Pan-Africanism is consciousness. It is high level of awareness about responsibilities, duties and historical position of a country and a people. So, everybody can’t equally share it. Because it is all about relative consciousness and awareness which depends to varying degrees on many factors; Education, culture, exposure and so on. Hence, some people would be less Pan-Africanist than others.

Ethiopia has a unique history. That unique history is partly Ethiopian and partly African. Ethiopia was not colonized; it doesn’t have any colonial heritage. The many African countries are either Anglophone or Franco-phone. By not having this kind of historical baggage, Ethiopia was able to play a very important role as a mediator between various groups in the continent. That is the reason why the Monrovia and the Casablanca groups were willing to come to Ethiopia and accept it as a natural home. Historically these camps were formed either racially or linguistically.  This gives Ethiopia a special leadership place in Pan-Africanism. This doesn’t mean, however, that we are not Pan-Africanists. Actually, we are accepting it in a different manner.

We have an uninterrupted statehood for a long time. We have popular social psychology that feeds this uniqueness as a cultural population. So you will find it in every Ethiopian; the uniqueness, the uninterrupted history and statehood. Even to some extent, Ethiopia was a big civilized nation affecting other continents. At the same time, we are geographically near to the gulf and the Indian Ocean. Religiously also, the same was true; we have been the first to accept Abrahamic Religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

So, this is the most important message of Pan-Africanism. Many Ethiopians have strong Pan-African nationalism but that is not without prejudices. Like any other society, we have also elements of our society who are racists in terms of their thinking regarding color, facial features and chauvinistic historical perspectives. Thus, we point this out as a shortcoming. However, this is not unique to Ethiopia. I must say this is not rooted in the social psychology of Ethiopians, it is a result of limited exposure. It is not a reflection of Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism sentiment in Ethiopia has been well proven time-and-again by its leaders. Secondly, there is one important reason as to why Ethiopia is very Pan-Africanist. It has to do with the victimization of the country by racially white people. For a long time, Ethiopia had to defend its territories from encroachment by European expansionists and frequent attacks from countries in North Africa. This victimization has pushed Ethiopia to the non-alignment movement first and become the leading African voice.

During Emperor Haile-Selassie, Ethiopia had much better and longer history of diplomacy compared to the rest of Africa. Imagine, the first Ethiopian Ambassador appointed was in the 15th century to Portugal. For hundreds of years we had missions, envoys and diplomatic relation in the modern sense of the concept. So, Ethiopia had the capability to see how these institutions have to be run; what kind of procedure you follow to integrate; how you do diplomatic negotiations. And Ethiopia by that time was a member and a founder of the League of Nations.  So, it was active and was fighting in the global diplomatic forum against Italian aggression. It also became one of the founders of the UN in the 1940s. No any other African country was by then ready to take the lead. As it has been attested by Mandela, they saw Ethiopia as an example of what they like to see Africa look like.

On top of that, by then, Emperor Haile-Selassie was very famous since the Second World War. He was fighting in Manchester, Geneva and Israel playing and putting his diplomatic fight and he had been engaged with many Pan-African Congress members and white people who supported the independence of Ethiopia and some of them requested powerful countries to spare Ethiopia from the Italian Invasion. So, it was natural for Ethiopia to lead the Pan-African movement. And he has raised a very important points in his many speeches about Pan-Africanism and African solidarity. He might not has been at that time fully convinced of Pan-Africanism. There were a lot of issues that he was uncertain about. As a leader, he was not sure of the fate of Eritrea by that time, and how to deal with the newly independent neighbors such as Somalia. But he worked hard for the independence of many African countries. He was the first to propose the establishment of a Pan-African university. Where he said future African leaders would be groomed. He actually offered facilities to host a Pan-African university and proposed the African Standby Force in the form of common defense against colonial type interventions.

However, our current role can not be the same as the Emperor’s time from two perspectives. The first is a matter of principle. The second one is factual reality. In principle, we can’t have the same leadership role as we used to have 50 years ago. Many things have change. At that time, Ethiopia was economically better, its purchasing power was higher. Politically, it was one of the few independent African states. It was a country with fairly well organized army with well-recognized leader. It has already established institutions. Now things have changed. Other countries have becoming more powerful: economically, Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, South Africa, Egypt and other have become more powerful. This was mainly due to oil export. And this is the dynamics that changes the landscape of peace and security and negotiating power.  

On the other hand, we had been in civil war for 30 years. And the country was unable to project its Pan-African movement in terms of leadership. Once you have internal problems, your legitimacy is diminished. Maintaining Emperor Haile-Selassie’s role was difficult during the Derg regime. Now, EPRDF took some time to master diplomatic system and to play a leadership role. Because partly, there were other prominent leaders during that time: President Obasanjo was more outgoing and more Pan-Africanist than many. And then, we had Mbeki; also a leader of a new country, South Africa,  which wants to project itself as a Pan-Africanist and to repay the African assistance during their struggle against apartheid. For Ethiopia to play a leading role, PM Meles Zenawi had to wait some time. Then at the end of the reign of Mbeki and Obasanjo, it was time for Meles to come to the front in organization like NEPAD and other negotiations. Influence of a country depends on economic power, military power, its strategic location and the credibility of its leader among African leaders. So, this has affected Ethiopia’s role greatly in spite of Meles’s ability to articulate Africa’s interest. 

Basically, even if you have economic, military and diplomatic power, if there is no policy direction that leads to a more Pan-African movement, if there is no a leader who is highly inclined to this cause, then you may not have the role you hope to have. For example, during the late PM Meles’s reign, Ethiopia has played a role beyond its capacity. In climate change, it is not because Ethiopia was differently affected or it has special expertise. But because the PM was more interested in this agenda and he has built that professional competence and wants to be an African voice. So the role of Ethiopia in the political landscape of Africa and IGAD has been augmented because of Meles’s personal competence. 

But if you look into the Ethiopian foreign policy, it is extremely limited when it comes to projecting the historical legacies of Ethiopia and maintaining the role. Taking the fact that Addis Ababa is the seat of the African Union, the foreign policy doesn’t say much about this opportunity. As a capital of Africa, there should be bigger policy on how to manage AU issues in Ethiopia. This includes the visa regime, which is very restrictive for people traveling from many African countries. Actually, the current civil society law seriously limits those who want to engage with the African Union.

*********