IGAD.. from combating desertification to the arena of politics | Opinions

Since the outbreak of the Sudanese crisis and the war raging in the country since April 15, 2023, the Intergovernmental Authority for Development of the Greater Horn of Africa (IGAD) – whose membership includes Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Eritrea, in addition to Uganda and Kenya – has presented itself as a player. Importantly, he looks forward to playing the role of mediator between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces. With the aim of stopping the war and reaching a political settlement that was characterized by ambiguity and a departure from the traditional methodology that government organizations must have.

With the emergence of the initiatives, IGAD appeared to be biased in its movements and positions towards the Rapid Support Forces, which are accused of rebellion against the state and its institutions, including the national army, of which these forces are supposed to be part and subject to its hierarchy and laws, which raised many questions about the true motives of this organization.

In a series of articles, we will attempt to shed light on the invisible and hidden aspects of this regional organization, the circumstances of its emergence, the fluctuation of its roles, the limits of its powers and its international connections, what are the circles and hands that move it behind the scenes, and who shapes its vision for regional security for member states?

The winds of neoliberalism

The influential neoliberal circles in the United Nations took advantage of the climate changes in the international system, which began to move towards unipolarity when Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985. These powers, through the United Nations, began to play bolder roles towards the South in general, and the developing and aid-hungry countries. Western and international organizations decisively introduced a system of conditionality regarding all aid granted. The essence of these conditions – whether unilateral or multilateral – was to put pressure on countries to follow the liberal system and move away from socialism and communism. It was at the beginning of the eighties of the last century that drought and famine struck parts of the country. A wide area of ​​the Horn of Africa, such that every country was affected, and the issue of drought and famine received massive international media coverage.

The United Nations, at its 35th session in 1980, had adopted Resolution 35-90 as a response to global sympathy for the effects of that wave of drought and famine, but the resolution required the countries of the Horn of Africa to think in a regional way to address the effects of drought, and to coordinate among themselves if they wished to receive any Help from the international organization and the international community.

The sixth paragraph of the resolution stated the following: “The governments of the countries of the region that have been affected by drought are advised to consider establishing a governmental organization that will bear the responsibility of supporting and coordinating the efforts of governments in their attempts to eliminate the effects of drought and other natural disasters, and to deal with the challenges that will face recovery and rehabilitation.” In the medium and long term.

The governments of the Horn of Africa countries were divided in their dependence on one of the two poles of the Cold War, which ultimately led to the inactivity of the idea of ​​IGAD throughout the eighties and nineties of the last century.

Searching for a father

It is noteworthy that the idea of ​​​​establishing a governmental organization itself did not come from these governments, but rather was a condition for receiving “deceitful” foreign aid, and this was the biggest problem facing the work and development of the organization. It did not stem from a conviction and awareness of the necessity of joint regional action from the ruling regimes, as is the case in the emergence and development of the European Union, but rather it was fabricated in response to the condition of receiving international aid from donor countries, and the aid was linked to the regional orientation and commitment of these countries, which was intended to support the arrangements. Neoliberalism around the world, where the solution to crises remains outside the hands of national authorities, through regional arrangements that are subject to and coordinated with the neoliberal center, thus gaining international legitimacy that it uses as a stick in the face of regimes that contradict the liberal orientation.

Based on that decision, a unit was established within the United Nations Development Program to supervise the passage of aid to the affected areas, and to coordinate and work with the governments of the affected areas to implement national and regional policies. To ward off the effects of drought, and to promote sustainable social and economic development, the aid itself was voluntary, coming from contributions made by countries and organizations in a non-binding manner, with the United Nations Economic and Social Council following up on this.

The other thing is that the focus of this regional effort was not on the political dimension, but rather on the economic and development dimension, which is what the Eritrean President pointed out sarcastically that the organization was established to combat locusts and desertification, but its message suddenly changed without achieving any success in the first mission for ten years. years, for reasons related to the countries affected by the drought themselves, in addition to regional and international reasons.

The early 1980s witnessed a severe escalation in the Cold War between the West – especially the administration of US President Ronald Reagan – and its allies, and the Soviet Union, which cast a shadow over the foreign policy priorities of those countries concerned with development and drought. The governments of the Horn of Africa countries were distributed in their subordination to one of the following countries: The two poles of the Cold War, which ultimately led to the inactivity of the idea of ​​IGAD throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Conditional financing

While the Soviet Union was in decline, Western donor countries reasoned that they could not help the Marxist regime in Ethiopia, the clan dictatorship in Somalia, or the oppressive Islamic regime in Sudan, with more than $1 billion in support committed to a donor conference in 1987. Food security and drought control programs received only 10% and 5%, respectively.

The studies that were prepared were not funded even ten years after this date, as donor countries refused to pay $500 million to IGAD, part of which was supposed to be allocated to finance a road linking the richest grain-producing region to the regions in greatest need of these grains in Ethiopia and Eritrea, which is a road Al-Hamra – Al-Qalabat – Al-Gadarif under the pretext of the lack of regional importance of the project, but the motive for the rejection is the presence of an Islamic regime in Khartoum, and thus the largest food security project for the Horn of Africa region, which has long suffered from drought and hunger, has evaporated.

Here, the importance of the international agenda over regionalism has been highlighted in IGAD from the beginning, but this approach did not find objection from the heads of state of the organization. Because their security priorities are linked more to donors than to the region’s strategic interests, this was the Achilles’ heel in the issue of improving regional security.

The difficult economic and development conditions were no more threatening to the dictatorships in the region than the security and military challenges, which were more urgent and higher in priority than famine and drought. During the era of Sudanese President Mohamed Jaafar Numeiri (1969-1985), a rebellion broke out in South Sudan in 1983, which caused the partial fall of his regime in 1985.

While the Somali, Eritrean, Oromo, and Tigrayan armed struggle movements posed a major challenge to the regime of Ethiopian leader Mengistu Haile Mariam (1987-1991), they succeeded in overthrowing him in 1991 after he lost Soviet support, as well as Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre, who wanted to introduce constitutional reforms to save… His position on the rebellion of the Somali clans and armed movements, which forced him to rapprochement with his historical rival Mengistu, with Italian mediation under the umbrella of the IGAD organization, but that agreement did not succeed, except with the fall of Siad Barre and his flight from the country after the rebel movements stormed the country coming from Ethiopia. Fearing Mengistu’s rapprochement with Siad Barre.

Unipolarity

With the emergence of the policy of reform and openness in the Soviet Union, which ended with its dissolution in December 1991, the influence of the United States and its allied Western countries began to rise, and the first indications were when President George H. W. Bush announced, after the end of the war to liberate Kuwait, that a new international system was based on the values ​​of democracy and human rights. Human rights and the protection of minorities have begun to take shape under the leadership of his country.

The implication of this was that leaders in the Horn of Africa region quickly found themselves part of that new international system led by the United States, namely Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, and to a lesser extent, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

As for the new leaders in Sudan – led by former Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir (1989-2019), who took power following a military coup led by the Islamic Front in Sudan and the emergence of Islamists in Somalia following the entry of Mohamed Farah Aidid’s forces into the capital after the fall of Mohamed Siad Barre’s regime – it was Classifying them according to the new system as rogue states or groups.

The first attempt to confront what America considered a threat to it in this regard was to launch a military operation in Somalia called “Restoring Hope,” but it failed and the United States suffered significant military losses in which it was forced to withdraw and think of another way to confront that danger.

The idea was to establish an African force with American resources, and the choice fell on the African Union and IGAD as mechanisms to serve American and Western interests indirectly, through what is known as the carrot and stick policy with the use of the weapon of temptation and financing. Here was the first dilemma of regional security – as Western countries understand it – It is the ghost of Islamists, not drought and desertification, nor the hunger of the peoples of the Horn of Africa. This was the most important reason for the transformation of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) from its mission of economic recovery and development rehabilitation to a political organization to manage the files of political crises in the Horn of Africa.