The war between Eritrea and Ethiopia is typical of warfare to come: nasty, brutish, and long. Like the conflicts in Sudan, the Republic of Congo, and the former Yugoslavia, the fighting was dirty. Ethnically charged propaganda, child soldiers, mass deportations, and prolonged infantry combat characterized the war, leaving in the last two years from 20,000 to 100,000 dead, nearly one million refugees, decimated villages, and a slightly altered map. Wars like these happen on the fringes of globalization, where the combatants communicate with cell-phones and use hand-me-down weapons from the Cold War. Although the West moves toward integration (open borders, stronger international treaties, and more prominent supranational organizations), a large portion of the world is going the other way.
Ethiopia and Eritrea's economies are dominated by subsistence farming. Ethiopia has repeatedly been struck by drought and famine and at times the government has opted to continue the war at the expense of feeding its citizens _ Human Rights Watch estimates one million people perished during the 80s from starvation. The fighting has caused vital foreign investment to dry up, exacerbating each country's plight.
The war is strikingly similar to other dirty wars. Refugees reported mass deportations, looting, and a high incidence of rape. People not of Ethiopian descent were summarily rounded up and expelled. Independent news providers were eliminated. Landmines used in the conflict will continue to kill and maim people for years. The fighting is dirty because it goes past "traditional" war, which pits army against army. The casualties of dirty wars are mostly civilians _ they are wars against people, not governments.
Ethiopia's leadership, like others in Africa and elsewhere, wore the trappings of a democracy _ elections, the separation of powers, and political parties _ but failed to practice one of a democracy's chief obligations: continuing a war not at all in the interests of the people. Like many dirty wars, there was no winner. The two sides fought to a standstill and are left with ruined economies, displaced populations, and practically no foreign investment.
Although today Ethiopia and Eritrea are nearly irrelevant to the West's material interests, most of the world's population growth is occurring in countries like them. Barring a major war or arms race between the strongest nations (which is not likely in the foreseeable future), wars like this one will continue to be how many of the world's conflicts are manifested. Settling these conflicts now will be easier than settling them later, when there will be more people, a less clear global distribution of power, and perhaps slower economic growth. And it's about time _ the conflict in Sudan has raged for generations.
So what can be done?
For starters, the West should at least commit not to make things worse. The US continues to be the largest weapons retailer of the world. The mantra justifying this is, "If we don't sell arms, the French or Russians will." This is analogous to a thief justifying his crimes by claiming his victims would be robbed anyway. What happened during the Iran-Iraq war, where the US and USSR sold weapons to each side, is morally indefensible. Much more effort needs to be placed in converting part of the defense industry away from building weapons systems so it does not have to rely on foreign sales to stay in business.
Also, the US must curtail its arms exports. Although some sales, for instance to Taiwan, are necessary to maintain regional stability, they should be undertaken only with the greatest of care and only for political reasons, not simply because the defense sector needs a customer. Even with the best of intentions, though, weapons such as the ubiquitous Kalashnikov assault rifle last for decades. This fact implies that weapons being sold today might be used 20 years from now, when the international scene is quite different. Halting the proliferation of these small-arms is a major challenge.last for d
Second, organizations working to stop dirty wars must be supported. Beyond the so-called "CNN effect," when the public becomes outraged for a few days over pictures of suffering on TV, the West cares little for the conflicts in Africa. That much cannot be changed. What can be improved is the amount of support given to the groups who do care about what happens in Ethiopia and Eritrea. The UN's success rate in ending conflicts has been dismal. But before writing off the UN as a dinosaur from the Cold War, the sheer difficulty of its mandate must be appreciated. The UN faces criticism from all directions because it tries to assist in impossible situations. The UN, and a number of dedicated international organizations, step in where no government wants to go. There is ample need for reform, however, especially in the areas of peacekeeping, in the structure of the security council, and in its ability to act decisively. But the UN is not an irrelevant organization.
Third, the US must be very weary of pushing democracy abroad. People suffering from dirty wars need food and peace much more urgently than an open, progressive government. Pushing too hard for a regime change can have disastrous consequences. Let us first worry about ending the fighting and then be available to help stabilize and democratize in a deliberate, thoughtful manner. Democracy should not be viewed as a panacea and the West's greatest concern should be the well-being of the people, not the form of government.
On the bright side, the UN has been successfully moving troops between Ethiopia and Eritrea and is facilitating peace negotiations after a cease-fire was arranged in December. An even modest success here could greatly improve the UN's credibility as a peace-maker after imbroglios like Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Rwanda. And they need not work alone. The past decade has seen an explosion of non-governmental organizations created to assist ending similar conflicts. They can provide crucial help when governments will not get involved.
Morality on the international scene is a tricky issue. True, there is a moral imperative to assist victims of war, but sometimes going in to help with the best of intentions can end up hurting everybody, as happened in Somalia. By curtailing the availability of arms, supporting international organizations such as the UN or the OSCE, and being weary about crusading for democracy, the West can help in situations no government wants to touch. Ending the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea is the latest example.
