimize his rule. The British impulse to play on all sides of diplomacy in total disregard to international law and common norms came at a great cost to Ethiopia as well as Great Britain itself. Finally, it is worth mentioning that British colonial ambitions in Ethiopia after the War were crushed only by the involvement of the US, leaving the Emperor forever suspicious of the English character.
Tony Blair’s support of Meles Zenawi as a progressive leader while the latter punishes Ethiopians with poverty and bullets is therefore a continuation of a long history of hypocrisy in British policy towards Ethiopia. The fact that British policy has the same traits when the country was a world power [1880s], on the brink of a global war [1930s] and at this time when it is a small client state to the US is troubling.
At a time when most African countries have shunned British influence in their affairs, it is understandable that Blair should be grappling for any strand of support in the continent. But maybe it is best if he does it in silence without pompous invitations of brutal leaders to his summits and commissions.
In fact, unprincipled chicanery of English officials in their policies regarding Ethiopia is not unprecedented. The breach in agreement between the government of Great Britain and Ethiopia during Emperor Yohannes’ reign as well as the contortions that London had to go through to legitimize the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia prior to WWII and its colonial ambitions later on present great lessons in the history of relations between the two nations.
In the late 1860s an English expeditionary force was sent to Ethiopia to crush the rule of Emperor Tewodros. He was seen as a threat to British interests as he asserted his independence and pursued a tightly controlled project of nation building. The facilitator to the expedition in Ethiopia, the later Emperor Yohannes, was to receive lavish arms and diplomatic support during his rule in the 1870s and 80s for his support in the British adventure. This came at a high price however.
British policy in the region was geared towards securing the Red Sea and Suez Canal as well as establishing functional colonies in Egypt and The Sudan. Another nationalist movement in the form of the Mahdists was presenting major obstacles in The Sudan resulting in Emperor Yohannes being contracted yet again to secure an exit route for the defeated Egyptian forces through Eritrea and the Red Sea as well as for he himself to apply military pressure on the Sudanese from the South East. In return the British promised that the Egyptian held port of Massawa would remain open to him while he could control much of highland Eritrea and the western lowlands up to Kassala.
While the Emperor seemed to fulfill his side of the bargain, the British proceeded to invite the Italians into Eritrea as a way of securing their interests. The sense of betrayal was to stay with the Emperor until his death in one such battle with the Mahdists. To the Emperor, the British behavior was slimy while to the British it was pragmatic.
During the mid 1930s the British were to impress another Ethiopian Emperor with their ever more ingenious gimmicks. Hitler’s rise to power in Europe had France and England, the traditional leaders in Europe, in a condition of panic and despair. One element that they believed would deter Hitler was to keep Italy on their side of the confrontation as they had done during the WWI. Ethiopia was a member of the League of Nations and invoked the principle of collective security at the time that Mussolini attempted his invasion but France and England literally turned a blind eye or worse, supported him.
Eventually the British were to work hard at recognizing the Fascist invasion and the expulsion of Ethiopia from the League of Nations while still maintaining an overt policy of collective security. The fact that the British gave Emperor Haile Selassie harbor during the war had less to do with their interest in protecting Ethiopian sovereignty as it did with acquiring a negotiating chip against Mussolini who desired the submission of the Emperor to legitimize his rule. The British impulse to play on all sides of diplomacy in total disregard to international law and common norms came at a great cost to Ethiopia as well as Great Britain itself. Finally, it is worth mentioning that British colonial ambitions in Ethiopia after the War were crushed only by the involvement of the US, leaving the Emperor forever suspicious of the English character.
Tony Blair’s support of Meles Zenawi as a progressive leader while the latter punishes Ethiopians with poverty and bullets is therefore a continuation of a long history of hypocrisy in British policy towards Ethiopia. The fact that British policy has the same traits when the country was a world power [1880s], on the brink of a global war [1930s] and at this time when it is a small client state to the US is troubling.
At a time when most African countries have shunned British influence in their affairs, it is understandable that Blair should be grappling for any strand of support in the continent. But maybe it is best if he does it in silence without pompous invitations of brutal leaders to his summits and commissions.
9 comments:
It was most embarrassing to hear Blair say "this was not a case of stealing votes". That he is declaring the elections to be free and fair without regard to the outcome of the final EU election report is further evidence that the delay in issuing the report is due to British pressure. I have a feeling that the final report, if it ever comes out, will probably reflect Blair’s sentiments.
The lesson of Meles is that if you stay loyal to foreign interests, it is very easy to get the external financing that keeps you in power. It is much harder to get internal legitimacy which requires that you actually bring results to your people. As long as people like Meles are around, there will be other Blairs to support them. But sooner or later people will rise and say enough is enough. I had hoped this was the time for Ethiopia…but maybe it is not. But I don’t think that time is very far off.
interesting article...
Yes, an interesting article but one I disagree with on so many levels. But hey, this is an opinion piece hence so I guess the facts can be massaged to fit one's opinion.
If only Yonas had said where he disagrees it would have been good...I on the other hand like this article. It is concise, to the point and exposes British policy for what it is - Absolute Hypocrisy.
Dear Yonas,
The process of massaging ‘accurate’ facts to fit ones opinion is called articulation and you should have no issues with it. What you should oppose is massaging blatant lies to fit ones opinion because then civilized communication breaks down.
The latter is precisely what this piece criticizes in British policy.
Tazabi,
Awesome piece. Great Britain’s duplicity in its dealings with Ethiopia represents one of the saddest chapters in Ethiopia’s history. No foreign power, with the exception of Italy, has done so much to adversely impact Ethiopia and Ethiopia’s long term interests—and I include the Soviet Union in this.
In some way, the horrendous policies issued from the British Foreign Office in the mid- to late-1800s and well into the turn of the century mirror the Soviet Union’s in the 1970s and 80s—as you know, during the cold war, the latter waged a protracted proxy war against the United States in the African continent; the Brits engaged in a similar war against the French (whom they believed—perhaps rightfully—were attempting to control the headwaters of the Nile) paved the way to Ethiopia’s loss of access to sea, creation of an Italian colony, and years of attendant war, famine, and instability in the Horn.
I don’t know about you, Tazabi, but Tony Blair is starting to bore me to death. Thanks for putting it all in perspective. It’s easy to forget.
My greetings to Yagerlig.
Ersasu
Dear Ersasu,
You made a very interesting analogy. Thanks for the comment.
Brilliant! Brilliant! Brilliant!
This is a great piece. It is a shame that this blog is no longer active.
Post a Comment