Chapter Three

3.1. Foreign control and international relations

The world of politics – especially international politics – is broad and complicated, and it is hard to
identify the boundaries between politics and international relations as such. For instance, when we
talk about international relations, we are referring to a wide variety of concepts and ideas that often
overlap and that are rarely easily to distinguish. Moreover, the theoretical complexity that surrounds
the realm of international affairs is further complicated by the reality on the ground, where political
and economic interests mix and become impossible to disentangle.
However, it is possible to identify a theoretical difference between the concept of international
relations‖ and the idea of foreign policy. “International relations attempts to explain the interactions
of states in the global interstate system, and it also attempts to explain the interactions of others
whose behavior originates within one country and is targeted toward members of other countries. In
short, the study of international relations is an attempt to explain behavior that occurs across the
boundaries of states, the broader relationships of which such behavior is a part, and the institutions
(private, state, nongovernmental, and intergovernmental) that oversee those interactions”.
From this short but accurate definition, we can understand that the goal of international relations is to
explain what happens at the international level and to provide the tools needed to understand the
dynamics among nation states. In other words, the term international relations is neutral: it does not
imply that these relations are good or bad; it just explains what dynamics regulate the behavior of
States at the international level and provides useful interpretations. Furthermore, the actors analyzed
by international relations include: Nation States; Non-state actors; International organizations (both
governmental and non-governmental); and Non-fully-recognized States (i.e. Taiwan, Palestine etc.).
International relations analyze the behavior and the interactions among such actors, and provide a
theoretical framework that explains actions and strategical choices. However, even within the realm of
international relations, we can find different perspectives and theories that provide different
interpretations of the world and of the relations among States:
Realism (and neo-realism): according to the realist perspective, States (and human beings) are selfish
and egoistic entities that strive for supremacy and can only live in peace if there is a superior power
dictating the rules (Leviathan). Such scenario clashes with the anarchy of the international system
where there is no such thing as a superior body: therefore, realists believe that the potential for conflict
is always present; Liberalism (and neo-liberalism): according to the liberal (or ideal) perspective,
interactions among states can lead to peaceful cooperation. The likelihood of peace is
enhanced by the increase of economic ties among countries, and the growing number of
intergovernmental institutions and democratic countries.
World System Theory: according to this view, world regions can be divided into core, periphery and
semi-periphery. Core countries are the major capitalist countries that accumulate their wealth by
exploiting peripheral countries – the least developed and modern areas of the world. Semi-peripheral
countries are the ones that allow the existence of such system. In fact, they are both exploited by the
core and exploiters of the periphery. They function as a buffer between the core and the peripheral
areas – that represent the majority of world countries
Constructivism: according to the constructivist theory, States are the main unit of analysis of the
world system, and States‘ interests and identities are directly shaped by social constructs rather than
being exogenous. All the just mentioned theories attempt to explain the reasons that dictate States‘
behaviors at the international level: even if they start from the same assumption (the anarchy of the
international system), they clearly reach different outcomes and provide diverse explanations.
Foreign policy
Foreign policy is ―a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to
achieve national objectives.‖ Therefore, while ―international relations‖ is a broad and comprehensive
term, ―foreign policy‖ has a more specific meaning, and it refers to all actions made by a country
with regard to other States or international bodies. Such actions vary according to the political and
economic agenda of the country of concern, and include, inter alia:
 The involvement in international bodies and institutions (i.e. the United Nations, the International
Labor Office, the World Health Organization etc.);
 The ratification of international treaties or convention (i.e. International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child etc.)
 The provision of military, structural and financial support to States and non-state actor;
 The creation of political and economic alliances (both bilateral and multilateral);
 The intervention in national and international conflicts; and
 The support to countries affected by natural disasters.
The term foreign policy refers to the actions of a given country with a specific purpose in a specific
moment. Indeed, the actions of one State inevitably affect other countries and may create imbalances
and shifts within the international system. In other words, we could say that ―foreign policy‖ is one of
the main issues analyzed by ―international relations‖ and, at the same time, ―foreign policy‖ shapes
the international scenario and modifies ―international relations‖ theories.
In fact, while the theories surrounding international affairs slightly change to adapt to the reality, the
foreign policy of one country can drastically change as the President/Prime Minister change. For
instance, the recent U.S. elections have brought about an important shift in the American foreign
policies President Obama condemned the proliferation of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories (OPT) while President Trump is considering the possibility to move the
American embassy in East Jerusalem. President Obama never directly intervened in the Syrian
conflict in order to prevent the escalation of the civil war into an international conflict while President
Trump ordered an airstrike on Syria in retaliation for the suspected chemical attack conducted by the
Syrian government on April 4, 2017. Such recent example also represents a shift in President Trump‘s
personal views: in fact, while Mr. Obama was in power, Mr. Trump had been
outspoken about the need of avoiding military intervention in Syria. However, after having witnessed
the appalling human suffering caused by the suspected chemical attack, Mr. Trump has taken a
stronger stance against the regime and has invited the international community to take action. This
case shows how foreign policy can change even without having a change in power. Obama was
largely involved and promoted international multilateral agreements (both of economic and political
nature) whereas President Trump seems to prefer bilateral negotiations and ties. These are just few
examples of the volatility and the unpredictability of foreign policy. Indeed, the continuous shifts and
evolutions in foreign policy force those specialized in international relations to constantly adapt the existing
theories to the evolving reality.
International Relation vs Foreign Policy
As we have seen, ―international relations‖ and ―foreign policy‖ differ on a number of substantial
aspects:
 International relations is a broad and comprehensive term that refers to the explanation of the
relations existing among States;
 Foreign policy determines the relations among States;
 International relations provide several theoretical framework to analyze and understand foreign
policy;
 International relations are theoretical concepts that explain the reality on the ground; good nor bad,
they just exist, and need to be analyzed);
 Foreign policy is never neutral; on the contrary, it is the way in which countries pursue their goals
and interests; and
 Foreign policy is one of the main areas of interest of international relations.
Many historians trace modern Ethiopia's foreign policy to the reign of Emperor Tewodros II, whose
primary concerns were the security of Ethiopia's traditional borders, obtaining technology from
Europe (or modernization), and to a lesser degree Ethiopian rights to the monastery of Dar-es-Sultan
in the city of Jerusalem. [1] Tewodros' diplomatic efforts, however, ended disastrously with the British
expedition of 1868 which concluded with his death. Despite the efforts of his successor Emperor
Yohannes IV to establish a relationship with the United Kingdom, Ethiopia was ignored by the world
powers until the opening of the Suez Canal, and more important, the Mahdist War, drew outside
attention to her once more.[2]
The same major interests that Tewodros had—the security of Ethiopia's traditional borders and
modernization—were once again foremost, as demonstrated by the outcome of the First Italo–
Ethiopian War, Ethiopia's admission to the League of Nations (28 September 1923), and the 1935
Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Following the decisive Ethiopian victory at Adwa, Menelik II rapidly
negotiated a series of treaties fixing Ethiopia's boundaries—with French Somaliland in March 1897,
British Somaliland a few months later in June 1897, with Italian Eritrea in 1900, Anglo-Egyptian
Sudan in 1902, British East Africa in 1907, and Italian Somaliland in 1908—which simplified this
problem on one level. Although Emperor Haile Selassie agreed to an agreement with the British
government to help him restore order to Ethiopia, which benefited him in crushing the Woyane
Rebellion, he worked to its eventual termination. Following World War II, Ethiopia played an active
role in regional and global politics. Ethiopia was a charter member of the United Nations and took part
in UN operations in Korea in 1951 and the Congo in 1960. Former Emperor Haile Selassie I was also
among the founders of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and served as one of a series of
rotating OAU chairmen. Although nominally a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, after the 1974
revolution, Ethiopia also moved into a close relationship with the Soviet Union and its allies and
supported their international policies and positions until a change of government in 1991. Today.
Ethiopia is a major economic partner of Djibouti and Sudan, although border demarcation negotiations
are still ongoing with the Omar Al-Bashir administration. Relations with Somalia have also gradually
improved, particularly since the establishment of a new government in Mogadishu. Ethiopia's dealings
with Eritrea are extremely tense due to an ongoing border dispute between the two countries.
The Ethiopian government's relations with the U.S. and the West in general have been centered on
military and economic cooperation. In addition, Ethiopia maintains diplomatic links with China,
Israel, Mexico and India, among other countries. Addis Ababa also serves as the headquarters of the
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the African Union, as well as
numerous other continental and international organizations.
3.2. Famine, underdevelopment, Social inequalities, and Social policies i’e. health care,
education, economy and work etc.
Famine
A famine is a widespread scarcity of food, caused by several factors including war, inflation, crop
failure, population imbalance, or government policies. This phenomenon is usually accompanied or
followed by regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality. Every inhabited
continent in the world has experienced a period of famine throughout history. In the 19th and 20th
century, it was generally Southeast and South Asia, as well as Eastern and Central Europe, having
suffered most number of deaths from famine. The numbers dying from famine began to fall sharply
from the 2000s. Since 2010, Africa has been the most affected continent in the world.A widespread
famine affected Ethiopia from 1983 to 1985. The worst famine to hit the country in a century, it left
1.2 million dead. Four hundred thousand refugees left the country, and 2.5 million people were
internally displaced. Almost 200,000 children were orphaned. According to Human Rights Watch,
more than half its mortality could be attributed to "human rights abuses causing the famine to come
earlier, strike harder and extend further than would otherwise have been the case". Other areas of
Ethiopia experienced famine for similar reasons, resulting in tens of thousands of additional deaths.
The famine as a whole took place a decade into the Ethiopian Civil War. The famine of 1983–1985 is
most often ascribed to drought and climatic phenomena. However, Human Rights Watch has alleged
that widespread drought occurred only some months after the famine was under way. According to the
organisation, and Oxfam UK, the famines that struck Ethiopia between 1961 and 1985, and in
particular the one of 1983–1985, were in large part created by government policies, specifically a set
of socalled counter-insurgency strategies (against Tigray People's Liberation Front guerrillasoldiers),
and for "social transformation" in non-insurgent areas (against people of Tigray
province, Welo province and such).
Underdevelopment
Before we look at the concept of underdevelopment , let see what does development mean?.
Development in human society is a many-sided process. At the level of the individual, it implies
increased skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, selfdiscipline, responsibility and material
well-being. Some of these are virtually moral categories and are difficult to evaluate – depending as
they do on the age in which one lives, one‘s class origins, and one‘s personal code of what is right and
what is wrong. However, what is indisputable is that the achievement of any of those aspects of
personal development is very much tied in with the state of the society as a whole. From earliest
times, man found it convenient and necessary to come together in groups to hunt and for the sake of
survival. The relations which develop within any given social group are crucial to an understanding of
the society as a whole: Freedom, responsibility, skill, etc. have real meaning only in terms of the
relations of men in society. Of course, each social group comes into contact with others. The relations
between individuals in any two societies are regulated by the form of the two societies. Their
respective political structures are important because the ruling elements within each group are the ones
that begin to dialogue, trade or fight, as the case may be. At the level of social groups, therefore,
development implies an increasing capacity to regulate both internal and external relationships. Much
of human history has been a fight for survival against natural hazards and against real and imagined
human enemies. Development in the past has always meant the increase in the ability to guard the
independence of the social group and indeed to infringe upon the freedom of others - something that
often came about irrespective of the will of the persons within the societies involved. Men are not the
only beings which operate in groups, but the human species embarked upon a unique line of
development because man had the capacity to make and use tools. The very act of making tools was a
stimulus to increasing rationality rather than the consequence of a fully matured intellect. In historical
terms, man the worker was every bit as important as man the thinker, because the work with tools
liberated men from sheer physical necessity, so that he could impose himself upon other more
powerful species and upon nature itself. The tools with which men work and the manner in which they
organise their labour are both important indices of social development.
More often than not, the term ‗development‘ is used in an exclusive economic sense – the justification
being that the type of economy is itself an index of other social features. What then is economic
development? A society develops economically as its members increase jointly their capacity for
dealing with the environment. This capacity for dealing with the environment is dependent on the
extent to which they understand the laws of nature (science), on the extent to which they put that
understanding into practice by devising tools (technology), and on the manner in which work is
organised. Taking a long-term view, it can be said that there has been constant economic development
within human society since the origins of man, because man has multiplied enormously his capacity to
win a living from nature. The magnitude of man‘s achievement is best understood by reflecting on the
early history of human society and noting firstly, the progress from crude stone tools to the use of
metals; secondly, the changeover from hunting and gathering wild fruit to the domestication of
animals and the growing of food crops; and thirdly, the improvement in the character of work from
being an individualistic activity towards an activity which assumes a social character through the
participation of many. Every people have shown a capacity for independently increasing their ability
to live a more satisfactory life through exploiting the resources of nature. Every continent
independently participated in the early epochs of the extension of man‘s control over his environment
– which means in effect that every continent can point to a period of economic development. Africa,
being the original home of man, was a major participant in the processes in which human groups
displayed an ever increasing capacity to extract a living from the natural environment. Indeed, in the
early period, Africa was the focus of the physical development of man as such, as distinct from other
living beings. Development was universal because the conditions leading each economic expansion
were universal. Everywhere, man was faced with the task of survival by meeting fundamental material
needs; and better tools were a consequence of the interplay between
human beings and nature as part of the struggle for survival. Of course, human history is not a record
of advances and nothing else. There were periods in every part of the world when there were
temporary setbacks and actual reduction of the capacity to produce basic necessities and other services
for the population. But the overall tendency was towards increased production, and at given points of
time the increase in the quantity of goods was associated with a change in the quality or character of
society.
So what is Underdevelopment?
Having discussed ‗development‘, it makes it easier to comprehend the concept of underdevelopment.
Obviously, underdevelopment is not absence of development, because every people have developed in
one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent. Underdevelopment makes sense only as a means
of comparing levels of development. It is very much tied to the fact that human social development
has been uneven and from a strictly economic view-point some human groups have advanced further
by producing more and becoming more wealthy. The moment that one group appears to be wealthier
than others, some enquiry is bound to take place as to the reason for the difference. After Britain had
begun to move ahead of the rest of Europe in the 18th century, the famous British economist Adam
Smith felt it necessary to look into the causes behind the ‗Wealth of Nations‘. At the same time, many
Russians were very concerned about the fact that their country was ‗backward‘ in comparison with
England, France and Germany in the 18th century and subsequently in the 19th century. Today, our
main pre-occupation is with the differences in wealth between on the one hand Europe and North
America and on the other hand Africa, Asia and Latin America. In comparison with the first, the
second group can be said to be backward or underdeveloped. At all times, therefore, one of the ideas
behind underdevelopment is a comparative one. It is possible to compare the economic conditions at
two different periods for the same country and determine whether or not it had developed; and (more
importantly) it is possible to compare the economies of any two countries or sets of countries at any
given period in time.
A second and even more indispensable component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a
particular relationship of exploitation: namely, the exploitation of one country by another. All of the
countries named as ‗underdeveloped‘ in the world are exploited by others; and the underdevelopment
with which the world is now pre-occupied is a product of capitalist, imperialist and colonialist
exploitation. African and Asian societies were developing independently until they were taken over
directly or indirectly by the capitalist powers. When that happened, exploitation increased and t he
export of surplus ensued, depriving the societies of the benefit of their natural resources and labour.
That is an integral part of underdevelopment in the contemporary sense. In some quarters, it has often
been thought wise to substitute the term ‗developing‘ for underdeveloped‘. One of the reasons for so
doing is to avoid any unpleasantness which may be attached to the second term, which might be
interpreted as meaning underdeveloped mentally, physically, morally or in any other respect. Actually,
if underdevelopment‘ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most
underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a
massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder.
However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‗underdeveloped‘ rather than
‗developing‘, because the latter creates the impression
that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic
backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves
from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true,
and many underdeveloped countries in Africa and elsewhere are becoming more underdeveloped in
comparison with the world‘s great powers, because their exploitation by the metropoles is being
intensified in new ways. Economic comparisons can be made by looking at statistical tables or indices
of what goods and services are produced and used in the societies under discussion. Professional
economists speak of the National Income of countries and the National Income per capita. These
phrases have already become part of the layman‘s language, by way of the newspapers and no detailed
explanation will be offered here. It is enough to note that the National Income is a measurement of the
total wealth of the country, while the per capita income is a figure obtained by dividing the National
Income by the number of inhabitants in order to get an idea of the average‘ wealth of each inhabitant.
This ‗average‘ can be misleading where there are great extremes of wealth. A young Ugandan put it in
a very personal form when he said that the per capita income of his country camouflaged the fantastic
difference between what was earned by his poor peasant father and what was earned by the biggest
local capitalist, Madhvani. In considering the question of
development away from the state of underdevelopment, it is of supreme importance to realise that
such a process demands the removal of the gross inequalities of land distribution, property holding and
income, which are camouflaged behind national income figures. At one stage in history, advance was
made at the cost of entrenching privileged groups, In our times, development has to mean advance
which liquidates present privileged groups with their corresponding unprivileged groups.
Nevertheless, the per capita income is a useful statistic for comparing one country with another; and
the developed countries all have per capita incomes several times higher than any one of the
recently independent African nations.
Social inequality
Social inequality occurs when resources in a given society are distributed unevenly, typically through
norms of allocation, that engender specific patterns along lines of socially defined categories of
persons. It is the differentiation preference of access of social goods in the society brought about by
power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. Social
inequality usually implies the lack of equality of outcome, but may alternatively be conceptualized in
terms of the lack of equality of access to opportunity. The social rights include labor market, the
source of income, health care, and freedom of speech, education, political representation, and
participation.
Social inequality linked to economic inequality, usually described on the basis of the unequal
distribution of income or wealth, is a frequently studied type of social inequality. Although the
disciplines of economics and sociology generally use different theoretical approaches to examine and
explain economic inequality, both fields are actively involved in researching this inequality. However,
social and natural resources other than purely economic resources are also unevenly distributed in
most societies and may contribute to social status. Norms of allocation can also affect the distribution
of rights and privileges, social power, access to public goods such as education or
the judicial system, adequate housing, transportation, credit and financial services such as banking and
other social goods and services. Many societies worldwide claim to be meritocracies—that is, that
their societies exclusively distribute resources on the basis of merit. The term "meritocracy" was
coined by Michael Young in his 1958 dystopian essay "The Rise of the Meritocracy" to demonstrate
the social dysfunctions that he anticipated arising in societies where the elites believe that they are
successful entirely on the basis of merit, so the adoption of this term into English without negative
connotations is ironic; Young was concerned that the Tripartite System of education being practiced in
the United Kingdom at the time he wrote the essay considered merit to be "intelligence-plus-effort, its
possessors identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education" and that the
"obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications" it supported would create an educated
middle-class elite at the expense of the education of the working class, inevitably resulting in injustice
and eventually revolution.
Social policy
Social Policy is an instrument applied by governments to regulate and supplement market institutions
and social structures. Social policy is often defined as social services such as education, health,
employment, and social security. However, social policy is also about redistribution, protection and
social justice. Social policy is about bringing people into the center of policy-making, not by
providing residual welfare, but by mainstreaming their needs and voice across sectors, generating
stability and social cohesion. Social policy is also instrumental in that governments use it
pragmatically to secure the political support of citizens, and to promote positive economic outcomes
by enhancing human capital and productive employment.
Social policies can also create a virtuous circle linking human and economic development that, in the
long run, will benefit everybody by boosting domestic demand and creating stable cohesive societies.
The term social policy is popularly used with varied and ambiguous meanings. Policy generally
interpreted as an organizing principle to guide action and social policy is action to influence the course
of social change to allot societal resources among various groups. It is also the area of organized
human activity which somehow sought to impose reason and order on a mass of rapid and often untidy
change.
For instance, National Social Protection Policy is one of Ethiopian social policy. This National Social
Protection Policy is nationwide sectoral document developed by the Government of Ethiopia as a
complete framework leading to coordinated actions to protect citizens from economic and social
deprivation. Given that social protection improves the effectiveness and efficiency of investments in
agriculture, hygiene and health, education, and water it accelerates the attainment of the development
goals of the country, especially for the most vulnerable members of society. The main objectives of
Social Protection Policy of Ethiopia are the following (i) protect poor and vulnerable individuals,
households, and communities from the adverse effects of shocks and destitution; (ii) increase the
scope of social insurance; (iii) increase access to equitable and quality health, education and social
welfare services to build human capital thus breaking the inter-generational transmission of poverty;
(iv) guarantee a minimum level of employment for the long term unemployed and underemployed; (v)
enhance the social status and progressively realize the social and economic rights of the excluded and
marginalized; and (vi) ensure the different levels of society are taking appropriate responsibility for
the implementation of social protect.