The crisis in Sudan and the renewed efforts for the recognition of Somaliland are creating new dynamics in the Horn of Africa. The US and its Middle Eastern allies seem determined to end the conflict in Sudan, as witnessed in their support given to the forces of Burhan. The SAFβs march to Khartoum after two years in exile signaled the beginning of success in the international effort to end the conflict. On the eastern edge of the Horn, the Somaliland effort to get recognition is changing course as a result of Israelβs decision to be the first nation to embrace it as a rightful state. The decision, however, unleashes the emergence of new actors to take a strong position on the side of Somalia.
This is a clear indication that both the great powers and the middle powers are taking active engagements in the Horn of Africa. While the US is working to end the conflict in Sudan and repeatedly vowing to bring a lasting solution to the hydro-politics of the Nile, China is stepping up in the one-Somali politics. China is also the only country to recognize Ethiopiaβs quest for access to the Sea. In addition to the US and China, other nations, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, are also actively playing in the Horn chessboard.
For any observer from the perspective of the Horn of Africa and related to the efforts of external actors, there are more questions to rise than answers and achieving a durable peace is inconceivable in a situation where the interests of all states of the Horn are not considered.
Competing interests require a comprehensive approach
The conflict in Sudan cannot be reduced to a type of duel between two armed groups vying for political power. Every neighboring country to Sudan has a stake in the conflict, as they are the ones that bear the costs of the war. The prolonged conflict has caused the influx of migrants into Ethiopia and contributed for the decline in border control so that it becomes penetrable for illicit actors; it dragged Eritrea into the conflict space on the side of SAF which on the other hand posed a national security threat to Ethiopia; it pushed South Sudan to transform from its neutral position at the beginning of the war into a kind of defensive position; and it created a land bridge for Sahel security actors to encroach into the Horn of Africa.
Saying there is a need for a comprehensive approach to end the conflict does not mean recommending a comprehensive peace plan βthat may include national dialogue, reconciliation and a political transition that will end up with a consolidated democracy- that starts and ends in Sudan. Rather, it is about addressing the needs of the neighboring nations. Any effort to end the conflict has to pressure Eritrea to totally vacate or to play a very restricted role in the security architecture of Sudan. Considering the security interests of all neighboring countries brings a positive contribution to the full realization of peace in Sudan and the Horn of Africa.Β A peace plan is therefore comprehensive when it is made to address the needs of the people of Sudan, the security interests of the neighboring countries, and limit the role of external spoilers.
The same works true to Ethiopiaβs quest for access to the sea, the rising tension between Somalia and Somaliland, the fight against terrorism, and the mounting needs for regional integration and infrastructure connectivity. All those pertinent interests are intertwined with one another, which otherwise needs a comprehensive approach. Selectively addressing each one of these interests in a temporal span may benefit the interests of the external actor that is now actively working in the Horn. But, the problems of the Horn cannot be solved in this manner if not complicated.
Ethiopia to lead the initiative
Those actors coming to the Horn with the helm of a peace maker or a partner to the Horn are self-interested state actors that often prioritize their national interest. It is also beyond imagination to expect all external actors to stand together and come up with a common position towards the Horn. Some are coming with conflicting interests that further exacerbate the polarized political and security interests of the Horn countries.
The only viable actor to draft a comprehensive peace plan for the Horn of Africa is Ethiopia, ideally situated at the center of the region, endowed with the largest economy and population size. This is a type of blueprint that considers the interests of Horn nations and appeals to their political will. The leadership of Ethiopia in crafting a comprehensive solution to the Horn of Africa is both a responsibility to Ethiopia, as its long-standing diplomacy in the Horn aligns with such a type of approach, and a natural burden, as its location necessitates employing collaboration with neighbors.
By Dareskedar Taye (PhD), the Europe & America Affairs director general at the Β Institute of Foreign Affairs