Conference on Peace and Security in the Horn of Africa InterAfrica Group and Center for Policy Research and Dialogue Sheraton Addis 12 March 2007 A brief comment on Alex de Waal Andreas Esheté With characteristic clarity and cogency, Alex de Waal probes the prospects for peace and security in our corner of Africa. His observations attest to an ability to step back from received theoretical and ideological lore in order to look close up at the particular circumstances of the Hor, including the internal perspectives of the citizens and communities inhabiting the Horn. Notice, for instance, his skepticism about the neo-Kantian conjecture that war cannot break out between democratic states. To the contrary, he says with many critics: “ immature democracies are in fact more prone to political violence than authoritarian states.” More interestingly, he points out that, in our setting, where there is deep disagreement over the identity of the state, the basic institutions of government and the conditions of legitimate rule, democratic procedures may well fuel conflict. Here as elsewhere, attention to the particularity of the here and now is what makes Alex de Waal’s observations pertinent to the difficulties we face, Since I largely agree with Alex de Waal’s analysis, let me briskly comment on the conclusions, conclusions he rightly characterizes as pessimistic. First, heoffers the verdict that authoritarian rule or repression is ne longer a possibility; democratic rule, in tum, is not yet a possibility. In consequence, the quest for peace and security cannot find an answer in domestic political arrangements ‘The search for stability must settle fora less than ideal or second-best, regional solution, To beat a retreat from high aspirations for democratic political communities is one element of the pessimistic prognosis. The emigration of democratic hopes toward a security community is a second source of pessimism, for it yields perhaps not tragic choices but certainly choices clouded by risk and uncertainty. One choice is a strategic alliance among nation - states or, less desirably, among governments that outlaws aggression, creates cooperative ties and enables compliance with shared norms by communities and citizens. A second is an alliance that does not draw on internalized norms. Instead, liberal norms would be enforced by the US, which can deploy other western powers, the UN, the AU, IGAD and so on. The first choice is deemed unlikely for reasons of polities and history. The second calls for “a benign and uncontested hegemon *, @ status for which the US is becoming disqualified by its recent and current conduct in and out of the Horn, Alex de Waal’s third, more promising option banks on popular aspiration for ideals of liberal democracy witnessed since the “90s, largely outside government in civic associations, intergovernmental and international bodies.‘The lowering of aspiration Alex de Waal recommends bears a striking similarity to the chronicle of aims during the course of the war in Iraq. Initially, the idea was that democracy would spring into place with the military removal of tyranny. Once this optimistic scenario was defeated by brute facts -~ devastated institutions, fractured identities, fragile political legitimacy -- the interest in a democratic Iraq withered. Thus on January 10 of this year, Mr Bush declared: “The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security. * Although Mr Bush at first resisted the Iraq Study Group's prescription of diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria, there are now signs of an attempt to cultivate regional cooperation in coming to terms with Iraq and the region. If the parallel in the shift of policy between Iraq and the Horn is roughly correct, it would help to ask why the strategy would be more reassuring in the Horn. Admittedly, Alex de Waal’s favored course for regional peace and security relies on the recent spread of the values of liberal democracy in the Hom. What is not entirely clear is why he thinks that this welcome develojiment is better hamessed in the service of a regional security community rather than in the constituent political communities. The judgment is hard to follow, since a security community is more likely to be hostage to the vagaries of power politics as well as to western material and military support. Moreover, liberalism, in its present imperial mission championed by the US, has demonstrated contempt for international human rights and humanitarian law. It has encouraged disregard for the civil rights of its own citizens. More distressingly, intellectuals and the press in the US have generally acquiesced inthe erosion of liberal and democratic values in the name of “realism.” Is it not optimistic to hope that a security community in the Horn rooted in popular allegiance to democratic values can count on western democratic solidarity, not the usual singleminded pursuit of western interests? What Alex de Waal is proposing for the Horn is a mirror image of the divide in the politcal life of powerful mature democracies, particularly the US. The disgrace of racism, poverty, the influence of money on power to one side, democracy has a robust life in US domestic politics. International politics, however, is guided by the overriding strategic aims of economic and political sceurity. After all, unconditional authorization of the war on Iraq was granted by the Senate, Security is also accorded pride of place in the US's spheres of infence: for instance, Israeli public policy; policy goverding the monopoly over suclear weaponry. The line between the domestic and international is not hard and fast, Domestic democracy has on occasion been undermined by international concerns, among them: the internment of Japanese-Americans; the McCarthy purges; and the war on terror. Disenchanted with the quest for democracy in the domestic domain, Alex de Waal seeks to mobilize democratic norms and their advocates outside or beyond the state in the service of security community in the Horn, It is not obvious why the reasons for ‘disenchantment with democratic political communities - - say, contested identities - - would not figure with greater force in the regional domain. Finally, once the hope for democracy is discredited among member states of the Hom, it is not easy to say who will be in a favorable position te vindicatedemocracy or peace in the Horn, If Alex de Waal's lofty aims for the Horn are to be realized, he has therefore reasons of practicability and principle to aim higher in search of ways to surmount the democratic deficit he detects within political communities of the Horn. Or else, he owes us firm support for his two guiding intuitions about the Horn: first, civil society shows greater promise of democracy than political society; second, civil society can make a richer contribution to a security community than to political society.Andreas Esheté studied philosophy at Wiliams College and Yale University. He has taught ata ‘number of American univérsities, among them: Brown, UCLA, UC-Berkeley and Penn. He has Published work in moral and political philosophy. Andreas has delivered philosophical papers to ‘many academic audiences, Outside philosophy, he has written extensively on Ethiopia, Positions in public service include: Chair, Panel of Experts, Federalism Forum - - a biennial intemational conference of all ederative countries to be held in Aftica for the frst time 1910, hosted by Ethiopia (1909- ). Association for the Retum of the Magdala Ethiopia ‘Treasures (1998-present); Chait, African Institue for Democrat Deliberation and Action (1999-present): Chair, Commemoration of the Centennial of the Batile of Adwa (1995-1996); Coordinator for Constitutional and Govemance Issues, InterAffica Group (1992-1995). Andreas is now Professor of Law and Philosophy, UNESCO Chair for Human Rights and Democracy, and President of Addis Ababa University. Lye = uv Aya J _U : L la - Fe Ye muse S~bpR A? > Near \ aelern¢ : AWN Deeley Gg Le riers, LY \ ei Atta ete y ef ned ~ Ee stato oe bein TRA 9A AMET - nee Che bret) ile UgA\? Pe + alale ifeern