GBTarmy
VIP
The Superpowers and the Ogaden War
By Don Oberdorfer
March 5, 1978
On the night of last Nov. 28, U.S. surveillance stations in the Middle East tracked flights of Soviet military transport planes heading toward Ethiopia from their home base in the Soviet Union.
They were the vanguard of a still-continuing air and sea lift that has catapulted 11,000 Cuban troops, 1,000 Soviet advisers and many tons of modern weaponry into an African war, reversing the tide of battle between warring states and stirring growing argument and speculation around the world.
In Washington, the Soviet-Cuban intervention is being called "Jimmy Carter's Angola," a reference to the two-year-old precendent for communist expeditionary forces in Africa, thousands of miles from either Moscow or Havana. The parallel is striking but inexact, for the present conflict involves far more complex issues and greater international ramifications.
And while Angola brought on a domestic showdown between Congress and executive branch under President Ford, the policy struggle over Ethiopia appears to have exposed, for the first time, serious fissures within the high councils of the executive branch itself, under President Carter.
The situation in the Horn of Africa - the northeast sector facing oil-rich Arabia - is at one level a superpower competition for strategic interests and affiliations. Since the 1973 Middle East war and oil embargo loosed forces of dramatic change, almost every state around the Red Sea has reversed its superpower connection - Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Northern Yemen ousting Soviet advisers and bidding, with Saudi money, for American arms; Ethipia ousting American advisers to bring in Russians and Cubans.
At another level, the conflict in the Horn is a regional problem involving the diverse policies and perceptions of African states prizing territorial integrity above nearly everything else, and nervous Middle East nations eyeing their sea lanes and the fate of Islamic cousins.
And at ground level in the harsh volcanic desert and eroding plateaus of one of the world's most poverty-stricken regions, the conflict is the continuation of 500 years of intermittent fighting between homogeneous Moslem people called Somalis and the diverse Christian tribes that make up the venerable empire of Ethiopia.
Of fundamental importance at every level is the fact that Somalia's attack last summer, to liberate fellow tribesmen in the Ogaden region, violated the international border of Ethiopia. This boundary was imposed by colonial powers decades ago in disregard of ethnic balance, but like many similar lines, it is recognized throughout the world. Whatever may be the merits of ethnic kinship in the Somalia cause, the attempt to unite the Somali populations is rejected by international law.
By the accepted norms of international behavior, Ethiopia was fully within its rights in calling for Soviet and Cuban troops and arms to repel an invasion across its eastern border, a point which can scarcely be aruged by U.S. officials who made so much of an invitation to intervene in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. "The Soviets are not violating the United Nations charter, the rules of the Organization of African Unity or the rules of the superpower game as they are recognized," said Tom J. Farer, professor of law at Rutgers Unversity in New Jersey and a leading expert on the Horn of Africa.
The tangled threads in this crazy-quilt fabric are so complex and paradoxical that Art Buchwald recently made a humorous column of a straightforward recitation of the situation in the Horn of Africa. A State Department official dealing with the area read the Buchwald account, pronounced it accurate and told his wife he couldn't see what was amusing.
The development of the present multilayered conflict involves four power centers - Ethiopia, Somalia, the United States and the Soviet Union/Cuba - as well as many peripheral forces. Although rooted in the past, the crisis can be dated from Sept. 12, 1974, when an Ethiopian military group arrested the 82-year-old Emperor Haile Selassie, a once-illustrious monarch who had outlived his time. A seemingly reformist military regime was displaced two months later by a radical faction.
Amid bloody purges and executions, state control of property and Marxist-Leninist declarations, Ethiopia's leaders made repeated bids for Soviet support while continuing to receive dwindling amounts of U.S. military aid under a long-standing pact and alliance. In the initial stages, according to U.S. officials, the Ethiopians were rebuffed. During 1975, Moscow was building a naval and communications base for its fleet near Berbera in Somalia, a Soviet aid and arms recipient since 1963 and Ethiopia's historic enemy.
The Soviet decision to accept the Ethiopian offer of alliance dates from 1976, according to U.S. accounts. The most definitive sign was a Soviet-Ethiopian military aid pact signed secretly that December. There is a consensus among Kremlin-watchers that this decision was made at the top level of the Soviet government, and there is clear evidence that Moscow's African specialists were less enthusiastic than high-ranking politicans and military-ranking politicans and military strategists.
Why did the Kremlin choose to endanger its secure position in cohesive Somalia by placing a major bet on highly unstable Ethiopia? There is a range of theories in Washington all of which may have an element of truth:
Ethiopia is a larger country of greater geographic, symbolic and political importance in Africa.
The appeal of the Ethiopian revolutionaries - who patterned slogans and behavior on the early Bolsheviks in Russia - was irresistible.
It was a chance to strike back at the United States - Saudi combination that to Moscow's plan and embarrassement, was dramatically reducing Russian influence in Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere.
By Don Oberdorfer
March 5, 1978
On the night of last Nov. 28, U.S. surveillance stations in the Middle East tracked flights of Soviet military transport planes heading toward Ethiopia from their home base in the Soviet Union.
They were the vanguard of a still-continuing air and sea lift that has catapulted 11,000 Cuban troops, 1,000 Soviet advisers and many tons of modern weaponry into an African war, reversing the tide of battle between warring states and stirring growing argument and speculation around the world.
In Washington, the Soviet-Cuban intervention is being called "Jimmy Carter's Angola," a reference to the two-year-old precendent for communist expeditionary forces in Africa, thousands of miles from either Moscow or Havana. The parallel is striking but inexact, for the present conflict involves far more complex issues and greater international ramifications.
And while Angola brought on a domestic showdown between Congress and executive branch under President Ford, the policy struggle over Ethiopia appears to have exposed, for the first time, serious fissures within the high councils of the executive branch itself, under President Carter.
The situation in the Horn of Africa - the northeast sector facing oil-rich Arabia - is at one level a superpower competition for strategic interests and affiliations. Since the 1973 Middle East war and oil embargo loosed forces of dramatic change, almost every state around the Red Sea has reversed its superpower connection - Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Northern Yemen ousting Soviet advisers and bidding, with Saudi money, for American arms; Ethipia ousting American advisers to bring in Russians and Cubans.
At another level, the conflict in the Horn is a regional problem involving the diverse policies and perceptions of African states prizing territorial integrity above nearly everything else, and nervous Middle East nations eyeing their sea lanes and the fate of Islamic cousins.
And at ground level in the harsh volcanic desert and eroding plateaus of one of the world's most poverty-stricken regions, the conflict is the continuation of 500 years of intermittent fighting between homogeneous Moslem people called Somalis and the diverse Christian tribes that make up the venerable empire of Ethiopia.
Of fundamental importance at every level is the fact that Somalia's attack last summer, to liberate fellow tribesmen in the Ogaden region, violated the international border of Ethiopia. This boundary was imposed by colonial powers decades ago in disregard of ethnic balance, but like many similar lines, it is recognized throughout the world. Whatever may be the merits of ethnic kinship in the Somalia cause, the attempt to unite the Somali populations is rejected by international law.
By the accepted norms of international behavior, Ethiopia was fully within its rights in calling for Soviet and Cuban troops and arms to repel an invasion across its eastern border, a point which can scarcely be aruged by U.S. officials who made so much of an invitation to intervene in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. "The Soviets are not violating the United Nations charter, the rules of the Organization of African Unity or the rules of the superpower game as they are recognized," said Tom J. Farer, professor of law at Rutgers Unversity in New Jersey and a leading expert on the Horn of Africa.
The tangled threads in this crazy-quilt fabric are so complex and paradoxical that Art Buchwald recently made a humorous column of a straightforward recitation of the situation in the Horn of Africa. A State Department official dealing with the area read the Buchwald account, pronounced it accurate and told his wife he couldn't see what was amusing.
The development of the present multilayered conflict involves four power centers - Ethiopia, Somalia, the United States and the Soviet Union/Cuba - as well as many peripheral forces. Although rooted in the past, the crisis can be dated from Sept. 12, 1974, when an Ethiopian military group arrested the 82-year-old Emperor Haile Selassie, a once-illustrious monarch who had outlived his time. A seemingly reformist military regime was displaced two months later by a radical faction.
Amid bloody purges and executions, state control of property and Marxist-Leninist declarations, Ethiopia's leaders made repeated bids for Soviet support while continuing to receive dwindling amounts of U.S. military aid under a long-standing pact and alliance. In the initial stages, according to U.S. officials, the Ethiopians were rebuffed. During 1975, Moscow was building a naval and communications base for its fleet near Berbera in Somalia, a Soviet aid and arms recipient since 1963 and Ethiopia's historic enemy.
The Soviet decision to accept the Ethiopian offer of alliance dates from 1976, according to U.S. accounts. The most definitive sign was a Soviet-Ethiopian military aid pact signed secretly that December. There is a consensus among Kremlin-watchers that this decision was made at the top level of the Soviet government, and there is clear evidence that Moscow's African specialists were less enthusiastic than high-ranking politicans and military-ranking politicans and military strategists.
Why did the Kremlin choose to endanger its secure position in cohesive Somalia by placing a major bet on highly unstable Ethiopia? There is a range of theories in Washington all of which may have an element of truth:
Ethiopia is a larger country of greater geographic, symbolic and political importance in Africa.
The appeal of the Ethiopian revolutionaries - who patterned slogans and behavior on the early Bolsheviks in Russia - was irresistible.
It was a chance to strike back at the United States - Saudi combination that to Moscow's plan and embarrassement, was dramatically reducing Russian influence in Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere.