By Beyan Negash
There is a familiar way of telling the political history of the Horn of Africa. One country threatens another. One person remembers what other people did to it. One government identifies the foreign hand behind its domestic troubles. Somewhere beyond the border, an enemy is gathering. Sometimes the enemy is real. That is precisely what makes the politics of fear so difficult to understand.
The Horn has known conquest, occupation, annexation, civil war, foreign intervention, and displacement. Suspicion did not descend upon the region from nowhere. It has history behind it. Fear has its rightful place in political judgment. It alerts us to danger, reminds us of historical injury, and demands vigilance from those entrusted with public responsibility. But when fear becomes the principal language through which a nation imagines its neighbors, something troubling happens: the possibility of peace begins to require justification, while the possibility of war is increasingly treated as self-evident.
A people remembers the invasion and begins seeing tomorrow’s invasion in today’s disagreement. A state remembers encirclement and interprets another state’s diplomatic relationship as the beginning of encirclement again. A political movement remembers infiltration and begins treating dissent as infiltration. Eventually, people cease fearing only what happened. They begin fearing the return of fear itself. And that may be one of the least examined political forces in the Horn.
I. Fear Has a History, But Does It Have an Owner?
Political cultures inherit things. Empires leave administrative habits behind. Colonial systems leave categories through which people continue seeing themselves and one another. Liberation movements inherit some of the assumptions of the powers they fought. It is tempting, therefore, to trace a political pathology backward until an original owner can be found. But fear resists such neat genealogy.
Ethiopia has its memories. Eritrea has its memories. Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti have theirs. Communities within each state carry memories that do not necessarily correspond to the official memory of the state itself. And these histories overlap. What appears from one national vantage point as aggression may appear from another as defense. What one state remembers as securing territorial integrity, another population may remember as occupation. What one government calls foreign interference, another calls regional partnership. The question is not simply who taught whom to fear.
It is why fear reproduces itself so successfully across political systems that otherwise consider themselves fundamentally different because fear performs political work. It simplifies complicated disagreements into questions of survival. It transforms opponents into agents, criticism into disloyalty, and cultural difference into suspicion. And because genuine external interference has repeatedly occurred in the Horn, the politics of fear rarely needs to invent everything. A fragment or a hint of perceived reality will do.
Foreign powers have intervened in the region. Governments have supported insurgencies across borders. Political movements have sought foreign patrons. Ports have attracted strategic competition. To acknowledge these things is not paranoia. The analytical challenge lies elsewhere: When does legitimate recognition of danger become the political enlargement of danger?
A neighboring state may possess territorial ambitions. But does every disagreement confirm those ambitions? A political movement may receive assistance from abroad. Does that erase the indigenous grievances that produced it? A port agreement may have strategic implications. Does it follow that war is inevitable? The most effective politics of fear takes something recognizable and enlarges it until the shadow becomes larger than the object casting it.
Therefore, a possibility becomes a probability. A probability becomes an intention. An intention becomes an inevitability. And once inevitability enters political language, extraordinary measures begin appearing reasonable.
II. Fearing Fear Itself
People who have experienced fear remember not only the event that frightened them. They remember what vulnerability felt like. A society that has experienced occupation does not merely fear another army crossing its border. It fears becoming occupiable again. A state that has once found itself isolated does not merely examine the alliances around it. It fears isolation itself. A community that has experienced marginalization does not merely protect its language or religion. It becomes alert to developments that resemble the beginning of marginalization. Fear acquires a second life. We begin fearing the conditions under which fear might return.
And because the feared event has not yet happened, political action becomes anticipatory. States arm themselves against possible intentions. Governments suppress what they imagine could become threats. Communities police boundaries they believe may someday disappear.
The tragedy is that these actions are visible to everyone else. Preparations intended to guard against remembered dangers become, in the eyes of others, evidence of threatening intentions. The response then confirms the original suspicion. Fear has completed the circle.
III. The Horn as Basin
Part of the difficulty lies in the map through which we have learned to think. The modern political map presents the Horn as a collection of bounded states. Ethiopia here. Eritrea there. Sudan to the west. Djibouti at the strait. Somalia along the eastern coast. Each appears as a container possessing its own security, interests, history, and national memory.
History has never behaved so obediently. People moved before these borders existed. Languages, religions, trade, armies, pastoral communities, refugees, and ideas crossed them. The Red Sea mocks the notion of political enclosure. So does the Nile system farther west, and the commercial routes connecting the interior to the coast.
The Horn might therefore be better understood, politically and historically, as a basin. Not a single physical watershed, nor a proposal to erase national distinctions, but a shared historical and political space in which the consequences of one nation’s actions travel beyond its borders. A basin receives from different directions. Water travels. Sediment travels. Pollution travels. Pressure in one part alters conditions elsewhere.
So does insecurity. Ethiopian insecurity cannot permanently be solved at Eritrea’s expense. Eritrean security cannot sustainably depend upon Ethiopian instability. Sudan’s disintegration cannot remain Sudan’s problem. Somalia’s fragility cannot be contained within Somalia.
The militarization of the Red Sea cannot concern only those possessing coastline. And Ethiopia’s desire for reliable access to the sea cannot be considered apart from the sovereignty concerns of the states through which such access must pass. The basin belongs to everyone within it precisely because no one can completely insulate itself from what happens to the others. No nation can permanently export its insecurity. Eventually it returns.
IV. When My Security Becomes Your Fear
Every nation knows the history of what others did to it. Few national histories dwell with equal intensity on what their own state, army, movement, or ruling class did to others. Memory becomes asymmetrical. We remember our fear as an experience. We interpret theirs as ideology. We remember our military preparation as defense. We interpret theirs as aggression. We understand our alliances as necessary. We regard theirs as encirclement. We explain our suspicion through history. We explain theirs through propaganda.
And so two populations can stand across a border, each sincerely believing itself to be the frightened party. This is more difficult than simple propaganda because both may possess evidence. The question is no longer who is afraid. Everybody is afraid. The question is what political systems do with that fear.
One state attempts to increase its security. Its neighbor experiences the action as a reduction of its own security and responds accordingly. The first state then reads that response as confirmation that its original fear was justified. Security begins feeding insecurity. But in the Horn, this dilemma carries the additional weight of memory. States respond not only to present actions but to accumulated histories of war, domination, betrayal, and foreign intervention.
The security dilemma is therefore also a dilemma of memory. A basin perspective does not require dissolving sovereignty. Shared security is impossible where sovereignty is treated casually. Nor does it require historical amnesia. It requires remembering not only what happened to us, but what happened through us.
The purpose is not to distribute guilt evenly. Power has not been evenly distributed, responsibility has not been equal, and suffering cannot be placed on a scale until everybody receives the same portion. The point is different. No durable regional order can be built from mutually exclusive memories of victimhood.
V. Learning How to Fear
Perhaps the answer to the politics of fear is not fearlessness. Fearlessness can be foolish. Nations have things worth protecting. Borders matter. Sovereignty matters. Foreign intervention is real. Military preparations deserve scrutiny. Governments have an obligation to anticipate danger. The challenge is not to stop fearing. It is to learn how to fear intelligently. To distinguish danger from memory. Threat from projection. Possibility from inevitability. Foreign influence from foreign omnipotence. Prudence from paranoia. Security from domination. And perhaps most difficult of all, to recognize when my legitimate fear begins producing your legitimate fear.
Instead of asking only, What must we do so that we are safe?, states must also ask, What does our pursuit of safety look like from across the border? That second question does not surrender national interest. It understands national interest more deeply. Because in a basin, the water returns. Fear crosses borders more easily than citizens do. It survives governments, changes languages, and adopts new ideological clothing. It is rediscovered because the political conditions that make it useful keep being reproduced. What goes around is not merely accusation. It is insecurity.
The Horn can continue organizing security nationally while insecurity circulates regionally. Or it can begin imagining itself as what history and geography have already made it: a basin of distinct nations whose futures remain stubbornly entangled. The nations need not love one another. They need not forget. They need not become fearless. But they may finally have to recognize one elementary truth: Your fear enters my world. Mine enters yours.
And until the Horn learns to fear without making fear contagious, the possibility of peace will continue to demand an explanation, while the possibility of war may arrive already carrying one.
Comments