AbstractThis article seeks to examine the consequences of the global war on terror (GWT) in the Horn of Africa. The focus is on the various implications to individual countries and the region as a whole. It therefore, critically interrogates what the consequences are and how they manifested. The interplay between internal and external factors compounding the consequences are critically analysed. Militarisation in the service of geo-strategic and geopolitical interests through creation of division of states into friendly and non-friendly and construction of unholy alliances hinders cooperation and regional integration. The politics of creation of pariah states, related to the GWT, engenders fragility, internal instability, and failed states. This in turn exposes societies to all sorts of pathologies, distorting the process of state and nation formation. The paper interrogates these intertwined variables. The paper contends that the GWT aggravated the precarious state of peace and stability in the Horn region causing far-reaching structural, political, social, economic, security, inter-state relation, integration and diplomatic damages still reverberating even after the GWT has been jettisoned. The study of the consequences of the GWT still remains scanty. The paper hopes to contribute to the dearth of knowledge on the consequence of GWT.Key words : global war on terror, Horn region, militarisation, proxy warsIntroductionAfter decades of Cold War interventions that transformed the Horn of Africa region (HOAR) into a theatre of war for superpower rivalry (Yordanov, 2016), it got respite in 1990 in tandem with the demise of the Soviet Bloc that heralded the end of the Cold War. The end of Cold War and collapse of state socialism spurred triumphalist hasty statements such as end of history (Fukuyama, 1992), prophesy of clashes of civilisations (Huntington, 1996). This respite, however, did not last long. A new era of external intervention, in the form of global war on terror (GWT), commenced. The GWT coupled with the war against piracy has attracted various international forces to the HOAR. The last form in a litany of external interventions pertain to what goes commonly under the designation of scramble for resources. Today, although terrorism and piracy has subsided, several dozens of naval forces from West, East, North and South of the glob are still active in the region. Following the Gaza war sparked by the Hamas action on October 7, 2023, and subsequent Houthi retaliatory attacks on ships destined to or connected with Israel passing through Bal El Mandab, disrupting trade have heightened further the insecurity of the region. What is the underlying rational behind the huge military presence in the HOAR? What are the implications of GWT driven interventions? Is there any mitigation to the interventions? This article seeks to provide answers to these questions. More specifically, it argues that the GWT has caused irreparable damages in the region in terms of structure, socio-economic development, inter-state relation, democratisation, regional integration, nation and state formation.Temporality wise the GWT succeeded the Cold War. Nevertheless, there is similarity between the two. If not in form in content, the Cold War and GWT are identical. Both engage in the creation of friends and non-friends and militarisation of the HOAR. They also entrench proxy wars. The international interventions do cause conflicts, instability and mistrust within states as well as among states of the region perpetrating the cycle of conflicts. There is growing suspicion that the international involvement in the region has less to do with terror and piracy but rather is driven by scramble for resources and strategic positioning (Keenan, 2008, Volman and Jeremy, 2010, Aning at al, 2008). One of the contentions behind this suspicion is that in spite of the huge presence of international military forces, with all the accompanying modern sophisticated technology of warfare, it has not been possible to resolve one of the raison d’etre for its presence, defeating the rag-tag militias of Al Shebab completely.This led to some to argue that the prevalence of terrorist acts and piracy is somehow tolerated because they legitimise the continuous presence of these international actors (Keenan, 2008). The proponents of such argument opine that the less commitment and dedication by international actors to rout out the malice ravaging Somalia is an illustration of the tolerance. Many therefore contend that the superpower rivalry for geo-strategic influence during the Cold War era is now replaced by West-East rivalry for the scramble for natural resources (Abrahamsen, 2013, Schmidt, 2013). The recent discovery of huge biofuel and other mineral resources in the region coupled with the new phenomenon of land grabbing thus lends further currency to the apprehension that it creates a kind of Eldorado where states, transnational corporations and extractive companies are vying for those precious untapped resources. The war in Gaza and the Houthi’s retaliatory measure in the Bal El Mandab chock point is a new addition to the misery of the region.This article seeks to examine the multiple implications of GWT driven, geo-strategic calculations of interventions and geopolitics in the HOAR. Therefore, it critically interrogates what the consequences are, how they are manifested and the mechanisms involved. It has two primary objectives. First, it will interrogate the trajectory of the GWT in the HOAR. Secondly, it seeks to examine the multiple implications caused by the GWT to the HOAR. The article contends the GWT caused irreparable political, social, economic, security, integration and diplomatic damages derailing developmental process in the region.The article consists of seven sections. Section two analyses militarisation and conflicts in the region concomitants of GWT. Section three discusses the politics of producing pariah states. Section four analyses proxy wars. Section five analyses international peace mediation and GWT. Section six examines regional integration, development and legitimacy under the GWT regime. The final section provides concluding remarks.Militarisation and ConflictsMilitarisation and conflicts are two concepts that are intimately connected, albeit not in a unilinearity correlation mode. The interconnection is not a simple manifestation of military as a source of conflict, military could also serve as mechanism of conflict mitigation and deterrence. A circumstance where militarisation would serve as a function of conflict deterrence is when a considerable symmetry in military prows prevails. A second condition is when militarisation at the centre succeeds in pacification of society through taming centripetal forces (Callaghy, 1984, Chabal and Daloz, 1999, Young, 1994). In the case of the latter, it relates to the Weberian notion of state monopoly of the legitimate means of violence (Weber, 1984). Societal pacification presupposes a developmental imperative in which societal groups are not in a position to challenge the state through the possession of the means of violation. There emerges a pacified and peaceful society. Conversely, the state submits itself to the societal control, as ultimate power lies on society. The state represents the interests of and is owned by all societal groups, emancipation of the state. Emancipation of state presupposes its standing above all societal groups. Succinctly, state emancipation entails: (i) autonomy of the state, (ii) the state stands above societal groups, (iii) establishment of state harmony over society (Bereketeab, 2011). The pacification of society and emancipation of state represents peace and peacefulness. This also indicate to another development, “The development of a modern state depends above all on the gradual emancipation of established political structure from society” (Chabal and Daloz, 1999: 4-5). This pacification of society and emancipation of state would eventually produce a condition that render militarisation and violent conflicts within society unnecessary.It is common knowledge that, militarisation, because of its very nature of provision and making available of the very tools of mortality is anti-peace and peacefulness. Therefore, it is associated with conflicts, destruction and wars. Militarisation in the sense of widespread availability of the means of destruction harbours propensities that easily evolve into conflicts. This is further accentuated when militarisation takes place as an outcome of geo-strategically driven external intervention. Militarisation serves as means for economic, political, cultural and ideological domination. At the end, its primary contribution could be understood as opposition of state emancipation and societal pacification.Noting the institutionalisation mechanism, Volman and Keenan (Keenan, 2008) write, ‘Militarization of Africa is being co-ordinated by AFRICOM’. Indeed, the region has experienced a great deal of such kinds of militarisation over several decades with concomitant dire consequences the most obvious one being the Cold War (Yordanov, 2016). The US need of African oil necessitated that “the Bush administration decided to use military structure to secure access to and control over African oil and opted to use the GWOT as a justification, rather than acknowledging that US military intervention in Africa was about resource control” (Keenan, 2008: 635). The GWT as a strategy and justification for the exploitation of resources rests on militarisation of the region. This militarisation is not limited only to international big powers but also to regional states who willingly jump on the bandwagon of the campaign of GWT to repress their own people. It is not rare that regimes deploy the politics of GWT to repress opposition. For instance, the EPRDF government in Ethiopia introduced draconian laws in 2009 that included anti-terror law, Proclamation No. 652/2009, “that prevented opposition political parties, the media and Civil Society organizations working on democratisation from accessing donor funding” (Mulugeta, 2024: 85).The GWT driven militarisation has at least two dimensions notably arming of client states and presence of foreign armed forces. In terms of the former client states are provided with armaments that are utilised against internal opposition as well as in the inter-state conflicts (Woodward, 2006, Cliffe, 2004, Schmidt, 2013, Keenan, 2008, Yordanov, 2016). This militarisation through supporting tyrant governments therefore is serving as obstacle to democratisation, respect of human rights, peace, security and development in HOAR. Indeed, the ready availability of the means of warfare is a cause to the rampant wars ravaging the region. Even pastoralists who often engage in cattle rustling, equipped with AK-47, instead of traditional bows and arrows, could inflict immense devastation. The region is hosting several dozens of military organisations.The US tendency to arrogate to itself the right to interfere and enforce its strategic interests and values (Keller, 2006, Geis and Wunderlich, 2014) often coated in the slogan of protecting global interest and security and their friends is a factor of militarisation in the region. The following are some of the current external military forces actively operating or operated in the region.Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA),Africa Command (AFRICOM),Partnership for Regional East Africa Counter-Terrorism (PREACT),Drones base at Port Lemonnier (Djibouti) and Arba Minch (Ethiopia, until January of 2016),France, Germany, Japan, Dutch, Mission Atalanta (EU), USA, China (have military bases in Djibouti),Private Military Companies (PMCs) that are not accountable to neither home governments nor host governments (Keenan, 2008: 642, Aning et al, 2008). Therefore, lack transparency and accountability to host countries (Aning et al, 2008),In the hinterland, the tiny state of Djibouti hosts most of the military forces. Indeed, the constellation of Western military force has led some to call it “Horn of Africa NATO” (Sun and Zoubir, 2016: 115). This militarisation of Djibouti may serve well the Ismail Omar Guelleh government, but it seems that it is inducing increasing internal divisions and dissatisfaction as expressed in incidents such as the bombing in July 2014 of a restaurant that is frequently visited by Westerners, and the August 25, same year, attempt on the life of the President. It has also contributed to complications of relation between Djibouti and Eritrea.The Politics of Producing Pariah StatesTwo notions with the same meaning are invariably employed to label certain actors. These are ‘pariah’ and ‘rogue’. The meaning invoked by the notions is that “states or non-state actors as being outside the normative structure of international society” (Geis and Wunderlich, 2014: 459). This definition of course begs explanation of its presumption of existence of consensually agreed upon “international norms” and “international society”. In addition, “Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (1998) define Pariah States as international States/actors which by virtue of their political systems, ideological postures, leadership or general behaviour suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium” (Lawal, 2012: 227). International community, international values and norms are most abused terminologies. In reality they are used to mean Westerns norms and Western societies. In practice therefore it means arbitrary imposition of those norms and values.The notion of pariah states as academic subject is not well developed in social sciences. It is rather, purposely employed by big powers, particularly the USA, to designate states considered none compliant with its global war on terror policies (Litwak, 2000). As Rotberg, 2007: 7) notes, “They [pariahs] disregarded Washington’s predominant military might and followed autarkic rather than collegial, consensual, or respectful policy trajectories”. This makes it subject to the politics of arbitrary construction. The politics of construction of pariahs is usually characterised by an ideology that fosters the need of a concerted and systematic demonization and dehumanisation campaigns (Geis and Wunderlich, 2014: 463). Once the label sticks not only it becomes legitimate to take any measure against the target state but also becomes hard to remove the designation for a long time to come. This political ideology is quietly infiltrating academia where academic discourse is highly influenced by it (Geis and Wunderlich 2014: 459-460). Western mainstream media driven by disseminating Western values have further promoted the politics of construction of pariahood. In its ideological underpinning the politics of pariahood is an attempt of cultivating Western value, particularly US value (Keller, 2006) thereby denigrating and depreciating the values and norms of targeted societies (a reminiscence of the civilising mission: civilising the savages, barbarians, the dark continent). The concept is uncritically deployed in academic works and by researchers too. Books like ‘Worst of the Worst’, edited by Robert I. Rotbert (2007), uncritically echo what White House officials utter. Lawal (2012: 227) notes, ‘big power alliance structure determines Pariahood, but that they also compensate or punish States according to their whims and caprice’. What this indicates is that the categorisation of pariah is rather driven by big power geo-strategic interests and considerations devoid of any rigorous scientific interrogation. The US by its sheer power of influence singlehandedly inserted the doctrine of pariah state at the centre of academia and policymaking. It has also become fashionable that scholars, donors, policymakers, Western media, human rights organisations and activists uncritically mimic the designation.Recently, the concept of pariah states has been popularised under the GWT regime. The label of rogue state was rigorously pursued by the American administration, particularly by G.W. Bush, following the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 (Geis and Wunderlich, 2014, Preble, 2005). The main components of the Bush Doctrine are pre-emption, democratisation and dominance. Pre-emption alludes to the logic of attacking before being attacked. While democratisation become euphemism to regime change, dominance refers to ensuring US global hegemony (Dresner, 2009). The imperative urge of confronting global terrorism as defined by the US administration has therefore brought the concept to centre of policymaking, international relation, diplomacy and to certain degree academia. The outcome of pervasive utility of the concept in the HOAR is dividing the states into pariah (non-friendly) and friendly and has brought serious multidimensional policy implications.One of the consequences of the GWT driven intervention in the region is the division of the states into friendly and none-friendly ones. The division seems to be based on arbitrary and subjective criteria. Big powers divide at whim states into those who are willing to serve the GWT and those who are not. The designation has become controversial. If they fail to fall in line with the US interpretation of GWT, are categorised as enemies, “either you are with us or with the enemy”.As will be detailed blow while the non-friendly countries are Sudan, UIC-Somalia and Eritrea; the friendly countries are Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda. A critical question is what is the implication of this division to peace, security, stability and regional integration? The most obvious upshot of the designation of the friendly state for incumbents is they can get away with whatever violation whereas non-friendly states are sanctioned harshly. Big powers seem to gloss over or even defend actions of their close allies. A case in point is the Assistant Secretary of State, Jandayi Frazer, in the US Congressional Hearing, defending the Ethiopian government’s action against the ethnic Somali Ethiopians that was labelled by many humanitarian organisations as crime against humanity (HRW, 2008). This kind of blatant defence of friendly states by White House officials undermines US advocacy of universal human rights value.Moreover, friendly states are rewarded economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically. Ethiopia, for instance, received about US$ 3.5 billion annually, followed by Kenya with 2.6 billions and Uganda 1.7 billions from the West. The three countries also received weapons, particularly from the US as rewards for their involvement in Somalia, for instance (Burgess, 2013). Non-friendly states on the other hand are placed under economic, political, military and diplomatic sanctions. Rebellions to depose the governments are frequently supported and at times even incited to destabilise them. The Sudan is a good example of how the US armed opponents of the government (Nmoma, 2006: 55-6). These societies are extremely fragile, suffer of variety of pathologies. The external interventions therefore further aggravate the already precarious situation. States are pushed to failed status with all the accompanying consequences. The division into friendly and non-friendly states also adversely affects regional integration. A survival instinct will bring those who are designated “pariahs” together. This will therefore compartmentalise the states into opposing groups affecting the long-term sustainable and functional regional integration. Below, we will examine the case of three cases designated as pariah.
