Ethiopia's controversial quest for access to the sea
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
1. They should call it Arat Kilos quest for the sea, not Ethiopia. Abiys megalomania isn’t popular in Ethiopia, and even FANO has come out against this “deal”
2. If you read the fine print, the deal is for a commission to examine recognizing Somaliland. Ethiopia will never actually go through with it, because Ethiopia has multiple secessionist and rebel movements.
3. This ignores the unionist factor in Northern Somalia, the area that is supposed to be ceded to Ethiopia is a heavily unionist area, and given that half of “Somaliland” rejoined Somalia this year ^1, I don’t think that will happen.
Also like all of the anylysts cited are pro-somaliland, like Peter Pham is literally a lobbyist, and this does the typical Reddit mistake of assuming the Somali government is nonexistent or weak (this isn’t 2011).
This is a horribly written article with no research to back it up
1 wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Anod_conflict_(2023-present)
I find it interesting that wherever UAE and Turkey's interests collide (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, Yemen, Qatar, etc) there's always some mutual jockeying.
This doesn’t particularly matter since all of the potential ports are in unionist territory, but most Somali and Amharic sources say that it is Lughaye.
> It also doesn't seem to take sides, or make any far-fetching claims
It does both, first by the people it cites,and then by claiming that Ethiopia would both delegitimize itself and tear up the charter of the African Union by recognizing a Somaliland, a claim that Ethiopia has walked back already.
> On a side note: personally I have no idea what changed with Somalian gov't since 2011, but virtually all sources say it still controls lesser part of internationally recognized territory, and its existence is impossible without external forces on the ground.
2011 was 12 years ago. The Somali government and more importantly the Federal States control the majority of the territory of the Somali republic. Given that the majority of the “external forces” withdrew last year and the Somali government hasn’t fallen yet, I would urge you to read something more up-to-date.
Djibouti already has lots of foreign military bases there, it won't take a diplomat or strategist much to convince Somalilanders or Eritreans to allow them to have other bases.
Now it's becoming a stage for some of the Cold War-ish struggles between Russia/China and the US. Hopefully it remains mostly an economic stage where it's a battle of who pours more money into the continent's economies for friendship.
As of now, the population growth is already creating some very powerful migration pressures. Most of them stay on the African continent, but even the few per cent that reach Europe are enough to turn European politics full tilt to the far right. It doesn't help that Sahel, the most fertile part of Africa, is also one of the most arid - and Islamic at the same time, so a clash of values with secular liberal European societies is all but guaranteed.
The new Cold War will have a significant migration dimension.
So support local school systems with all might, which also means countering prejudice and religious bigotry of some locals. Once every girl has a chance to stay in school until at least 14 years of age, TFR will drop by more than half.
That sounds so much better and so much more humane (sarcasm).
Ethiopia will stay landlocked, no matter what war criminals like Muse Bihi or Abiye Ahmed desire.
This seem to happen fairly often though
A valid point. The unification of British and Italian Somaliland is itself a controversial topic.
> I don't see why they can't just choose to leave again.
If it was as simple as separating the two into co-existing countries, then sure Somaliland would have gained international recognition at some point in the last thirty years.
It becomes vastly more easy to bring money into the region and get an independent economy going. It would have its own exterior politics and officially opens it up to the influence of other countries. The state the region seceded from might not be friendly with some of them.
Does somaliland have independent control of the land they claim? That should be what matters.
I am not so certain. Do we recognize Crimea or Mariupol as Russian, because they are de facto under Russian control?
In case of pure self-determination, which is the case of Somaliland, there may be an exception. But a totally realistic approach gives bad actors one more incentive to conquer their neighbours by force.
The situations are quite different though. Somaliland is a real functional country in every reasonable definition of the word (unlike Somalia!).
Somaliland is also an established military fact of self determination, not an occupying external force.
East Timor is a much closer and more reasonable comparison.
Even within Russia proper, "we just crushed them with our might and so they are ours" would be unpalatable to the population. Folks must believe in the rightneousness of their Tsar.
I might not like that russia controls crimea, but wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
Currently, there are sanctions and other punishing measures enacted against Russia because it occupies someone else's territory. Once you say, well, they conquered it, its theirs, there isn't really a reason why not to normalize the relations. It's theirs, end of story.
Now this used to be the international norm prior to the Briand and Kellogg pact: might was right and conquered territories were ruled by the right of the conqueror. We would just revert to that previous standard, which was fairly ancient.
I would, nevertheless, consider such reversion unwise. It rewards aggression against neighbours and thus increases the likelihood of wars. Combined with current weapons, which are far more destructive than 100 years ago, it is a game with fire where the entire globe is at stake. In a world where might makes right, runaway nuclear proliferation is well possible.
I mean, i dont know if its worse for the conqouring side to just win the land, but having stuff stay in limbo for decades also seems counterproductive to healing conflicts and moving forward. closure can be beneficial even if its towards a result we don't want.
From Webster's dictionary, travesty means:
1. a debased, distorted, or grossly inferior imitation (example: "a travesty of justice")
2. a burlesque translation or literary or artistic imitation usually grotesquely incongruous in style, treatment, or subject matter
Anyway, I'm not being pedantic-- I really feel like I'm missing something, since I frequently see it used without any subsequent qualifications, and I never know what it's supposed to mean when it's a standalone word.
The major powers (aka the UN security council) have a lot to answer for IMO. And don't nearly to enough to make amends.
He was a candidate for UNSG (and lost to Ban Ki Moon).
The general Indian public does not like intellectuals.
He's a very smart guy, but he never did his time in the domestic policy space until after he lost the Secretary General election at the UN.
Unlike a number of other Indian politicians in all parties, he hasn't shown that he has experience managing a state sized administration. In his party alone, there are former Chief Ministers like Kamal Nath and Ashok Gehlot who can show they can manage an administration as well as rally party workers.
The best way to become a PM in India post-1991 is to be a Chief Minister who has actually delivered on development (either economic development or social development).
That's why Narendra Modi keeps winning. He has a very dark past, but the Gujarat model does resonate. If Ashok Gehlot was younger, he could have pointed out to how under his tenure as CM he brought RJ's HDI from one of the lowest in the country and the world to around or above the Indian average by 2019.
Shashi Tharoor did consider becoming a CM, but it's difficult to beat the CPIM in his home state