Cooperation And Conflict In Asymmetry: Eritrea And Ethiopia

The thesis focuses on innovative contribution to the field of International Relations of distinguished scholar Brantly Womack's Asymmetry theories of International Relations. This paper argues the conflict in the Horn of Africa region can best be understood by applying assumptions stipulated by Asymmetry theory. The structural misperceptions on part of Eritrea and Ethiopia have facilitated cooperation and Conflicts. The first chapter discusses literature review in which different authors advance their argument on conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia based on different school of thought of international relations. Many area pundits give credit to economic aspect of the conflict. They forwarded the assertion that, right after independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia; Eritrea was in privilege position to milk Ethiopia dry. Eritrea and Ethiopia starting May1991, coordinate their economic policies, but as time goes by both parties identify different path to development. Eritrea asserts export-led economy to be its guiding principle to rapid transformation, while in Ethiopia; import substitution economic policy was identified to respond to fast development. This two different outlook, argued, contributed to the friction. Other authors argue Eritrea's decision to print its own currency as the source of conflict. Eritrea, after its independence May 1991, till May1997 adopt Ethiopian currency as a legal instrument of transaction within Eritrea. The decision to terminate such venture, according to some writers has contributed to chafing of relation. Others also use Trade Economics as the source of conflict. They argue, the trade arrangement had favor Eritrea than Ethiopia. The fact that party affiliated enterprises of both countries were competing for the same market had contributed negatively to tense relationship that later developed to hostility.For other area specialists, the cause of conflict was attributed to pure realist assumption. After May 1991, the military balance between the two countries favor Eritrea and this knowledge had encouraged Eritreans to take action that correspond to that reality. Ethiopia's late catch up and ability to narrow the gap of power had instigated the conflict. Others within the same school argue, the desire of the two parties to affect regional politics, in the process to be regarded as regional hegemony and reap the spoils of managing the region, had been considered the main cause of the conflict. Eritrea's adventure against Sudan, Yemen and Djibouti immediately after its independence, consecutively, and its concurrent success to subdue threat had embolden the leadership in Eritrea to seek solution from the barrel of gun is another explanation of why hostility prevail between the two countries. The same adventure in Ethiopian internal politics to solve problem with a barrel of gun had given confidence TPLF leadership that they can also extend the power to teach EPLF who the real boss is.The beauty of social science is to look the same event through different glasses. Yet others argue, the ongoing Eritrea and Ethiopia conflict as extension of clan driven quarrel that had surfaced for generation, as the leadership of both countries are from the same ethnic makeup. Northern Tigray and Central Highland of Eritrea, share the same language, religion and some scholars argues even the same culture and social makeup. The source of the conflict for such scholars rests, who dominates among the tribes.Democracy had also its toll in explaining the Eritrea and Ethiopia conflict. The nature of the two parties that form government in Eritrea and Ethiopia, doesn't entertain the opinion of others, the authoritarian tendency of the parties limits platform for other voices to be heard. Hence, they argue, democracies do not go war amongst each other. Lack of accountability of the leadership of Eritrea and Ethiopia had contributed to the conflict.The interest to write my master thesis on the Ethiopian and Eritrean border conflict was aroused by two important factors. The first factor was the lecture I had about the theories of International Relations and the curiosity that parallelly developed as to why many of the recent International Relations theory books sidelined one of the theory that capture my attention, Asymmetry. The second factor comes from the fact that I leave in a world which is labeled as unremitting propensity to conflict. The conflict between my country Eritrea and Ethiopia has been lingering for the last twelve years. Different arguments and explanation have been come along to explain such events but I feel none of the explanations have convincing arguments as to why these friendly neighbors chose to resolve their difference by war.Objective of the study of this paper have identified two problems. First, what causes the Eritrea Ethiopia war, and the second is why the peace process has yet to yield normalization? The whole analysis of the paper will be striving to answer these two questions.Scope of the study of this research is mainly focus from May 1998 till present. However, it is very difficult to understand the present without clear information of what is going on in the past. Historical relationship of the two people and leadership will be visited to unlock present crises.Challenge to the study comes from the fact I am citizen of one of the belligerent country under study. I have my share of first hand fighting experience. This experience had the affinity to make me biased. I have done my utmost effort to be guided by the principles of the theory than personal biased assertions.Limitation of this study is made by analyzing data that are available in the internet and secondary sources, like books and articles written on the issue of conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The study would have benefited if primary data of interview of both Eritrean and Ethiopian officials were conducted. However, the availability of party and government official websites has bridged that gap.The aim of this research is to examine Eritrea-Ethiopia asymmetric relations under the framework of cooperation and conflict. For this purpose, the methodology employed is a qualitative rather than a quantitative research method of investigation.Chapter Two In the second chapter, we mainly focus on literature review on conflict and cooperation. There are divergent views on why and when cooperation and conflict happened based on one's ascription. Realists believe the international system inherently invites countries to be stronger as to be weak is not an option. By merely emphasizing on power, realism deducts the international system devoid of cooperation but in a constant struggle to survive. Lack thereof to strengthen one's power ability has the potential to produce dominance by the more organized and powerful nations.Others talk of the importance of international regimes in facilitating peaceful coexistence. After the fall of Soviet from the status of super power, the power vacuum was filled by United States, which for so long act as hegemony. But if for any reason US too withdraw from the picture of power relations, institutionalists argue, don't bother. The international institution or regime can take care of the relations among nations. With countries, most of the time, engaged in different international negotiations simultaneously, the international institutions had developed a mechanism that guarantee cooperation among actors. Any attempt by any actor to maximize immediate benefit by unfair means will be dealt by the system as the system is reiterated game.Democracy peace theorists argue, availability or lack of conflict has a direct relationship with country's political system. According to their studies, democracies rarely go to war. If they decide to go war it is against authoritarian governments. Democracy makes the price of going to war very expensive for political leaders who have to convince their constituencies and the legislative body and interest groups. Unlike authoritarian governments, democracies had accountability to their decision.Human's act rationally argues rationalist school theoreticians. By borrowing concepts from Economics and especially from micro economics, Expected Utility of returns, rationalists argue that important decisions are made by prioritizing alternative and politicians prefer an alternates that will not put them in conflict for so long,Chapter Three The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize asymmetry theory and to give major paradigms of the theory. It has had been trendy in the many regions around the globe, to understand and act accordingly that the international system as a self help, Darwinian survival of the fittest venture. However, if we observe countries of Horn of Africa, the tiny Djibouti in terms of size and population, Kenya which is politically incapacitated to reach consensus and affect outcomes in the region and Ethiopia, the biggest in the region in terms of population size, land mass and ability to mobilize diplomatically and militarily function in predictable manner. No bigger country will dare to invade its smaller neighbor or smaller neighbors poke their bigger counterpart without risking devastating consequences. So far, unlike realist's prediction many small and mid-range countries survive without relying on power.Major assumptions of realist paradigms, no matter how seductive they are to war mongering minds of political leaders and their advisors; the reality in the ground display different outcomes that are contrary to realists predictions. No countries today get everything they want simply because they have power. There are other variables as well to define interest.Interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but whose meaning can change. Powerful China did not adventure to control its smallest neighbors as Brantly Womack repeatedly argues.Asymmetry theory of international relation basic argument goes around the premises that many states due to their land mass, populations, technology or levels of economic development, are in asymmetry position to their neighbor or other states. According to Womack, a normal asymmetric relationship is founded on reciprocal but different commitments by each side. The larger side must recognize the autonomy of the smaller. Larger in asymmetry did not qualify to arrogance and lee way to take any action deemed necessary over the smaller side. And the smaller side in asymmetry must be deferential to its actual disparity of power with the larger. "Autonomy and deferential" are the two key words in understanding asymmetry. Relationships are negotiated rather than enforced by the stronger over the weaker. An attempt to create a stratified system in which the stronger interests are always prevailing over the smallest will be met by strong and menace resistanceChapter FourThe third chapter revisits the historical relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia and pinpoints the point of departure of the current conflict and stalemate. Eritrean and Ethiopian relationship is marred by continuity and change. The northern part of contemporary Ethiopia and the Central highlands of Eritrea historically share memories that are not pleasant to the Eritrean side. The historical relation was formally changed as Eritrea become colony of Italia in 1890.In 1941 British defeat Italians in Eritrea and promised outright independence to Eritreans. Nonetheless, the national interest of the allied power kept that promise aloof and the 1952 United Nations General Assembly dictated by the United States decides Eritrea to be federated with Ethiopia. Ethiopia later used its asymmetric power against Eritrea and unilaterally abrogated the federation in 1962, and made Eritrea its province.By September 1961, Eritrea launches its military struggle to free itself from Ethiopia. The ill treatment of the central government of Ethiopia against its own Tigraian people too, instigates the formation of different military opposition groups. The Eritrean and Tigraian liberation movements join hand to bring a regime change in Ethiopia and Independence for Eritrea. The difficult and fitful relation between the two fronts might have cost them opportunities, but was sustained till May 1998 due to mutual interests.This chapter addresses the fitful relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia by applying major assumptions of the asymmetry theory. The asymmetry relation of Eritrea and Ethiopia had witnessed a shift in capacity among the parties.Looking at countries relation we can pin down power disparity favoring Ethiopia. The land mass of Ethiopia is 1,104,300 sqm while Eritrea's land mass is 117,600 sqm. The population of Eritrea is about 5.1 million and its counterpart Ethiopia has 82.5 millions. Looking at the ratio, Ethiopia enjoy 16.2:1 ratio in population and 9.4:1 in land mass. A natural extension of Eritrea being the colony of Ethiopia for so long, Eritrea's foreign trade was more than 70% tied with that of Ethiopia while Ethiopia enjoy diversified trading partners. This simple data put Ethiopia as the bigger power in the relation.As bigger country Ethiopia expect Eritrea to bestow its deference. And in return it should acknowledge Eritrea's autonomy. But past reality had put regime in Ethiopia as the weakest link in the war to topple the military regime. Since assuming power in Ethiopia in 1991, by utilizing the country's economic resources, Tigray People Liberation Front have become powerful. This power has been used to check Eritrea's power capability. Such actions are frequently employed to demand deference which Eritrean government was not willing to acknowledge. For Eritreans it is a mortal threat that has to be met with organized resistance. Being the smaller party of the asymmetry, Eritrea uses all its resources and mobilize its people to defend it autonomy. The bigger party, Ethiopia, does not feel seriously threatened but want to teach lesson to its smallest adversary.Chapter FiveAsymmetry relationship can be used to study friendly, hostile or stalemated relationship among countries. Many relationships are asymmetry. The contribution of asymmetry theory to the field of International Relations is the valiant move of encompassing small and middle level states that comprises more than 90 percent of members of United Nations, a chance to be studied just like the minority but great powers who have been dominating the field of International relations.Governments in Eritrea and Ethiopia are busy of designing methods of mutually destructive. The meager resources that were supposed to be used to catalyze development were channeled to augment their military capability.Stalemate can only be loosen when the smaller power is guaranteed its desire that its autonomy is respected. Ethiopian in turn demands that Eritrea recognize the power asymmetry, and before Eritrea gives its deference, Ethiopia seems to be content with the stalemate. Stalemate affects the smaller power than it does the bigger. The practical recommendation the paper forward is for both parties to understand their contemporary position and work closely together to break the deadlock. Since it is very costly for the smaller power, as the issue is a matter of survival, the bigger party Ethiopia, should take initiative by recognizing Eritrea's autonomy. Subsequent dialogues will further reduce tension and lead to normal friendship of asymmetry.