Horn of Africa: History of Instability

Horn of Africa: a history of instability

The term “Horn of Africa” generally refers to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and perhaps Sudan. I like to believe that all geographical societies have “great” history. Some societies, due to better record keeping, remaining ancient monuments, and political dominance, have been better at telling their story. The Horn of Africa is a place of immense historical importance for Africa, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Christian world. I could be a classical romantic and talk about the great and lost accomplishments and civilization of the ancient Horn of Africa. I think this would be good for intellectual curiosity but futile for general development theory: technologically, economically, and socially.

I would rather focus on the modern Horn of Africa: a history of instability. The historical instability in the Horn is more due to exogenous forces than domestic. Unfortunately, my knowledge in the particulars of the historical influence of the Arabs and Westerners (particularly, the French, English, and Italians) is very limited; as such, I would rather refrain from elaborating. Yet, their influence in the instability cannot be ignored.

The recent instability, after World War II, is one of the residual affects of colonization, and the growth of the modern nation-state as the means of grouping, among others. The affects of colonization gets the most attention from popular news and publication. The more interesting and usually unknown is the issue of the rise of the nation-state.

The nation-state (Eritrea or Germany, for example) is a modern social construction that started in Europe and spread around the world. The modern nation-state is also a result of the capitalist system; the state serves as a market for the exchange of goods and services. So as the European dynastic states colonized regions and peoples they also formed nations out of their new colonies. So in the Horn of Africa—and around the world—the people did not recognize themselves as Ethiopians, Eritreans, or Somalians but members of smaller groups: Tigrinya, Amharic, among others. The creation of the modern nation-state, imposed on them by powerful foreign forces, regrouped existing groups into a unit that was historically and socially not failure to them. Now, instead of being Tigrinyian people they were Eritreans, instead of being Afars they were Dijiboutians, instead of being Oromo they were Ethiopians, instead of being Tunnis they were Somalians, instead of being Atwots they were Sudanese.

As a result, the current peoples of the Horn are forced to accept the rules and demeanor of the modern nation-state. For example, the Ethiopian state feels it necessary to incorporate all Habesha persons and territory under a single flag to become a strong state, and Somalia wants to regroup all of their lost territory from Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya to become a strong state, and Eritrean (the smallest state in the region but is able to contribute influence more than one would think it could or should) political leaders are willing to go to any length to remain a state, even at the cost of severe suffering.

Combine the influences of colonization and the rise of the nation-state we get the current mess in the Horn—I don’t want to undermine other possible causes, like religion. The people, never mind the states, need to recognize they need to cooperate and improve their lives.

Disclaimer: The writing above is not researched in the proper manner of higher education scholarship. Though, I’m confident that the general theme is accurate. Please conduct your own research. Additionally, if one finds any mistakes in what I wrote please make me aware.