The HAC fallacy

M. Filli A.

Today marks the first of a two-day international conference on “Prospects for a Horn of Africa Confederation (HAC)” that is being held in Tampa, Florida. “The objective of the Conference is to engage in an in-depth exploration of the challenges and opportunities for the confederation for the HORN of Africa consisting of Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia”, so say the conference organizers. The ultimate goal of the conference would be, among other things:

· “ To articulate a new vision of alternative modalities of cooperation and collaboration to effect the HORN of AFRICA CONFEDERATION (HAC);

· To initiate a sustainable momentum for the establishment of the confederation.”

There is nothing wrong with the good intentions of the Conference if all that were not fraught with myopic rationale, hypothetical feasibility, wishful thinking, and parochial interest of industrialized nations.

africa map Although the geo-political and strategic significance of the Horn of Africa is not a new discovery (HAC vis-à-vis IGAD), it is the war on terrorism that has generated renewed interest in this region because of its lack of socio-political stability. The internationally community has correctly recognized that such a region has the potential of being exploited by global terrorism and turned into sanctuary and breeding ground for terrorist activities if left unattended. Hence the decision to redesign and integrate the geo-political significance of the Horn of Africa to the global strategy of the Arabian Peninsula with the global strategy of the war on terrorism is a sensible rationale. Accordingly, the socio-political stability of the Horn becomes a sine qua non for the war on global terrorism to succeed.

That being said, it would be again myopic to consider the socio-political stability of the Horn of Africa countries (Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia) in isolation because it is an integral part and parcel of the socio-political intricacies of adjacent countries (Sudan, Kenya, Uganda). Therein lies the fallacy of HAC and the necessity and justification for IGAD (Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda) both in terms of the demography of ethnic distribution and in terms of the efforts to balance regional hegemonic centrifugal and centripetal forces which are in a steady flux. The current political situation in the Horn is testimony to that.

As a matter of fact, there already exists a de facto Horn of Africa Confederation imbedded in IGAD! So, why even ponder about it? Should the Horn of Africa countries require heightened international attention because of their geo-politically significant geographic location, then that could be worked out with IGAD and the desired goal achieved even much better. Hence, why carve up IGAD when it can serve the purpose more efficient and effective? Barring ulterior motives, what is needed is then to strengthen IGAD by providing it the necessary logistic, political and financial resources required to accomplish the job.

With that in mind, it is my opinion that the ongoing conference on “hac” is merely an academic exercise for, given IGAD, the HAC is utter fantasy, redundant, divisive, and serves only parochial interests of industrialized nations.

Dr. M. Filli A.

NJ, USA