|
|
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL HENZEINTERVIEWER: So this is the 9th of May we're in Washington DC I'm talking to Paul Henze. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. Could you just start off by telling me strategically how close the Horn of Africa is linked to the Middle East. PAUL HENZE: Well the Horn of Africa is really as much a part of the Middle East as it is of Africa. This is true historically and it's certainly true in terms of politics, it is also true in terms of what people think. a country such as Sudan regards itself as much a part of the Arab world in the Middle East as it does a part of Africa. Ethiopia has been connected with the Middle East and the Mediterranean world for most of its history. Somalia at one point declared itself an Arab country although of course it isn't. But it has been involved, although it has collapsed in the last two years in Arab politics. So you really can't consider the politics of the Horn of Africa without considering the relationships with the Middle East. INTERVIEWER: And what were America' s strategic and economic interests in the Horn of Africa? PAUL HENZE: America's interests in the Horn of Africa stem from World War 2 and they were basically a continuation of British interests. In fact just as America in effect took over from Britain in respect to Greece and Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean in the late 40s in the early 50s America took over from Britain in Ethiopia and Britain lost it's interest in maintaining it's position in Ethiopia although Britain and British commonwealth forces had originally essentially liberated Ethiopia from Italian occupation. South Africans played a very major role up until fairly recently now that South Africa has become respectable again that was never talked about. But as there were 2 aspects of Ethiopian history that up until fairly recently were no nos. One was the importance of the Portuguese back in the 16th century, who essentially liberated Ethiopia from Arab domination. Ethiopia might well have become an Arab country at that time had the Portuguese not come in. And Britain played a major role in liberating Ethiopia from Italy. Ethiopians of course played a role themselves too the partisan movement in Ethiopia was strong, but especially South African forces coming in from Kenya on the one hand and coming in from the North from Sudan on the other, were very important in liberating Ethiopia. And Britain maintained a position in Ethiopia until the late 40s early 50s of course was the principle occupying power in Eritrea. But gradually during that time, the United States in effect took over and the US position in Ethiopia was formalized in 1953 with treaties that gave the US base rights in Ethiopia. Ethiopia. Ethiopia is looked very important at that point and was very important because it was strategically situated where it had a major impact on traffic through the Red Sea on the Eritrean Coast. it was very important from the point of view of communications and it remained very important from the point of view of communications until the 70s. one of the interesting features of Ethiopia during the late 60s and 70s was that it was one of the few places in the world where it was possible for Western Intelligence people to intercept television and other internal broadcasts in the Soviet Union and that is one of the reasons that the American communications establishment in Eritrea was maintained until the mid 70s. Now that all became redundant when satellites came in. INTERVIEWER: That is all very interesting, can you just describe to me briefly the nature of America's alliance with Ethiopia. PAUL HENZE: Well there was never a formal alliance between the United States and Ethiopia just as I suppose there was a formal alliance between Britain and Ethiopia in terms of world war 2. the American position toward Ethiopia was always called a special relationship, the United States never committed itself to defend Ethiopia against invasion or outside problems but the United States did commit itself to give Ethiopia substantial military aid. Haile Selassie however was a very clever ruler, he didn't want a relationship with a single country, he wanted his relationships to be very varied, and when it came for example to modernizing the Ethiopian Army Haile Selassie sought help from the Swedes and the Indians, from the Belgians but at the same time the united States was the logical source for major military equipment and the military equipment the United States supplied to Ethiopia was looked on as in effect payment for the use of air facilities, communications facilities and naval facilities in Ethiopia. So Ethiopia was an important position from a strategic point of view in the 50s and 60s. INTERVIEWER: do you tell me Haile Selassie gets overthrown and the Menghistu regime comes in can you tell me how and why the US continues to support the Menghistu regime? PAUL HENZE : The US did not continue to support the Menghistu regime as such the US continued to support Ethiopia. The US commitment in the last analysis was never to Haile Selassie as an individual; it was to the country. Ethiopia was important because of it's location it's size it's historical position and it's basic political orientation. And therefore the hope of Americans when Haile Selassie was overthrown and the pretty half-baked military bunch took over was that somehow they could be steered in a direction that would be favorable to the US and to the West. It's rather analogous to what's going on in Zaire right now. I , as I just tonight listened to the news from Zaire and listen to our UN ambassador Richardson talk about it I was vividly reminded about Ethiopia, because Richardson expressed the same kind of hope about Kabeela that many Americans including Henry Kissinger were expressing about Menghistu and the military group that took over in Ethiopia. Now there everybody turned out to be disappointed. Menghistu had apparently decided quite early to embrace the Soviet Union, earlier I think than the Soviets decided to embrace him. INTERVIEWER: Can you give me a thumbnail sketch actually of the Menghistu regime? PAUL HENZE: Well the Menghistu regime to begin with was basically a bunch of military people who basically didn't know what they want except that the Haile Selassie government had pretty much collapsed. It had collapsed because the old emperor had pretty much lost his cool. He was an extraordinary able statesman I think he ranks as one of the major statesman of the 20th century. Up until his very last years. In his last years he failed to provide for succession he failed to take a number of steps that would have ensured stability during a period of transition. He had the bad luck also of having a rather inadequate family, the crown prince was a very weak man and while he had to content himself with a system where the crown prince was to succeed him, the crown prince had a stroke at the in the final Haile Selassie years and was totally unable to succeed him, so the Crown Prince's son who was also a fairly inadequate figure, was named heir. So Ethiopia found itself at sixes and sevens floating. And this affected the Ethiopian establishment to a very great extent. Ethiopia had a really quite distinguished aristocracy, many of them British educated, many of them extraordinarily good credentials, good experience, and very proud of their position, but for a complex series of reasons the Ethiopian aristocracy was unable to do much as Haile Selassie weakened and the Haile Selassie government weakened for a number of reasons. One was the American presence was no longer very effective. The United States was going through the throes of the Vietnam collapse, there was no substitute for the American presence in terms of European influence, Britain, Germany, France really did very little for Ethiopia during that time. The Yom Kippur war came Haile Selassie very ill advisedly broke relations with Israel. Israel had been very important to Ethiopia, so Ethiopians found themselves without any anchor points. Felt very uncertain, and the result was thatout of this uncertainty a group of military people formed a committee and that comto begin with was pretty incoherent. It was not clear what it wanted. But Menghistu operating behind the scenes, very skillfully manipulated the situation to the point where he was able to take power. His power was not absolute and his power was challenged by a number of others for a period of time. But Menghistu was always faster with the gun than anybody else and the key of development came in February of 1977 when there were serious disagreements primarily over Eritrea. Menghistu had the problem of coming from the, coming from a very dubious background socially of coming from the South West of the country from a border region he didn't have good Ethiopian credentials. Good blue blood of any kind. There were rumors in later years that supposedly he had descended from some Ethiopian emperor, but there was no evidence whatsoever that this was the case. Therefore Menghistu felt necessary to prove his nationalism and he had to prove he was as tough as anybody else and he was desirous of protecting Ethiopia's interests. So Menghistu and the military group inherited the Eritrean insurgency which at, the point when Haile Selassie's regime collapsed was not actually doing very well. It was fairly weak. But Menghistu, decided to pursue it very energetically and he shifted most of the army to the north. Got into a totally confused political situation. And the net result was that there was a great deal of disagreement within the Durg, the military committee as it was called about what exactly what should be done. Menghistu solved it all in early February by shooting every body who was against him. The bodies were carried out, the Russian ambassador came in and congratulated Menghistu and from then on things went from bad to worse. Menghistu expelled most of the Americans from Ethiopia, the following months, arrogantly terminated the American Aid program, apparently got some promises from Moscow, went
INTERVIEWER: May I ask you just to very briefly say, how, how aware was the United States of the sort of rapprochement or whatever you want to call it between the Soviet Union and Menghistu and how did the United States respond? PAUL HENZE : Well the United States was all very aware, it was all very obvious in the first period even before the many of the American elements in Ethiopia were expelled, large numbers of Ethiopians were taken off the to the Soviet Union for training, including military people. The Ethiopian press and media became completely communist oriented repeating all of the standard themes. Bulgarian team came in to teach the Ethiopians how to be effective in Communist style propaganda, all of the Eastern countries were very active in their various ways. The Soviets, the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Russians always made very little effort to stay in the background themselves, but they didn't deliver much in the way of military equipment they kept Menghistu dangling out on the end. They obviously wanted to see who was going to come out on top. The united states was very aware of this, but the United States was very diverted during this period. This was the period when the United States was recovering from the confusion in Vietnam. The United States was pretty passive in terms of its own 3rd world commitments. It is true that somewhat later in that period, the United States got very much involved in Angola, but there was no direct connection between Angola and other activities and Ethiopia. Meanwhile Somalia which was still very strongly oriented towards Moscow and getting massive military aid, there were about 4,000 military advisor still in 1978. Somalia- American relations were absolutely at rock bottom. Somalia was doing all sorts of things that not only angered the United States but angered the countries in Europe. Letting it's ships, letting it's ships be used for breaking embargoes, offering the support for radical Arabs Ghadaffi and so forth and in the end of course the Somalis, greatly overplayed their hand because they had very substantial claims on Ethiopian territory, had had them for a long period of time. Moscow had tacitly been supporting those claims, but again, never openly endorsing them. But again starting in 1977 and continuing into 1978 the Somalis mounted a major invasion of Ethiopia. INTERVIEWER: Can you just stop a minute I want to take you backwards. Can you just tell me why and when the US terminated their relationship with Menghistu. PAUL HENZE : Oh the United States never terminated their relationship with Menghistu. Menghistu expelled, all American military organizations, a number of American research groups like the naval tropical disease research group and so forth, expelled the US information service. Closed the American libraries. Kept the American aid organization however. in the spring of 1977 the US took all of this, because the US position was in Ethiopia because of support for the Ethiopian people, not for support for any particular Ethiopian regime. The aid program in the face of severe Ethiopian harassment and restrictions was maintained until 1979, but when the Somalis invaded the Ethiopians discovered that they needed military equipment, spare parts because the entire Ethiopian armed forces were equipped with American and other NATO countries equipment and the Russians had been very favorable propagandistically and they hadn't given the Ethiopians very much and so the Ethiopians were very hard - pressed in the summer of 1977 and into 1978. The Ethiopian air force had been permitted after Menghistu took power to receive F5Es fighter-bombers the best that were available at that time in spite of the fact that the Menghistu regime was very unfavorable. These had been ordered and promised back in the early 70s. Henry Kissinger after weighing of the considerations decided in 1976 that the planes would go to Ethiopia Meanwhile Ethiopian pilots had been training in the states. These planes were supplied to Ethiopia, the pilots came back and flew them and they utterly destroyed the Somali air force supplied by the Soviet Union in the summer of 1977. INTERVIEWER : Can I ask you, can you give me a detailed, oh dear can you give me a brief sort of a thumbnail sketch of Seaadbaar and his regime. PAUL HENZE: Seatbaray in some ways was sort of a junior Menghistu well he was much older than Menghistu, he was an old Somali camel trader in mentality. He had been chief of the General staff in Somalia during the period when major soviet aid was coming in. The Soviets supplied Somwith about 6 - 7 times the amount of military equipment and training assistance that the United States and other Western countries had given Ethduring the 60s. In the fall of 1969 Seatbaray took over the Somali government. The Somali government had been a fairly democratic government, there was a play of political parties that was almost unique in Africa at that point because you had a lot of political parties and fairly free elections. But Somalia had a lot of problems because it was put together from 2 pieces an Italian and a British part and no Somali government was able to cope with the problem of claims against Ethiopia, against Kenya, against Djibouti for additional territory. Seatbarau chief of the General Staff and immediately oriented Somalia toward the Soviet Union. Now it's widely suspected that the Russians probably had a hand in the coup itself, those things just don't get proven. But Seatbaray then proceeded to establish socialism Soviet style in Somalia. He played a bit around with, he played around a bit with the Chinese, but the Chinese really weren't terribly important in Somalia they had a lot of propaganda operations, they gave some assistance they built a huge national theatre in Mogadishu and did a few other ostentatious aid projects, but basically Somalia was very much in the Soviet camp, from the late 60s on to 1978. INTERVIEWER: But was, could you say that there was actually very little to choose between the two regimes? PAUL HENZE: in terms of the nature of the regimes, there wasn't much to choose, but there was a lot to choose between the two countries. Somalia is a poor scraggly desert there isn't much wealth in Somalia, not too many people either, it is the sort of tag end of things, it is the edge of the horn. While Ethiopia is a very big, rich country, very talented people and obviously the prize the Soviets were very happy to have. And, but the Soviets had been interested in Ethiopia for a long, long time, Russia was interested in Ethiopia way back in the early 19th century. During the scramble for Africa, there was a Russian colony established on the coast near Djibouti. Russians sent explorers into Ethiopia they were very prominent in Ethiopia at the end of the 19th century. Russians actually gave significant aid to Emperor Menelek when he defeated the Italians in 1896 at Aduwa. So and the Russians played the religious connection. The Ethiopians are orthodox, Russians are orthodox. the Russians at times supported when there were tangles and troubles between the various religious groups in Jerusalem, the Russian supported the Ethiopian religious people. So now this of course posed a problem for the Soviets it also posed a problem for Menghistu, because Menghistu would have liked to have been anti-religious, he was never able to believe anti-religious and one of the net results of the Menghistu regime in Ethiopia is that Ethiopia today is more religious than it's ever been. But Seatbaray didn't have that problem, because Somalia is, is completely Muslim and the Somali-Soviet relationship we know now in retrospect often involved tensions but nevertheless the Soviets moved into Somali bag and baggage because they couldn't get Ethiopia. INTERVIEWER: Wonderful, some wonderful black moments in all of this as well, Very briefly could you describe Somali interests in the Oggaden. PAUL HENZE: Well Somali interests, the Somali aim was always to have all Somalis together the classic irredentism of the kind that has infested various parts of the world for centuries and many parts of Europe and unfortunately, the countries that are usually most avid about uniting all their people under one flag usually end up in the worse mess. We've seen that happen over and over again in Europe a prime example I suppose being Germany itself. Hitler's Germany bringing all Germans together is now half the size that Germany was before he took power.
INTERVIEWER: Sorry to interrupt you could I ask you to say briefly in one sort of sentence that the Oggenden was sort of full of ethnic Somalis, belonged to Ethiopia but the Somalis wanted to bring it back into Somalia. PAUL HENZE : well the Somalis did want to bring the Oggenden back into Somali. They wanted to bring not only the Oggen in but some Somali inhabited parts of Kenya and the area of Djibouti, still a French colony at that point which was occupied, inhabited half by Somalis and half by Affars a related but very different people. The Oggenden however may have oil, people are still looking but the Oggenden has very little in the way of wealth. It is a essentially a desert area, very little agriculture, the Somalis who inhabited it are among the most primitive of the Somalis, they are camel herders and goat herders and so forth. It was never, the Somalis were never particularly oppressed by the Ethiopians in the Oggenden any more than they were oppressed by the Kenyans in northeast Kenya. They were, the Somalis simply led a traditional life. There were efforts by the Ethiopians to develop the area, there was even prospecting by Western oil companies, these efforts were often disrupted because as soon as Somalia developed a strong relationship with the Soviet Union in the 60s guerilla operations mysteriously developed in the Oggenden and this was a very difficult problem for the Soviets, I mean the Ethiopians for a certain period of time. But the Soviets were always, the Soviets were very good at building tension up to a certain temperature and then seeing that it never really boiled over and Seatbaray, Somalis is always, all of one religion, all of one language all of one ethnic orientation, is nevertheless deeply divided by clans. The clan differences in Somalia are far stronger than I believe they are in any other part of Africa. There, there are more serious problems certainly than ethnic differences in Ethiopia which is a multi-ethic country and Seatbaray came from a rather minor Somali clan. He had a great deal of difficulty and in this sense he was there is a certain parallel as there was with Menghistu, he came from the edges of Society, he had to prove himself by being an ultra-nationalist, and part of this being an ultra-nationalist was claiming that he was uniting all Somalis and protecting all Somalis from exploitation by the odious Ethiopians the colonial Kenyans and the colonial French and so forth. [talk re noise interruption] PAUL HENZE: Well I would be perfectly willing to give you some personal reminiscences too as I found myself plunged into all of this when I came back from Turkey in January 1977 and joined the National Security Council and was immediately given this area as part of my responsibility. INTERVIEWER: Well that would be great actually, I don't quite know what to ask you I don't quite know what your personal, that's why when I once called you I was quite interested to find out what that was about..... [chat re national airport, planes and stomach bugs] INTERVIEWER: Can you tell me what led the Somalis to believe that the US would support their conquest of the Oggaden PAUL HENZE: The Somalis, the permanent undersecretary of the Kenyan foreign ministry I remember in the fall of 1977, when I made a grand tour of the area for the US National Security Council to get a feel for what was really going on. The permanent secretary Jeremiah Couraney said to me and my colleagues "There is one thing you must remember, the Somalis are the most deceptive people in the world." But he added that they also have great capacity in their own ability to manipulate and maneuver. And this is what I don't think the Somalis had any good reason to believe that the US would support them but they were determined to try to get the US to support them. And they enlisted every possible resource that they could find. They sent people into the White House, they engaged in propaganda from many different angles, they took a very daring step by invading Ethiopia in the first place because we still don't know, we've managed to get a lot of documents out of Moscow in recentyears, but the Russians have been very careful they've kept the documents that really give information on the basic decisions out of Western ads. I worked on a lot of these documents a couple of years ago. We don't know if the Russians actually told the Sgo ahead and invade. The Somalian invasion of Ethiopia built up over a period of about six months and eventually it reached very major proportions. The Somalis claimed they didn't have any regular troops they had the whole Somali army, they had tanks, they had their airforce they had the best equipment they got from the Soviets. They've they went deep into Ethiopia, they sent the Ethiopians reeling. The Ethiopian air force defeated the Somali air force and that was very significant, but the Somalis still gave the Ethiopians a very rough time. They practically brought Ethiopia to its knees. In the process of course they alarmed the world, they alarmed the Soviets. We do know that from documents that have now come to light. The soviets didn't really know what to do. They wanted to keep, they wanted to have a hold on both countries. They hoped by daring maneuvers to be able to bring both into the Soviet camp. In the end of course they lost them both, but the Soviet response after considerable confusion was to call in the Cubans. And they were very reluctant to break relations with the Somalis, there were still 4,000 soviet advisors in Somalia at the time that the Somalis had practically brought the Ethiopians to their knees. When the Soviet shifted their position, many Russians left Somalia and came right over to Ethiopia. The same was true of Cubans. There were large number of Cubans in Somalia. But many more of course were brought in a total of 15, 18,000 Cubans were brought in by mostly airlifts some by ship, some from Angola, many directly from Cuba. Many by way of South Yemen, South Yemenis were brought in to stem the Somali advance at the most crucial point when there was nobody else available to do it, because parts of the Ethiopian military practically collapsed. INTERVIEWER: I'll just ask it very briefly again [technical chat] INTERVIEWER: All I would really like is a very succinct, a very succinct statement about why the Somalis believed.. PAUL HENZE: Well they never really believed it, ... ..... The Somalis never believed they could really persuade the US, but they took a long chance. The whole Somali actions during the 1977, 78 period were based on long chances, great risks in the hope that they might succeed. They had very little chance of getting American full support. But they knew that if they tried to present themselves as anti-Soviet they would improve their chances and so they went to considerable lengths to appear to be anti-Soviet at the same time however the Soviet Union was not very co-operative of them because the Soviets in the fall of 1977 clearly opted for Ethiopia over Somalia which shouldn't surprise anybody because Ethiopia was a far greater prize, but the Soviets withdrew from Somalia without breaking diplomatic relations, maintained an embassy, maintained some people in Somalia even though and while they transferred people directly this was not sufficiently offensive to the Somalis that they took action against them. And the Somalis kept playing the old game during this whole period of saying well now if you Americans don't support us we'll go back to Moscow. Well it was pretty clear that they couldn't go back to Moscow that the die was cast but they played the game. They got nowhere. INTERVIEWER: Could one say that it was a case of the sort of pliant state bringing in the superpowers to try and meet its own aims? PAUL HENZE: Oh very much so, certainly in the Somalian case. In the Ethiopian case, the Ethiopians were caught by the Somali invasion, in effect Menghistu invited the Somali invasion, not because he wanted it, but because he had reduced the Ethiopians to such a state of internal confusion that the Somalians were led to believe that if they just go in there and gave a few further whacks they could bring the regime down. I remember talking to Seatbaray during that period and Seatbaray in the fall of 1977 maintained that the Menghistu regime was so weak that it couldn't possibly survive and therefore Somalia was doing humanity a service by destroying the regime, now that was not true at all actually. Menghistu was clever enough to pull the same, apply the same kind of policy that Stalin applied in 1941, 42 when the Germans invaded, Stalin suddenly liberalized, he let the church come back and be active he let Russians have much more freedom. He became more a great advocate of Russian patriotism, Menghistu did the same thing, Menghistu relaxed many of the most odious communist measures in 1977 and therefore rallied the country around him. INTERVIEWER: May I just ask you to go back and make a succinct statement for me about the sort of client state bringing in what you know the superpowers, to meet their opportunistically to meet their own local needs. PAUL HENZE: Well the Somalians I think, the Somalis I think are very much a Soviet client state, a very faithful client state. At the same time it gave the Soviets almost nothing in return they wanted military aid from the Soviets, they wanted the Soviets to support their positions entirely, the Soviets probably brought part of that on themselves by their own deceptive tactics, leading the Somalis on to believe that they would support them and then not supporting them fully. No I mean they tried some of the same with the Ethiopians afterwards, but after 1978 the situation was pretty much settled. The soviets had opted for the Ethiopians they had brought in sufficient forces to defeat the Somalis. The Somalis were defeated but at the same time not entirely rendered powerless. INTERVIEWER: Fine can you just describe to me the sort of Cuban airlifting in of Cuban troops can you tell me how the arrival of the Cubans was seen in Washington, what fears it aroused, were they seen as Soviet proxies. PAUL HENZE: Oh Cubans were seen entirely as Soviet proxies in Washington. Washington at that point stood somewhat in awe of the Soviet ability to use the Cubans, because the Soviets had encouraged the Cubans to be adventuresome. The Cubans had already given evidence of stoking revolutionary situations in Africa and elsewhere in Africa, after all Che Guevara had been in the Congo before he was in Bolivia and there was very little basis for understanding any limitations as far as the Cubans were concerned. The Cubans in many ways from the Washington point of view looked like ideal mercenaries, the men the soviets could use for any purpose they chose. Now whether the Cubans were entirely amenable or not it was hard to say. We've learned something from documents since. There is a fascinating conversation in Ethiopia between the Soviet ambassador and one of the chief lieutenants of Menghistu about August of 1977 where the Ethiopians had been bickering privately with the Cubans about additional aid, they wanted more technicians they wanted more military assistance and so forth. The Soviet ambassador said in very sharp terms to the Ethiopians, " The decision of how many Cubans will come and what Cuba will do here is going to be made in Moscow, not in Havana". INTERVIEWER: Very good, can you tell me just moving right on, can you how would you characterize president Carter's handling of the Horn? PAUL HENZE : The Horn was president Carter's first crisis. He was taken aback by it. president Carter came in with a somewhat benign view of the world, he felt that if you just demonstrated good will you'd get people to co-operate and the Horn therefore was a great shock. It was so much of a shock at times that I think there was a danger that president Carter might have gone so far as to break relations with Ethiopia. And those of us including myself who were concerned about the longer range implications worked very hard to see that we didn't break relations with Ethiopia, because we felt that as odious as Menghistu might be that if once we broke relations it would be very dito restore them and I think that that has proved to be very much the case in other situations in the world. If you break relations it takes year and years and years to get them back, while if you maintain them even under very difficult conditions and at one point our embassy was reduced to a handful of peoplin Adis Ababa, but we maintained the embassy and when the Ethiopians wanted to have American military aid supplied at the end of 1977 beginning of 1978 they agreed to accept an American ambassador again and to lift some of the limitations on the American presence in Ethiopia. This gave us an opportunity to put a foot back in the door, because behind the American position on Ethiopia those of us who knew Ethiopia well knew that Ethiopia was always really very pro-American, the great majority of Ethiopians were pro-American, almost the entire educated classes in Ethiopia had been educated in the United States or in Britain or in Europe. They were all oriented towards the West. Only during the entire Soviet period the only Ethiopians who went to the East for education were those who couldn't get a decent opportunity to go somewhere in the West.
INTERVIEWER: Great can you tell me what was Brezhinski's approach to the Horn and what did the Horn crisis reveal if you like or would it be see in the Horn crisis with the more Hawkish elements in Carter's administration. PAUL HENZE: Well Brezhinski was often labeled a Hawk and Vance a dove that's like all these generalizations pretty much a series of exaggerations. Brezhinski had no sympathy for Somalia he had a lot of sympathy for Ethiopia he recalled how as a child he had played soldier during the period of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and all his Ethiopian soldiers always won. Brezhinksi had a fairly substantial toward Ethiopia based on vague cultural sense of affinity and the natural sympathy the poles have for invaded people who they regard as underdogs. Brezhinski knew nothing of Somalia he had no particular sympathy for Somalia but looked upon the entire horn situation in terms of Soviet 3rd world competition. So Brezhinksi favored keeping Somalia viable in at least the minimal sense. This proved to be extremely difficult because even after the Somalis withdrew all their troops from Ethiopia they kept infiltrating guerillas and they kept causing incidents, problems, that made it almost impossible for any promises of Aid to Somalia economic or military and no serious promises of military aid to Somalia were ever made. Somalia was promised non-lethal defensive military equipment. This was a distinction that was very popular in the states at that time. Lethal versus non-lethal, it's rather theoretical it seems to me, but this was the distinction that was made, but the Somalis made themselves extremely difficult to help because they never really gave up trying to undermine Ethiopia, in the Oggaden and nearby regions. They also were quite uncooperative in respect to Djibouti and in the course of all this excitement the French gave Djibouti independence established it as a separate republic, this did not particularly please the Somalis, because they also had claims on Djibouti. That's .. INTERVIEWER: I mistakenly interrupted you exactly, could you just summarize for me if you like, what was how the horn crisis was seen or why the Horn became a crisis in East West relations in that case. PAUL HENZE : Well I think the Horn inevitably would have become a crisis in East West Relations because it was one of the major issues of the time and it demonstrated at that period that the old men who led the Soviet union were willing to take some very substantial risks in order to advance what they thought were Soviet interests. Looking back on it I'm inclined to think that one of their motivations was that they knew that the Soviet Union itself was a failing system, it was getting very weak and they took the classic approach of foreign adventurism in order to divert attention from internal problems. I think that lies behind much of Soviet adventurism in the 3rd world, in the 70s and into the early 80s, but we know now how weak the Soviet Union actually was at that time. It diverted enormous amounts of valuable equipment which cost the Russians very heavily at the bank to arming Ethiopia and just as earlier they had diverted enormous amounts of equipment to arming Somalia. The Ethiopian Somali war was fought for the most part with a limited amount of American equipment supplied to the Ethiopians and a far larger amount of equipment supplied to the Somalis by the Soviets, I think the American equipment clearly proved it's worth because item for item it was much more effective than the Soviet equipment. The air force is the most dramatic example, the Somali air force could not contend with the Ethiopian American supplied Air Force at all. INTERVIEWER: I interrupted you mistakenly, very briefly what did Vance and the other liberals in the administration advocate about the Horn of Africa? PAUL HENZE: Vance saw everything in terms of détente and in terms of salt agreements arms limitation agreements and so forth, and Vance's interpretation of developments in the Horn was that any very vigorous response to what the Soviets were doing in the Horn would jeopardize the overall chances for an arms control and détente arrangement with the Soviet Union. This was the essential difference between Vance and Brezhinksi. Brezhinski believed that you must call the Soviets to account for irresponsible behavior, Vance believed that you must be gentle with the Soviets because otherwise you would undermine your chances for agreement. Now in retrospect it was perfectly clear who was right. INTERVIEWER: Well absolutely. Now can I just ask you can you give me your assessment very briefly of Soviet actions in the Horn. PAUL HENZE : well I go back, Soviet actions in the Horn as I think I said earlier, derive in part I think from the perception of whether totally articulated or not on the part of the old men who were leading the Soviet Union at that time that their own system was a failing system and they needed to do something to try to give it some vigor and some energy and the easiest thing to do was be assertive and to say that to demonstrate to the Russians and the other Soviet peoples that we are advancing we're taking over the 3rd world. We're challenging the imperialists, the Americans and all of their friends and the 3rd world loves us and so on. Now that led the Soviets into adventurism in many places. The Horn was one of the most striking examples of Soviet adventurism, also one of the most costly, because rescuing Ethiopia from the Somalis cost the Soviets very heavily it cost them a billion dollars right then and there in equipment and investment. But the actual cost was probably far higher and then it went on costing. The total amount of direct Soviet cost in Ethiopia in the 17 years of the relationship is estimated to be at least 12 billion dollars. Now today one finds Soviet tanks, Soviet trucks, Soviet guns littering the Ethiopian landscape in all directions. I occasionally show these pictures to Russians to help them understand why they are as badly off as they are. INTERVIEWER: Can you describe to me the final irony of Somali enthusiasm for embracing Socialist principles and the Ethiopian reluctance to do so. These two people who have switched sides effectively. PAUL HENZE: Well the Somali embrace of the Soviet principles is pretty bogus, Seatbaray embraced socialist principles in order to advance his own personal interests, catered to the Soviets, mouthed socialism, in order to build up his own power. And a derivative of that was his embracing of Arab principles. The Somalia had declared itself an Arab country, a member of the Arab league and so forth, it was no more Arab than say the Cubans are or the Mexicans are. Somalia is a Muslim country, but it is not strongly oriented toward Arab culture, or Arab interests. There was very little interest on the part of individual Somalis in socialism. Socialism was imposed on the Somalis. There was not much interest on the pof the Ethiopians in socialism either. Menghistu's communism loudly proclaimed, was also pretty bogus, but it involved some very odious features, much more so than the socialism imposed on the Somalis, such as villagization and resettlement. Menghistu tried to force the entire Ethiopian peasantry into collective farms. He moved millions of Ethiopians dto hot, inhospitable lowlands, in order to get them away from areas that were infested with insurgents. People were fighting against the Dher. All of this came of course after the momentous events of 77 78. But the Soviets supported these things. Again they sometimes played it safe by making criticisms in the mid-80s there was a substantial body of criticism of Menghistu developing in the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union itself was coming apart at that time so it's not surprising that you had different views. INTERVIEWER: Can I just a very few summing up points can I ask you just super-briefly, what do you think was the impact of US intervention in the Horn? PAUL HENZE: Well the US didn't really intervene in the Horn, the US expressed very strong views and condemned the Soviet intervention but there wasn't any American intervention in the Horn. The United States terminated its military aid for Ethiopia, it gave Somalia, very little and long after the dust had settled. INTERVIEWER: In that case what was the impact of Soviet intervention do you think? PAUL HENZE: it very serious debilitation of the region. Soviet intervention left Ethiopia less developed, strapped with debt, and environmentally crippled to a far greater extent than it had been in 1974 when Haile Selassie was overthrown. They are just now beginning to come out of it. Soviet intervention in Somalia, left Somalia in a completely collapsed state. The events that occurred in Somalia in the 80s are a direct consequence of what happened in Somalia in the 70s. INTERVIEWER: What is your assessment of Superpower control of clients in the Horn. PAUL HENZE: Well the United States never really regarded Ethiopia as a client the United States regarded Ethiopia as a friendly country deserving sport and as a promising country deserving economic aid. And this was essentially the same view of Ethiopia that the countries in Europe took. In fact a number of European countries did continue economic support for Ethiopia, even after America aid was terminated in 1979. Europeans, Italians, French for example were often criticized for giving economic aid to Ethiopia in the 80s. Everybody then began to give major support at the time of the famine, the United States contribution was probably larger than anybody else's, but it was by no means the overwhelming part of it. INTERVIEWER: Great, my penultimate question, what is your assessment of US involvement in the 3rd world? Why did they do it and what was the impact sort of thing? PAUL HENZE: Well US involvement in the 3rd world is really an extension of American policy as it has evolved over the 20th century, the, the whole idea that the 3rd world didn't exist until after world war 2, during world war 2 the United States approach to countries that one might be called colonialist or imperialist was quite critical, we made British leaders quite unhappy. President Roosevelt made British leaders quite unhappy by championing independence for India and greater freedom for colonies. United states involvement of the 3rd world was essentially a welcoming of de-colonialization in the 50s or the 60s. I suppose there was no country that was a greater champion of genuine decolonialization in the sense of letting countries manage their own affairs. Helping them develop. There was a great deal of naive idealism involved. This was very different from the Soviet approach. Now the Soviets claimed to be having anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and so forth, but the Soviet aim was always to build a communist type regime and we saw this happening very early in places like Ghana, when the Soviets embraced Emkrumba, and Ghennie when the Soviets embraced the Secuture, and in a great many other parts of the world. So the united states involvement in the 3rd world I don't think was provoked by Soviets, by competition with the Soviets, by a sense of competition. It was initially the result of the very basic American approach to the world in general, stemming from the time of the American revolution. It goes back to the Monroe doctrine and things of that sort. We've always been in favor of people freeing themselves from colonial domination. INTERVIEWER: May I ask something somewhat provocative in that case, if that is the case which I accept didn't America find herself on some occasions with some rather strange alignments within the cold war situation, embarrassing situations. PAUL HENZE : Oh no question because competitiveness with the Soviet Union led to distortions and also led to taking risks at times. Questions and one that bedevils us today is Zaire. Belgium panicked and let the Congo become independent precipitately in 1960. It degenerated very rapidly the United States exerted itself, partly for commercial reasons but also for rather idealistic reasons to try to stabilize it and mobilize a major international effort to do so. Over time we can see there a regime in which the United States had a major hand in bringing power the Mobutu regime has degenerated. This process took place much more rapidly in a number of other places and governments that look worth supporting in the hope that they could be made more moderate, more democratic, more open sometimes turned out not to be. INTERVIEWER: Good, my final question, you say in your book the Horn of Africa, that you were in favor of constructive interventionism, what does that mean? PAUL HENZE: Constructive interventionism means helping constructive forces, forces that favor the principles that Western Democratic open societies favor, develop themselves, and at times helping them defend themselves. Now this was very important during a period when they were being actively undermined by subversive movements of various kinds it is perhaps less important today because the problem today is much more one of degeneration than subversion. The problem today is to help countries develop real strength to the capability of managing themselves in the cold war period one often had to help countries defend themselves from active subversion. END Go to Source of article |