SOVEREIGNTY:
An Absolute and Perpetual Power
A
Discussion on U. S. – Ethiopia Relations
Ghelawdewos
Araia
October
25, 2007
The
objective of this essay is to address the question
of sovereignty as an exclusive right of nations
and discuss the U. S. – Ethiopia relations in
light of the recent passage of H. R. 2003
facetiously described or euphemistically named
“Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of
2007.”
As
far as I am concerned, HR 2003 easily and
ironically transgresses the rights and
prerogatives of Ethiopia enshrined in
international law. Ethiopia is neither Texas nor
Puerto Rico where a reasonable U. S. intervention
could somewhat be tolerated and justified.
Ethiopia is not only a sovereign nation, but also
a country that invented state craft of antiquity
that ultimately gave rise to the modern
‘sovereign nations’ or ‘political
entities’ with attendant political structures
(executive, legislative, and judicial) that are
immune to outside intervention.
Students
of political science, jurisprudence, and history
(including my own graduate students in International
Diversity and Integration)
are familiar with Jean Bodin (1530- 1596) who
first coined the concept of sovereignty in his Six
Books on the Republic. Although Bodin had the
individual (monarch) in mind as sovereign when he
wrote his treatise, he nonetheless extends his
notion of sovereignty to the Republic, thus
arguing, “Sovereignty is a Republic’s absolute
and perpetual power,” that I have adopted as a
subtitle for this essay. Furthermore, for Bodin,
sovereignty is exercised in the public, and not in
the private sphere; it is perpetual and hence does
not expire; it is no one’s property and it is
inalienable.
The
word ‘absolute’ is relative itself. Modern day
international lawyers have agreed that the state
as such is not a person but an institution.
However, Bodin’s legacy still thrives and most
notable jurists and political scientists have
internalized his concept of sovereignty. Bodin was
indeed a protagonist, but also of equal weight in
the conceptualization of sovereignty were
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and
Montesquieu.
Unlike
other contemporaneous thinkers, Rousseau equates
sovereignty to what he calls the ‘general
will’ or the will of the people, but for the
purpose of this essay, I will decidedly confine
the discussion to sovereignty with respect to the
nation. The latter, in fact, got a more practical
recognition in the Montevideo Convention of 1933
on the ‘Rights and Duties of Nations’ signed
by nineteen nations of the Americas including the
United States. This convention transcends theories
and principles of sovereignty and actually
emphasizes the relation between sovereign nations
on equal terms as long as the signatories fulfill
the preconditions of permanent
population, a defined territory, government, and
capacity to enter relations with the other
[sovereign] states.
Before
I delve into the U. S. – Ethiopia relations in
light of H. R. 2003, I like to bring to the
attention of readers a related concept of
‘independence,’ in an effort to concatenate it
with the central thesis of this essay. “The
conception of independence, regarded as the normal
characteristics of States as subjects of
international law,” say Louis Henkin et al,
“cannot be better defined than by comparing it
[with] the exceptional and, to some extent,
abnormal class of States known as “dependent
States.” These are States subject to the
authority of one or more other States. The idea of
dependence therefore necessarily implies a
relation between a superior State (suzerain,
protector etc.) and inferior or subject State
(vassal, protégé etc); the relation between the
State which can legally impose its will and the
State which is legally compelled to submit to that
will.”1
Therefore,
it is the absence of the attributes of dependence
and its legal ramifications that makes a country
independent and subsequently a sovereign nation.
Beyond all doubt, Ethiopia preserved its
independence throughout the colonial period that
other Africans experienced; its sovereignty was
tested and threatened several times but
maintained, thanks to her patriotic children, in
perpetuity.
To
be sure, even now Ethiopia is not “legally
compelled to submit to [the] will” of the United
States although HR 2003 suggests a ‘Superior
State’ (U. S.) –cum- ‘inferior State’
(Ethiopia) relations. At the same time, however,
the White House (the executive branch of the U. S.
government) views Ethiopia (or more specifically
the government of Ethiopia) as “the best ally in
the fight against terrorism.”
Is the U. S. Congress at loggerheads with
the White House (more specifically, the State
Department) or is it the usual double standard?
There
is no doubt that currently the United States is
the uncontested superpower in a unipolar world,
but it does not necessarily follow that this
country must act like an international police. The
U. S., blessed with gargantuan economic power
unparalleled in human history and the best
institutions of governance (thanks to James
Madison and other visionary founding fathers),
could have played an exemplary role in the
promotion of noble ideas such as democracy,
federalism, and separation of powers through
dialogue and diplomacy instead of employing
pressure and stick.
In
the middle of the 1960s, a political scientist, J.
W. Burton eloquently argued the significance of
sovereign states in the context of arrogance
exhibited by powerful nations against relatively
weaker nations. Here is what he said: “That
there cannot be stability in a condition which
rests upon enforcement by outside agencies is a
reality we have so far failed to face. We have
traditionally considered international affairs in
terms of great Powers exercising their influence
over smaller and undeveloped peoples. We have
assumed that enforcement has been acceptable as a
principle of international affairs – despite the
warnings of Rousseau, Kant, Mill and others. The
creation of many and new independent States which
will not tolerate dominance in political, economic
or strategic fields by great Powers, or by
organizations controlled by them, is a revolution
which might prove to be at least as important as
the invention of nuclear weapons.”2
It
seems to me that the U. S. Congress failed to see
two important realities with respect to the United
States – Ethiopia relations as highlighted in
the following: 1) Even as far back as the turn of
the 20th century U. S. –Ethiopia
relations was defined as commercial and not
political’. I have discussed this matter in my
book in 1995: “In 1903 Robert P. Skinner, on
behalf of the U. S. government headed a delegation
to Menelik’s Ethiopia, apparently for trade
exchange between the two countries. Skinner tells
us that the U. S. interest in Ethiopia was purely
commercial and not political.”3 Skinner
is implying here U. S. respect for Ethiopia’s
sovereignty. 2) U. S. national interest or
‘human rights watch’, which for the most part
suffers incongruity and hypocrisy, is further
obscured when it fails to recognize the
‘cognitive and value dimensions’ of foreign
policy; and as articulated by Alexander L. George,
“lack of adequate knowledge and theory about
these various cognitive-analytic matters
inevitably gives freer reign to individual group,
and organizational sources of malfunctions of the
policy making process…”4
The
U. S. Congress is best advised to recite Rousseau,
Kant, Mill and many others mentioned by Burton,
but most importantly the august American
legislative body must reread the contributions of
James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Moreover,
the U. S. congress can rectify its mistakes and
rethink HR 2003 especially if it can envision
democracy in Third World countries in general and
Ethiopia in particular by understanding the
internal dynamics of respective countries.
As
I have noted in many of my writings, democracy,
human rights etc. cannot be superimposed and
implemented. They require organic nourishment from
within. Additionally, as Larry Diamond tells us,
“international pressure alone cannot produce
democracy. There must be an internal demand and a
strong desire among the people for democracy and
some set of political and civic organizations
pressing for it. There also must be political
leaders who – out of pragmatism or conviction
– see democracy in their interest. These
conditions are not present everywhere in Africa.
Nevertheless, since the end of the Cold War and
the dawn of Africa’s “second liberation” in
1990, a dozen or so of the continent’s states
have made the transition to electoral
democracy.”5
If
we follow Diamond’s extrapolations, therefore,
HR 2003 will only serve as an extension of the
old-fashioned ‘carrot and stick’ policy and
will not realize Congress’ intention of
scrutinizing the Ethiopian government on “human
rights violations”, but by default could
penalize and harm Ethiopia. It is simple logic: In
the absence of the vital institutions for the
establishment of democracy, we cannot have viable
democratic governance in Ethiopia or elsewhere in
the Third World.
Equally
important in policy and decision-making is the
ability to make distinction between a sovereign
country and a presiding regime. In this regard,
Ethiopians in the Diaspora who clamor behind the
offices of respective congressmen/women were
unable to see the pernicious effect of HR 2003 on
Ethiopia. They were either unable to envision the
insuperable stumbling bloc that HR 2003 could have
made on Ethiopia’s overall development, or
simply have cherished the supple imagination that
on their behalf foreign powers could facilitate
their political agenda. On a more cynical
interpretation, some Ethiopian opposition in the
Diaspora have become sycophantic and submissive to
the point of obsequiousness and, unwittingly
perhaps, directed their efforts against
Ethiopia’s national interest. They have zeroed
in on the Ethiopian government and not quite on
Ethiopia and the welfare of the Ethiopian people.
They have now very much become like the proverbial
Ethiopian donkey (‘let there be no grass after
my death’) that is so selfish and could careless
of his fellow animals. Ultimately it boils down to
the power nexus and not so much to the priority of
Ethiopia’s interests as clearly revealed in the
recent VOA (Amharic) interview of Professor Mesfin
Wolde-Mariam.
I
like to remind Ethiopians in the Diaspora that
they should refrain from promoting slogans such as
‘HR 2003 is a vehicle for Ethiopia’s
democracy’. As I have pointed out earlier such
sloganeering will simply undermine the sovereign
Ethiopian nation and erode the national pride and
self-esteem among Ethiopians. Moreover, I like to
underscore to fellow Ethiopians that reform in
policy matters or profound change in Ethiopia
could only come from within Ethiopia and not from
London, Washington DC, or Paris. As the honorable
Belai Abbai once said in a conference that I also
participated as a panel,
‘Ethiopia’s problem could be solved by
Ethiopians only.’ Ethiopians must seriously
consider the advise of elders that for the most
part combine precision with simplicity, or
humility if you will.
In
light of the overall argument I have made with
respect to sovereignty and the U. S. – Ethiopia
relations, the Ethiopian government should have
marshaled Ethiopian jurists and political
scientists in international relations against HR
2003 to symbolize and reaffirm Ethiopia’s
independence. It was not necessary to hire the
honorable Dick Armey, former House Majority
leader, who would not be in a position to fathom
the ethos and inner dynamics of the Ethiopian
society. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt
to Dick Armey and rhetorically assert that he
would indeed successfully advocate on behalf of
Ethiopia, the latter would still encounter an
erosion of its sovereignty and the government of
Ethiopia would have a shadowy existence. In
relation to this super dog – under dog
phenomenon one may pose a rhetorical question:
What is the purpose of having an Ethiopian embassy
in Washington DC if it is not going to handle such
matters as we have discussed in this essay?
Unfortunately, both the Ethiopian government and
the opposition are depending on foreign hands
despite the rich and long-standing heritage of
Ethiopia.
I
very well understand the underlying complexities
of international relations whereby the current
globalization has rendered dependence of poor
nations on rich and powerful nations and I agree
with Phil Williams et al in their characterization
of such global phenomena: “Seeing the
international system solely in terms of states,”
they argue, “underestimates the importance of
international actors and forces and ignores the
development of various interdependencies which, in
crucial respects, have altered the nature of the
system and have had an impact on the foreign
policies of even large, powerful states.”6
However,
I still believe that sovereign nations can still
act and fashion their foreign policies
independently despite the challenges of
globalization. An authority on this issue, John
Herz, who published an article in 1957 (“perhaps
rashly” as he admits) entitled “Rise and
Demise of the Territorial State,” now argues on
the contrary and supports my thesis with respect
to the perpetuity of the sovereignty of nations.
“Despite the rise of international organization
and supranational agencies in the postwar world
and despite the impact on international affairs of
subnational agents such as business organizations
(in the West) and “international” parties (in
the East), the state remain the primary actors in
international relations…being a sovereign nation
seems to be the chief international status symbol
as well as to furnish actual entrance ticket into
world society.”7
In
concluding, thus, the U. S. – Ethiopia relations
should exhibit a bilateral relation of mutual
interdependence and not one of superior-inferior
state relations. Ethiopia’s entrance into the
world system is much older than any significant
nation in the developing world. Suffice to mention
its membership in the League of Nations in 1923
and its role as one of the founding members of the
United Nations. If we add to this, the long
statehood and uninterrupted independence (except
for a brief of five years by Fascist Italy),
Ethiopia can boast a more dignified posture and
stature in bilateral and multilateral relations.
And the United States government must recognize
Ethiopia’s past experience and future potential
in Africa instead of intimidating the country with
frivolous bills such as HR 2003.
References
- Louis
Henkin et al, International Law: Cases and
Materials, West Publishing Company, St.
Paul, Minnesota, 1980, p. 176
- J.
W. Burton, International Relations: A
General Theory, Cambridge University
Press, 1967, p. 70
- Ghelawdewos
Araia, Ethiopia: The Political Economy of
Transition, University Press of America,
1995, p. 48
- Alexander
L. George, Presidential Decision Making in
Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of
Information and Advice, Westview Press,
1980, p. 239
- Larry
Diamond, “Restoring Democracy in Africa,”
in Jeffress Ramsey, Global Studies: Africa,
Dushkin/Mcgraw-Hill, 1999, p. 179
- Phil
Williams et al, Classic Readings of
International Relations, Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1994,
p. 61
- John
H. Herz, “The Territorial State Revisited:
Reflections in the Future of the Nation
State,” in Phil Williams et al, ibid, p. 9
All
Rights Reserved. Copyright © IDEA, Inc. 2007.
Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for
constructive and educational feedback at dr.garaia@africanidea.org
|
