Evaluating U.S. Policy Objectives and Options on the Horn of Africa
Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on African Affairs
March 11, 2008
Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Feingold, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the situation in the Horn of Africa, and the Department of Defense’s activities in the region. Africa, and the Horn of Africa in particular, is a region of great strategic importance to the United States. At the crossroads of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East, the Horn presents a series of complex threats to U.S. national security, including weak governance, lawlessness, territorial disputes, and safe havens for terrorism. If ignored or unaddressed, all of these issues will have dire consequences for the people of the Horn, for the broader region, for our friends and Allies on the continent, and for the United States. We believe that a coordinated U.S. foreign and national security policy in the Horn of Africa, of which our defense relations are a component, is of critical importance to U.S. strategic and security interests.
Department of Defense in the Horn
The Department of Defense’s activities in the Horn are a subset of the U.S. national strategy for Africa, as outlined by the President in National Security Presidential Directive 50, and support the Department of State’s foreign policy goals of countering terrorism and building local capacity. Our activities with African partners focus on issues of mutual strategic concern, including the elimination of terrorist safe havens, prevention of arms and human trafficking, and ensuring enduring access to land and sea lanes of communication. We address these security interests by working with African partners to promote civilian control and defense reform, and to build local military capacity. This is achieved by ensuring their militaries are appropriately sized and funded, by
professionalizing militaries through training to develop and maintain well-trained and disciplined forces with a respect for law and human rights, and by building capacity of African partner militaries that positively contribute to combating terrorism, and that prevent and respond to national and regional crises. Theater security cooperation remains the cornerstone of our strategy to enhance partner capabilities and to promote these relationships and common interests. Within the Horn, our engagement and activities are governed by the realities of regional instability and our bilateral relationships.
Ethiopia
The security situation in Ethiopia remains challenging and complex, with profound regional implications. One area of significant concern is the on-going border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea dedicate a significant portion of military resources and efforts to manning the border region, and we remain concerned about the possibility for renewal of hostilities along the border. We believe that any return to conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea would undermine stability throughout the entire region.
Beyond the border, Ethiopia is facing genuine security concerns in the Ogaden region. The Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) continues to wage a separatist movement in the Ogaden region with outside support, including from neighboring Eritrea. Following the April 2007 attack that killed nine Chinese oil workers and more than 70 Ethiopians, the Government of Ethiopia increased its operations in a coordinated counterinsurgency campaign in the region. As a result, we have seen increased military operations coupled with restrictions on commercial traffic and humanitarian access. We continue to monitor the situation in the Ogaden, but given that we no longer have the level of access that we previously had to the region, we are unable to confirm the actual facts on the ground. We are, however, acutely aware that for a counterinsurgency campaign to be successful, the military must respect the local civilian populace.
One thought on “US policy objectives, options on the Horn (Theresa Whelan)”
The United States military assistance to the Horn of Africa is not going to help the Horn region, but instead it will break its horn into pieces and make the Continent hornless, without a horn, which means powerless or without honor since the word horn according to Scripture means power or honor.
The United States has been training the Meles’ army for a long, long time for four reasons: to curve the spread of terrorism, to eliminate the Islamist extremists from the Horn of Africa, to monitor the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and to safeguard the access to the sea. The United States believes that it is training the Meles’ army so that Meles could have a modernized and a well disciplined army – an army that respects human rights – the rights of the individuals. In theory, the United States may have taught the Meles’ army discipline, respect to the right of an individual, and the rule of law; however, in practice, we saw the Meles Army indiscriminately slaughtering the peaceful demonstrators of innocent Ethiopians on the streets of Addis Ababa in 2005; we see it now killing the Somali people and burying alive some of the people of Ogaden. What happened to the human rights? What happened to the rule of law? Does indeed the Theresa Whelan’s report include the atrocities of the United States-trained Meles’ army against the Ethiopian civilians and the civilians of the Somalia? The Whelan’s report is silent about these undeniable facts about the atrocities of the Meles’ army in Somalia, in Ethiopia, and even in Kenya or Sudan.
The Whelan’s report simply states, hiding the facts, that the involvement of America in the Horn region is to minimize lawlessness because of the weak governance in that region. Didn’t the Meles’ army learn discipline, the rule of law and human rights from the United States army trainer? Does the Theresa Whelan’s report reveal the weakness and lawlessness of the Meles’ army whose trainer has been the United States army staff? Instead of reporting the many shortcomings of the Meles’ army, Whelan talks about the lawlessness, the territorial disputes, and the weak governance in the Horn of Africa.
To the individual Ethiopians, especially to the people of Ogaden and the people of Somalia, who live under constant fear, intimidation, persecution, and many times killings, the Whelan’s report has no substance. Because it tells them nothing about their human rights violations by the Meles’ army the United States has been training for a long time – an army that brought instability in Somalia, total destruction in Ogaden, deep hatred between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for America supports Ethiopia but not Eritrea.
The presence of American military staff in the Horn of Africa has been a severe headache not only to the terrorists but also to the normal citizens of Ethiopian, Somalia, and particularly to the Ogaden people, for American assistance goes mostly to the building of a strong, ruthless, and lawless army such as the army of Meles Seitanawi, so the common people of Ethiopian and Somalia benefits nothing by the presence of the American army in the Horn of Africa. In order to be there, Americans have been preaching to the people of the Horn that they should cooperate with the United States in destroying terrorism so that America could build them new roads, new hospital, new schools, and send them engineers, doctors, well-trained teachers, and nurses, but America is sending them army generals who could train the Meles’ army, army helicopters, guns, and commandos instead of teachers, doctors, nurses, and engineers.
Whelan’s report says nothing that America has a plan to feed the hungry Ethiopians, to treat the Ethiopian AIDS victims, to bring peace and stability between Ethiopia and Eritrea, between Somalia and Ethiopia, and between Ogaden and its mother country, Ethiopia. Yes, Whelan talks about lawlessness, territorial disputes, and weak governance in the region. Whelan’ report has failed indeed to mention that it was Washington who created lawlessness, territorial disputes, weak governance, and terrorism in the Horn of Africa by training the Meles’ army to terrorize its neighbors, create lawlessness, bring terrorism, and establish territorial disputes. Had not Washington gone to war with Iraq with a pretext that Iraq had developed a mass destruction weapon, the world, including the Horn of Africa, would be the safest place to live now freely, and the territorial dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea would have been solved long time ago without the help of any foreign government. Right now, Eritrea is adamant to seek help from Washington, and Ethiopia is handcuffed to do any thing without the help of America. Therefore, for all these territorial disputes, lawlessness, weak governance, and terrorism, America is to blame, no one else.
In reality, America’s foreign policy, especially its policy about the Horn of Africa, is a mess; one of its ugliest policies is sending its military staff to Ethiopia to train a terrorist army – Meles’ army- to fight against terrorism that Washington has created by invading Iraq and Afghanistan instead of invading Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorists that hit new York City originated. Knowing that America is losing the battle to eradicate terrorism from the face of the earth, it is now forcing the Horn regions through its economic incentives to guard the American interest by waging war against its enemies – Islamist terrorists – not the enemies of either Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, or Eritrea.
Therefore, the true nature of Theresa Whelan’s report is to modernize Meles’ army – a terrorist army – to fight terrorism to protect Washington’s interest in the Horn of Africa and Meles’ interest in Somalia, Ogaden, and America; without these two fundamental interests, Washington will never help Meles, and Meles will never fight Washington’s terrorism in the Horn of Africa. Thus, the two interests are interwoven; none of them will function without the other.