Chapter Two

Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

Introduction
Foreign policy of a state is the actions, decisions and goals that states pursue towards the outside
world. Foreign policy is directed at achieving basic national interests of the nation. Foreign
policy again holds basic instruments to meet those interests. It is shaped by both
external/systemic factors and internal factors. Here, Ethiopian Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
is historically seen at the end of this chapter per the above criteria of understandings.

2.1. Understanding Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Behaviors

2. 1.1. Defining Foreign Policy

Foreign policy refers to the sets of objectives and instruments that a state adopts to guide its
relation with the outside world. The objectives of foreign policy which a state wants to achieve
are in one way or another related to national interest. Foreign policy is something that a state
would like to achieve in its external relations with others. According to Rochester, foreign policy
refers to “the set of priorities and percepts established by national leaders to serve as guidelines
for choosing among various courses of action in specific situations in international affairs.”

2.1.2. Defining National Interest

National interest is the raison de`tat, (the reason of state), to justify its actions and policy
towards other states at international level. It has been the main driving force that determines the
contents of foreign policy. National interest is often considered as the objectives of foreign
policy of a state. A state’s definition of its national interest is based on its values and
perceptions.
 National interest refers to set of values, orientation, goals and objectives a given country
would like to achieve in its international relations. These objectives, visions and goals state
aspire to achieve is commonly referred as national interest.
 By national interest we mean the sum of the goals and objectives of a state’s foreign policy.
Or national interest is the material and spiritual interests that a nation aspires abroad.

1
 K. Holsti defines national interest as “an image of the future state of affairs and future set of
conditions that governments through individual policy makers aspire to bring about by
wielding influence abroad and by changing or sustaining the behaviors of other states”.
2.1.2.1. Dimensions of National Interest

A. The Issue/Content Dimension

It focuses on analyzing national interest of a given state through critically categorizing and
assessing areas of policy impact. Donald Neuchterlein (1979), for instance, has yielded four
basic issue areas of national interest: physical safety, material well – being, political
environment, and national cohesion. Or national interests can be classified into political interests,
security interests, economic interests, and cultural interests.

B. The Time Dimension

Based on the time span for attaining an interest, national interests can be divided into constant
interests and variable interests. The former are perpetual; the latter can be further divided into
long-term, middle-term and short-term interests. Usually, however, short –term interest should
be subordinate to long –term interests. And each category in turn is prioritized as primary and
secondary interest for each of the short – term and long-term dimensions. Perpetual interests are
the most stable. They will not disappear until the nation state itself disappears. If a nation state
wants to exist, it cannot give up this kind of interest. Examples include territorial integrity,
national independence, state sovereignty and the ability to pursue economic development.

C. The Importance Dimension

Based on importance, national interests can be divided into vital interests, extremely important
interests, just important interests and less important interests. Vital interests are related to
people's life and security as well as to the long-term stability of a country's political system and
economic life, territorial integrity, political independence, economic independence and the
continuation of the political system. The difference between extremely important and vital
interests is that the former are under less threat than the latter. Extremely important interests
include a favorable international strategic balance, the maintenance of national prestige, the
ability to choose one’s model for development, and the guarantee of important economic

2
interests, etc. Just important interests are interests pursued when there is not an obvious threat,
such as expansion of the export market, maintenance of technological superiority, attracting
international investment, maintaining international political stability, improving friendly bilateral
relations and so on. Less important interests are interests that do not seriously affect national
security or strategic economic interests. Examples would be a company or an individual's
security and economic interest overseas.

D. Based on Scope

Based on the scope of an interest, national interests can be divided into universal interests,
partial interests and individual national interests. Universal interests are those interests pursued
by every sovereign state, such as state sovereignty, international status, the security of the
population and so on. Partial interests are those pursued only by some countries. They would
include the international order and leadership position pursued by superpowers; dominating roles
in regional affairs and regional cooperation pursued by countries in a defined area, mutual
security and alliances pursued by militarily allied countries and so forth. Individual interests
include those of a single country that are different from the interests of other countries. For
example, after the Cold War, the US wants to maintain American dominance, establishing a new
world order under its leadership.

21.3. Foreign Policy Objectives

Foreign policy, just like any policy, sets short term, middle term and long term goals and
objectives to be achieved in proportion to a state’s capability. The objectives can be classified as:
(1) core values and interests (Short Range Objectives), to which states commit their very
existence and that must be preserved or extended at all time. These are short-range objectives
because others goals cannot be realized if the existence of the state and its political units are not
ensured. (2) Middle range goals, unlike the short range objective, drastically varies across
states. It includes Social welfare, economic welfare and development needs and expectations
through international action. It cannot be achieved through self-help, as most states have only
limited resources, administrative services, and technical skills. Interdependence means that to
satisfy domestic needs and aspirations, states would have to interact with others. Trade, foreign
aid, access to communication facilities, sources of supply, and foreign market are for most states
3
necessary for increasing social welfare. (3) Universal long range goals-which rarely have
definite time limits. The difference between middle-range and long range goals relates not only
to different time elements inherent in them; there is also a significant difference in scope. In
pursuing long range goals, states normally make universal demands, to reconstruct an entire
international system according to a universally applicable plan or vision.

2.2.3. Foreign Policy Behavior: Patterns and Trends

Foreign policy behavior refers to the actions states take towards each other. Nevertheless,
patterns of foreign policy behavior can be identified. Arnold Wolfers suggested that all foreign
policy behavior ultimately boils down to three possible patterns: (1) self-preservation
(maintaining the status quo); (2) self-extension (revising the status quo in one’s own favor); (3)
self-abnegation (revising the status quo in some else’s favor). Seen from these perspectives, the
foreign policy patterns of countries such as United States can be categorized as self-
preservation. On the other hand newly emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil, Germany
and others are competing to restructure the international institutions and different regimes so as
to create enabling environment to promote their national interest. Such policy trend can be
equated with model of self-extension. The third model, i.e. self-abnegation reflects the foreign
policy trends that are being displayed in Less Developing Countries (LDC). This can be seen in
the weak states of the world which fail to defend and promote their national interests in their
external relations. Such countries may succumb/submit to such challenges and compromise its
long lasting national interest for temporary and immediate benefits.

2.2.4. Foreign Policy Dimensions

 Alignment
One can first speak of alignment tendencies, in particular whether national leaders choose to ally
with certain countries or to remain neutral. Yet one can identify the alignment tendencies such as
alliance, neutrality and non-alignment. Alliances are formal agreements to provide mutual
military assistance; as such, they carry legal weight and certain benefits as well as risks.
Neutrality is a stance of formal nonpartisanship in world affairs. Switzerland is one country that
has carried neutrality to an extreme case in refusing membership to United Nations till 2002.
While the term alignment as used above refers to formal agreement on alliances or neutrality, it
can also describe the general affective orientation of a country. Nonalignment has been the

4
foreign policy pattern of most developing state during cold war. Most developing countries had a
movement-Non Alignment Movement (NAM) in which they called for a new foreign policy
path/choice/ to be followed disregarding the both the West and East bloc politics and alliances.
Although that was practically impossible, NAM had noble agenda that called for the South-south
cooperation.

 Scope
A second foreign policy dimension is the scope of a country’s activities and interests. Here, one
can identify at least three patterns of foreign policy behaviors. Some actors act in Global terms,
others as Regional terms, and those that follow policy of Isolationism. Major Powers, such as
U.S.A, in international relations have historically been those that have defined their interest in
global terms. China is the best candidate to assume global responsibility and leadership. Most
countries, such as South Africa, India, in the world are essentially regional actors, interacting
primarily with neighboring states in the same geographical area. Some moments in history, such
as key weakness or geographic remoteness, may cause the scope of a country’s foreign policy to
become so narrow that isolationism results. This was the case with Burma in 1960 and 70s. Few
countries have ever been totally cut off from the outside world, and in an age of interdependence,
isolationism becomes an increasingly less viable/less effective foreign policy orientation. Some
of the known global actors such as United States of America, China, and the ex-USSR all have
passed through period of relative isolationism and of mainly regional interests, finally branching
out in to global concerns.

 Mode of Operation/ “Modus Opernadi’

Some countries (most developing countries) often rely on multilateral institutions like the UN
through diplomatic forums to enhance collective barraging power. Some rely one on unilateral
means to solve the problems by themselves. Germany, (though it is an economic power), is
known to be multi-lateralist in its external relation. Most of Scandinavian countries fall under
this category. Whereas countries may opt to rely on unilateral means of settling different issues
with other countries that have strong economic and military muscles they would prefer this
approach to settle problems. They play the carrot and stick diplomacy to affect the outcomes of
events. Two tactics (promise and reward) represent the carrot approach. Threats and punishment
(military strikes, sanctions, embargo, etc) represent the stick approach (Rochester; p118).

5
2.2.5. Instruments of Foreign Policy

States employ different instruments to achieve their respective foreign policy goals and
objectives. The nature and mode of applicability of such instruments may vary according to the
necessity and actual possession by states. Nevertheless, the most predominant instruments are:
1.1.1. Diplomacy:
In the definitions, the state is central player to understanding of diplomacy and that diplomacy,
largely, concerns the business of peace. Diplomacy is peaceful dialogue and interaction
between political units – the most peaceful communication among int’l actors. It is ‘the conduct
of relations between sovereign states with standing in world politics by official agents and by
peaceful means’, (Hedley Bull). G.R. Berridge defines diplomacy in statist terms as, ‘the official
channels of communication employed by the members of a system of states’. For him,
diplomacy is the most important institution of society of states, enabling them to secure
objectives of their foreign policies without resort to ‘force, propaganda, or law’. Satow
understands diplomacy as, ‘the application of intelligence or tact to the conduct of relations
between governments of sovereign states – the conduct of business between states by peaceful
means. Diplomacy is, Satow adds, a ‘persuasive argument, if applied skillfully and sensitively
at the right time, may achieve a better result than persuasion backed by the threat of force.
1.1.1.1. Types of Diplomacy
 Cultural Diplomacy:-Culture comprises the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material,
intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. Cultural
diplomacy, diplomacy through cultural presence is expressed through exchange of program/
cultural agreements, covering fields like science and technology.
 Bilateral Diplomacy:-It signifies /connotes communication in international relations limited
to two parties on matters of exclusive interest on bilateral agenda. It is about the conduct of
relations on state to state basis via resident missions when the states enjoy diplomatic
relations through official representatives located in permanent missions. This method is
much more important when states may have not exchanged missions or one state may not
have mission on the other’s territory.
 Multilateral diplomacy:-Refers to conference attended by three and more states. Today the
use of multilateral diplomacy has increased for the following reasons: 1). Technological

6
 progress and advances in travel and communication technology 2). More state and leaders
recognize that many of the issues, such as arms levels, the environment and economic
growth, facing the world can never be solved thorough the domestic policies of any state or
through traditional bilateral diplomacy alone.  3). Diplomacy through multi-lateral
organizations like the United Nations has been attractive to smaller states 4). Multilateral
diplomacy tends to increase international criticisms of unilateral decision making power of a
state, especially involving the use of force.
 Summit diplomacy:-This is diplomatic communication at the level of heads of government
and heads of states. It is a multilateral diplomacy of very special kind and bilateral diplomacy
also takes place at this level. The high level exchange of views by heads of governments and
states who visit several countries on a foreign tour usually engage in this kind of activity.
 Visits: Visits are the most famous diplomatic methods employed by especially in bilateral
relations. Official Visits vs. Working visits.
 Shuttle diplomacy:- This kind of diplomacy is conducted by traveling between capitals of
the parties in conflict. Such move is made possible by state of the art, transportation and
communication, involving flying air plane and telephone talks…. This form of diplomacy
involves negotiation that takes place through the travels of a high-ranking official serving as
a mediator between the capitols of disputing states.
 Side Diplomacy:- The use of diplomacy, that is the holding of short discussions and meetings
on matters other than the main formal business, at the margins of multilateral, regional and
other events, is an established part of modern diplomatic practice. The annual meeting of the
United Nations for example provides opportunities for a variety of contacts and exchanges. In
general side diplomacy has the following advantages;
 Open Vs Secret diplomacy:- Up to the time of the First World War, the diplomatic
negotiations were mostly conducted secretly. Some vital clauses in agreements were often kept
secret not only from the general public but also from the elected representatives as well. Only
some influential members of the Government know the full detail of what these agreements.
The central argument here is, publicity is both a curse and a blessing for diplomacy.
 Gunboat Diplomacy:- In international politics, gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of
foreign policy objectives with the aid of display of military power. It implies the direct threat
of warfare as an aspect of coercive diplomacy, diplomacy backed by the threat of use of force

7
 to advance policy objectives. Hence, gun boat diplomacy is the use or threat of naval force in
order to secure foreign policy advantage in international dispute or to avert loss against foreign
nations within the territory of the state.
 Public Diplomacy: It a new form of diplomacy that gives bold emphasis for direct people to
people diplomacy that is different from the traditional Government-to-Government/G-to-G/
relations.

1.1.1.2. Functions of Diplomacy

Diplomacy is carried on by a variety of officials with titles such as President, Prime Minister,
Ambassador, or special envoy, with their own respective roles and/or functions. These functions
can be:

Observation and Reporting: Gathering information and correct data regarding various aspects
of other countries is an essential factor for the formulation foreign policy. Gathering of
information and its reporting to the home government are, therefore, most important functions of
diplomats. All diplomats in a sense serve as policy makers, as they provide the lion’s share of the
information upon which policy is based. A principal contribution of the diplomat in the
policymaking process comes from his skill of interpretation and judgment about conditions in the
country to which he is accredited.

Negotiation: with the government of receiving state. Some important factors might determine the
success of negotiation that includes; negotiating ability, degree of experience, stamina
(determination), honesty, knowledge of the counterparts culture, technical expertise to deal with
legal, political and moral aspects of the negotiation and necessary degree of power to decide.

Representation: interest representation represents the sending state interests in the receiving
state. Formal representation, participation and protocol in the diplomatic circuit of the national
capital or international institution continue as important elements in state sovereignty as part of
the notion of international society

8
  Substantive: Undertaking activities necessary for policymaking that include:
Information gathering, and Political reporting back home to advice the foreign ministry
in making foreign policy; has to be aware that he/she is representative of a country as
well as to a country, both of which are sovereign ‘equals’
 Symbolic: the ambassador/diplomat represents in the same way a flag represents a
nation; benefit in this is gaining audience in the receiving State.
Public Relations: As the legal and symbolic representative of his country a diplomat is engaged
in continuous efforts to create and propagate goodwill in favor of his own state and its policies.
This can be done by effective propaganda as well as by maintaining good public relations.
Giving and attending parties and dinners, delivering lectures and other speeches, attendance at or
participation in dedications of monuments, buildings, foreign assistance projects etc., are the
various ways of maintaining public relations. Some scholars question the effectiveness of such
public relation activities, because they are unsuitable yardsticks of a diplomat’s success. But if a
diplomat refrains from participating in these social gatherings it may give cause to unnecessary
ill-will; it will at least fail to brighten the image of his country. Therefore, diplomats always
endeavor to maintain good public relations by various means.

Information gathering: gathering of information from the host state, ascertaining and analyzing
for policies and policy adjustment and political reporting to the sending state is an important
function of foreign policy. Diplomacy serves the function of acquisition of information and
assessment, including acting as listening post or early warning system. Timely warning of
adverse developments is one of the major tasks of an embassy, in cooperation with intelligence
services, requiring considerable coordination, expertise, judgment and political courage. At
diplomatic level monitoring exists in a number of forms including covert intelligence gathering.
However, in terms diplomatic function it is defined as the acquisition of data from public sources
in receiving state such as; press, television, radio, journals and other media outlets, about the
reporting or presentation of the sending state. The concern is with the image presented of the
state and the accuracy of press reports on its policy or actions in the media.

Interest protection: it involves protection of the sending state’s interest and its nationals (their
interests) in the receiving state, within the limits permitted by international law. The duty of
protection is a traditional function, which has assumed increased significance in contemporary
diplomacy.
9
 1.1.2. Trade and Foreign Aid Policies
Trade policies and foreign aid are also known as economic instruments. An economic instrument
may be defined as an economic capacity, institution, or technique applied with in foreign policy
goals of states towards the favor or disfavor of another state. This technique is classified into
two: persuasive economic techniques and coercive economic techniques.

A. Persuasive economic techniques: are those methods of offering economic rewards or

advantages in turn for a satisfactory modification of another state’s behaviors. These
instruments in turn include favorable trade policies, foreign aid, and debt relief.
i. Favorable Trade Policies: Provision of free access to their markets, the lifting up of
trade barriers, advocacy of imports and technology transfers and subsidies.
ii. Foreign Aid: Also called Foreign Assistance (or overseas development assistance), is a
policy instrument that is employed by the developed North to help at least in principle,
third world states speed up economic development or simply meet basic humanitarian
needs. Foreign aid constitutes of different types or forms. These include:
 Grants – are funds given free to a recipient state, usually for some stated purpose/s.
 Loans – are funds given to help in economic development, which must be repaid in the
future out of the surplus generated by the development process.
 Loan guarantees-which are sued only occasionally, are promises by the donor state to
back up commercial loans to the recipient state.
 Technical cooperation – refers to grants given in the form of expert assistance in some
project than just money or goods.
 Credits – are grants that can be used to buy certain products from the donor state. For
example, the U.S.A regularly gives credits that can be used for purchases of U.S. grain.
 Military aid –It refers to both the money and the military armaments that are transferred
from the North to the South in a form of aid.
iii. Debt Relief
Whatever the problems and draw backs, poor states are justifiably determined to increase their
levels of development. To do this they need massive amounts of capital to supplement their own
internal efforts to improve socio-economic conditions. Many things can be accompanied with

10
domestic resources and drive, but such capital needs require outside resources as well. Loans can
be obtained from:
 Governments on a state–to–state level and become bilateral.
 Loans might also be extended by international organizations like the UN or by
international financial institutions mainly the World Bank (WB) and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Such forms of loans are called multilateral loans.
 Other than government and institutional loans, the private sector is also an important
source of income to the LDCs in the form of loans.
B. Coercive Economic Techniques
Economic embargo refers to limited restrictions of economic relations particularly foreign aid,
trade and investment imposed by usually the developed states to impinge up on the poor but
disobedient states of the South. But economic sanction refers to an outright interruption or
blockage of economic interactions of a state vis – a –vis another state/s.
1.1.3. Psychological Technique: Propaganda
Propaganda is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person,
group, movement, institution, nation, etc.Frankel has clarified this instrument of advancing the
national interest as “propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions, and
actions of given group for a specific public purpose.” This instrument has been effectively used
in this era of information revolution via different means of communications. In this situation, the
strong propagandas of developed countries are framed in such a manner that influence the world
public opinion in the like manner as they wished but for those countries which do not have
effective communication are unable to influence the world public opinion. This may lead to one
sided national interest that too for the developed countries of the world.

Propaganda refers to the organized efforts that regimes of states use to convince their own
people internally and/or the people of foreign states to accept policies favorable to them. As an
instrument of foreign policy, propaganda is an attempt primarily to influence another state/s
through emotional techniques rather than logical discussion or presentation of empirical
evidence. It is therefore a process of appealing to emotions rather than minds by creating fear,
doubt, sympathy, anger, or a variety of other feelings. There are a Variety of techniques for
projecting effective propaganda. These are:

11
a. Telling the Truth/ White propaganda: sometimes the truth can be very damaging to the
other side in that it can create public impression that the propagandist state is justifiable than
their own state or government.
b. Lying/ Black propaganda: outright lies are not common practices, because they are difficult
to support and run the risk of being exposed. Lies which are sometimes called disinformation
can effectively convince the public in another state and create a distorted image on the
targeted state (and its government).
c. Half –Truths/ Grey propaganda: this is a more common technique than lying. It has three
approaches.
i. First, it involves taking a kernel of truth and projecting it as a general statement.
ii. Second, it includes presenting controversial information whose truth or false hood
has never been ascertained as a fact.
iii. The third approach is deliberate omission of information. In this case, the
information presented is true but is incomplete.
1.1.4. Military Techniques
Military techniques of foreign policy are usually used as an ultimate option immediately after
diplomacy (or negotiation) fails. The state must apply cost /benefit analysis. This includes
comparing the outcomes of military action with the actual loss of life, human anguish an
economic destruction and act accordingly. The second way is in terms of goal attainment. The
issue is whether the accumulation and use of military power achieve the desired results or not.
These correlations between military action, political circumstances, and success are only
preliminary and do not necessarily guarantee success. Wars are often caused by specific issues
and fought with specific goals. Moreover, the choice for war is not irrational in so are as leaders
usually calculate, accurately or not, their probability of success. This calculation is called the
“expected utility” of war. The validity of this calculation is supported by the fact that military
force sometimes works, especially when a major power is the imitator of the war.

2.3. Overview of Foreign Policy of Ethiopia

2.3.1. Foreign Policy during Tewodros II (1855-1868)
Although the Ethiopian state traces its history back to more than 3000 years, the modern imperial
state came at the time when Ras Kassa emerged as one of the eminent kings defeating all minor

12
kings fighting for the control of the throne. He wanted to create a united Ethiopia, but only
partially succeeded. Yet he introduced the idea of modernity and modern army at the time.
Throughout his reign Tewodros tried to develop a dynamic foreign policy that reached out
beyond the Horn Region. He sought the Western Christian world to recognize his country and
help him to modernize his country. He demanded Christian nations to assist him in whatever
ways possible in his fight against the Turks, Egyptians and Islam.

The emperor attempted to establish his diplomatic relations to fight his immediate enemies
claiming Christianity as instrument of foreign policy. However, the emperor’s passionate
demand for modern technology and skilled man power from Britain was not concluded to his
satisfaction as the latter sent religious missionaries. Despite his demand to be recognized as the
emperor of Ethiopia and treated with respect and equal footing with the British Queen that was
not reciprocated by Queen Victoria. Consequently Tewodros took desperate measures by taking
hostage of several British missionaries including the consul which was responded with the
British Millitary Expedition (Keller). Tewodros’s Troops were easily defeated and the King did
not surrender but tragically committed suicide.

2.3.2. Foreign Policy during Yohannes IV (1872-1889)

Yohannes IV succeeded Tewodros II. Like his predecessor, Yohannes considered Islam as a
threat to the territorial integrity of the polity. Indeed Egypt tried to put a serious security threat in
its continued attempt to invade the country under many pretexts, yet its motive was to control the
source of Blue Nile. These, however, were not successful as Egypt faced subsequent defeat both
in 1875 and 1876 at the Battle of Gundet and Gura respectively (Keller). In addition to Muslim
threat, the emperor saw European expansionism as greater threat to the survival of the country.
In fact his calculation of threat has turned out to be real as Italy got a foot hold at the port of
Massawa in 1885.This colonial ambition of Italy was reflected by the Foreign Minister speech
“The Red Sea is the key to the Mediterranean” implicating the strategic importance of Ethiopia
(Novati). However, the emperor died fighting with the “Mahadists”. The Sudanese resistance
groups against British rule happened to invade Western Ethiopia because of their presumption
that Yohannes IV was collaborating with the British.

13
2.3.3. Foreign Policy during Menelik II (1889-93)
Following the death of Yohannes, Menlik II of Showa was assumed to the throne. Menelik was
the King of Shoa region before his coronation as the Kings of Kings of Ethiopia. He had
expanded his sphere of influence towards the far South and East incorporating new areas and
communities peacefully or otherwise. According to many Ethiopian historians, the southward
expansionism policy of the King was mainly targeted to have access to Sea Port, Zeila. Minelik
was aware of the strategic importance of outlet to the sea for the country as he felt that the
country’s access to the sea in the North had fallen under Italy’s influence since the mid 1890s.
Before the death of Yohannes Italy had good diplomatic relation with Menelik with the objective
of weakening its immediate enemy in the North, Yohannes. Menilik comfortably exploited the
opportunity to consolidate his power, perhaps to deter Yohannes and bolster its expansionist
policy to the south. Menelik’s relation with Italy had disappointed Yohannes as witnessed by the
absence of Menelik from participation in the war against Mahadists.

Following the death of Yohannes, however, Italy continued to be the main challenge in the
North. Moreover the King saw the other colonial powers surrounding all four corners of the
country as the scramble of Africa was heightened. Italy expanded towards the hinterland of
Ethiopia from its first hold of Bogess, later named Eritrea, and Missawa port crossing Tekeze
river. Menelik was cautiously following such colonial expansionism of Italy. The emperor
followed double track diplomacy to contain or reverse Italy’s expansion and maintain the
territorial integrity of his country. On the one hand, he entered many treaties and agreements to
solve the challenge amicably. One of the remarkable treaties was the ‘Wuchalle’ friendship and
peace treaty where the parties agreed to avoid war and solve the problem peacefully. On the
other hand the emperor was preparing himself by accumulating military ammunitions to defend
the aggression from any side of colonial powers, British, French and of course Italy.

However, the emperor’s diplomatic endeavor with Italy failed to result in peace due to Italy’s
misinterpretation of the controversial article 17 of the ‘Wuchalle’ treaty. The treaty did contain
different meanings and interpretations in the respective languages of the parties. According to the
Italian version, Ethiopia failed under the protectorate of the former which then led to the
abrogation of the ‘Wuchale’ treaty by Ethiopia in 1893. As a result, Italy prepared for war and

14
started its systematic penetration of the country from the north. Menelik was prepared to reverse
this aggression raising his traditional Army till only 1896.

In 1896, the emperor declared nation-wide war against Italy in defense of the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of the century old nation. After a severe battle, Menelik and his people managed
to defeat the colonial power. This happened at the bloody Battle of Adwa where Ethiopian forces
made a record of history by defeating a powerful European colonial power. The significance of
the Adowa victory is loud and clear as many European powers recognized Ethiopia as an
independent African state on similar footing with the Europeans. Indeed Britain, France, Russia
and the vanquished Italy came to Menelik’s Palace to arrange formal exchange of Ambassadors.
Moreover, these powers signed formal boundary treaties with the emperor. In fact the present
boundary of Ethiopia vis -a-vis its neighbors had been defined at least on paper. With the
exception of Sudan and of course present day Eritrea (being ex-colony of Italy) the boundary of
the country with French Somaliland-Djibouti, Kenya (former British colony), and present Somali
(Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland) had been defined on paper, yet were not demarcated.

As the boundary issue was not settled, there have been disputes and counter claims with the
neighboring countries especially with Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. Of course Somalia claims
huge portion of the territory inside Ethiopia. What so ever the case may be, Ethiopia’s foreign
policy of the forthcoming rulers has significantly been informed by the notion of territorial
integrity of the country. And the issue of outlet to the sea remained the burning question
determining its policy and role in the region.

2.3.4. Foreign Policy during Emperor Haile Selassie I (1916-1974)

Menelik died in 1913 and it was not until 1930 that the next strong emperor Haile Selassie I,
assumed the throne. He was dedicated to the creation of a stronger, centralized and bureaucratic
empire with unquestioned respect by the international community. This was clear as early as
1923, when as Regent to the Crown, Teferi Mekonen, facilitated Ethiopia’s entry to the League
of Nations. Ethiopia’s membership in the League of Nations was clearly instigated by the ever
present danger of invasion by Italians. When the Italian Fascists finally invade Ethiopia between
1936 and 1941, the Emperor fled to London and established a government in exile.

15
From there he journeyed to Geneva, Switzerland, to make a plea before the League of Nations
for aid in defense to the country. Although the League of Nations’ charter stipulated that all
members were committed to protect the sovereignty of member states, through what was known
as the collective security system, the League ultimately failed to take any substantive measure
against Italy and the plea of the King was ignored. Apparently viewing the League of Nations in
action, the King continued to believe in the ultimate value of effective diplomacy. He also
recognized Ethiopia’s need for a powerful external patron until he could restore the
independence of his country. His diplomatic skills and Britain’s own strategic necessities in the
area enabled him to elicit the aid of the British in securing the liberation of Ethiopia.

In the immediate post-war period, Ethiopia was extremely dependent on British military,
economic and technical aid. At the same time, the Emperor feared that Britain might either
declare Ethiopia a protectorate or use the claim that the whole of Italian East Africa; Eritrea,
Ethiopia and Somalia, as an occupied enemy territory and thus could be partitioned for the
administrative convenience. Haile Sellasie’s fear moved him to seek alternative relationships that
would allow him to loosen Ethiopia’s tie with Britain. The United States wanted to establish a
new presence in the region. As an emerging power, U.S was willing to heed emperors plead to
strengthen diplomatic relations.

Through diplomacy, Haile Selassie was able to regain complete administrative control over the
territory he claimed and more by 1954. In 1952 a U.N. resolution had made possible a federation
between Ethiopia and the former Italian colony of Eritrea. Eritrea was to have regional autonomy
within the federation, but Haile Selassie was not content with only administrative control. He
was not satisfied until he secured the endorsement of both the Eritrean and Ethiopian Assemblies
in 1962, which allowed him to incorporate Eritrea fully into the Empire, making it a province of
Ethiopia instead of a trustee-ship. US helped the establishment of radio tracking and this country
used to strengthen the Ethiopia’s military capacity. The military aid was decisive for the
Emperor to ensure his survival at home and maintain the territorial integrity of the country. He
effectively used military action against those riots and rebellions both in rural and urban places.

Ethiopia also played significant role in Africa in fighting for African independence and to end
colonialism and apartheid. In this manner, the emperor can be considered as one of the founding

16
fathers of African Unification. The establishment of the organization of African Unity in the
capital of Ethiopia witnessed the prominent role of the emperor in African affairs as well. There
was a time when the emperor resolved the perennial conflict in Sudan through His Good Offices.
Ethiopia also played a significant role in maintaining international peace and security by commit
ting its troops for peacekeeping operations in Korea in 1951 and the Congo in 1961.

2.3.5. Foreign Policy during the Military Government (1974—1991)

The military regime that took control of state power in 1974 adopted a foreign policy largely
oriented to socialist ideology. The primary objectives of the foreign policy were survival of the
regime and maintaining the territorial integrity of the country. Apart from these, restructuring the
society along socialist lines was also considered as the foundation for the foreign policy motives
at home. The major strategy to achieve the stated objectives heavily focused on building the
military capability of the country. And force had been employed as the best strategy to silence
dissent at home and deter the perceived external enemies of the country.

Since socialism was the guiding philosophy of the country, friendship and alliance with socialist
countries of the world was considered as a viable strategy for realizing socialism at home and
perhaps in the world. The country was heavily dependent on military aid of the Soviet Union
which prevented it from securing any kind of military and technical assistance from the US and
other European countries. The regime was condemned by the west for its human rights record,
especially its treatment of former government officials. This resulted in declining Ethio-US
relations marking its lowest point with the closure of the US military base and operation of
military assistance within 72 hours (Keller). Following such problems, internal and external
enemies began to take action to hasten the demise of the regime.

Internally Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) launched military attack on the Ethiopian Army.
Many external actors were involved in sponsoring the rebel group, including; Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and later USA itself. Moreover, Somalia’s invasion of the Ethiopian
region of Ogaden was one of the serious external challenges of the Ethiopian Government at the
time. The government did not have enough capacity to calm the Eritrean Rebels and the Somali
irredentist invasion. However, the regime managed to reverse the Somali aggression with the
help of the new powerful patron, USSR. The involvement of USSR in the region only heightened

17
the superpower rivalry between the USA and USSR during the cold war era (Schwab). The
Soviet Union and its allies were thus able to exert immense influence in both domestic and
foreign affairs of Ethiopia. Hundreds of Ethiopians were sent for training to the Soviet Union,
Eastern Europe, German Democratic Republic and Cuba while employing many of their
administrators and technicians.

Apart from socialism, Ethiopia’s strategic locations and other questions, such as; Eritrea,
Somalia, and the issue of the Nile, had also shaped the foreign policy orientation and behavior of
military government. Cuba and USSR strongly supported the country’s fight against Somalia.
Ethiopia shares the Nile and its longest border with Sudan, yet the relation between the two had
been strained for decades. Sudan was one of the host countries for Ethiopian opposition forces.
In turn Ethiopia had been supporting the dissent groups in southern Sudan, including the Sudan’s
People’s Liberation Army/SPLA (Amare Tekle). Amare argues that Ethiopia’s foreign policy
towards Sudan was based in part on the mistrust of the Arab Northerners as well. Similarly
Amare contends that, “Ethiopia’s relation with any third state in the Nile Valley have been
shaped as much by Egypt’s attitude and action as regards to Somalia, Eritrea and the Sudan and
by its close association with Arab and Muslim States”.

With regard to Africa’s broader issues of decolonization and anti-Apartheid struggle, Ethiopia
played significant role. The regime had extended its military and technical support to Freedom
fighters in Angola and Rhodesia. The regime had also showed its solidarity to Palestine’s cause
by condemning Israel and sought political allegiance with the Arab world, however the negative
perception that most Arab countries have towards Ethiopia remained unchanged. Finally, the
regime collapsed following the end of cold war unable to survive in the absence of military aid
from the socialist blocs, USSR, Cuba. In general the adoption of socialism and its subsequent
impact on the foreign policy of the country could be considered as a departure from its
predecessors; however the policy objective of the country remained unchanged. The country’s
policy towards its neighbors, the region, and the Arab world remained unchanged.

2.3.6. The Foreign Policy of Ethiopia in the Post 1991

With EPRDF’s ascent to power the country adopted a new foreign policy orientation and
objectives. Having focused on national interest and security: democracy and development;

18
national pride and image/prestige; and globalization are the basic foundations to its foreign
relations. The strategy is called an “inside-out” approach so long as the crux of the matter is
at home. The inside out approach would then help to reduce the countries vulnerability to threat.

At diplomatic level, economic diplomacy is adopted to strengthen the domestic efforts in

fighting poverty and backwardness and address the issues of development. Economic diplomacy
has also been considered as viable strategy under the age of globalization. It helps to exploit the
opportunities that globalization offers, such as free trade, investment and technological transfers.
Ethiopia would be beneficiary out of the free trade regimes and practices if sound economic
policy is put in place at home. Economic diplomacy can help the country to cope up with the
challenges of globalization, but only if we create self-reliant and sustainable development. Aid
and technical assistance can help us building up our capacity at home temporarily, though these
are not long lasting. The Security and Foreign Policy of the country also indicated that Ethiopia
would adopt a kind of East-look policy. Ethiopia appreciates the East Asian countries economic
successes and development paths. The country would like to learn from such successful countries
such as Singapore, Malaysian and Indonesia.

The other foreign policy strategy is building up the military capability of the country. Peaceful
dialogues and negotiations will be employed to peacefully coexist with others. Diplomatic
solutions can always be taken prior attention when dealing even disputes. But above all building
up military capability would have a deterrence effect. Countries may no venture to pose a threat
on the country if the military capability of the country is scale up and modernized. Looking at the
patterns of the country’s foreign policies over the years, there have been changes and continuities
in the foreign policy goals and tactics adopted by different governments of Ethiopia. Though
strategies may sometimes differ the primary foreign policy objective of all the three regimes
remained the maintenance of the territorial integrity and independence of the country. To this
end the three regimes used a combination of both military force and diplomacy to address both
internal and external challenges depending on the circumstances. In this manner, while the
imperial and the military regime’s foreign policy strategy is largely an outside-in approach the
current regime followed an “in-side out” approach.

19