And when he talks about “the laws of the jungle in the African bush”, he refers certainly to Somalia (known as the ‘bush’ of Africa) but also, to a certain extent, to a world in which the rules of international law no longer apply, and in which the American president has shown himself to be so much at ease. Calchi Novati, lecturer in African history at the University of Pavia, is a visiting professor at the University of Addis Abeba, and author of a number of volumes on contemporary Africa. An interview by Daniele Castellani Perelli.

Stanley Weiss, in the Herald Tribune, has written that the Pentagon is creating a detached network of security forces across, Senegal, Ghana and Uganda, amongst other countries. Is this a sign of the growing importance of Africa in American foreign policy?

Africa has constituted part of American foreign policy, and links with these three countries have been established, for some time now. From an American perspective, the Sudanese belt, which goes from Mali to the Red Sea, will represent the most important area within the security system over the coming years. And we should remember that by ‘security’ in this case, within the context of the international community, we mean the powerful Western nations’ access to resources and strategic sites. The weak points of this belt are the Sudan and Somalia, which are considered to be two potential points of entry and growth for Islam in Africa.

What resources are you referring to specifically?

Africa’s resources have, in general, been kept for the past ten to fifteen years in a kind of reserve store. The situation in the Middle East and in Central America have made them much more attractive, even if they are more expensive, less accessible and more difficult to transport. But oil and various strategically important materials – minerals like iron, copper and ‘coltan’ (columbite-tantalite), which are produced by the Congo and are fundamental for the development of technology in the emerging economies – are transforming Africa into a key site in the global market.

What was the role of the United States in the Ethiopian attack on Somalia?

Ethiopia has striven in recent years to prove itself the most loyal, most believable and most militarily efficient of the United States’ allies. Even the 1998 – 2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea was, in my view, a kind of semi-final between two candidates vying for the position of most important ally to the United States in the region. In the end it was the greater power of Ethiopia which won through, a country which, moreover, also shares an extensive border with Somalia, with whom it has always had unfinished business. Ethiopia certainly has very strong ‘national’ motivations for attacking Somalia at this moment, to prevent the formation of an Islamic state which could affect the balance within Ethiopia itself. Rather than provoking the attack, it may be that the United States simply cleared the way for an Ethiopian initiative. Here I’m going back to a kind of tradition: in the Horn of Africa it has always been the local protagonists who have imposed their own causes on the major powers, rather than the contrary. In this case, too, Somalia may well have served as a pretext for Ethiopia to settle old scores, whilst being sure, at the same time, of the support of the US and the West.

The United States are providing humanitarian aid to refugees which have fled to western Ethiopia. Is this an admission that ‘hard power’ on its own, as has been applied in Iraq, is not enough?

The two situations are not comparable, and besides, the US has always co-operated with humanitarian needs in the wake of bombing. There is no oil here, despite the usual rumours and claims. The supporting role of the Americans here has a political motivation, since a massive influx of refugees could prove impossible for Ethiopia to cope with.

Are we seeing a kind of clash of civilizations in the Horn of Africa?

There has always been a clash of civilizations there, because the two states have always had different reference points – one of Christianity and the other of Islam. Ethiopia has always been used as a kind of barrier against Arabo-Islamic expansionism, and this is the reason why, for some time, it has been allied with Israel. Egypt is certainly behind Somalia, and is keen to oppose its rival Ethiopia, who controls a large part of the water sources in the Nile. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt can lose contact with the Islamic forces in the region. Complicating the picture further is Eritrea, which, despite having a similar government to that of Ethiopia, at present finds itself in an unnatural anti-Ethiopian alliance with the Somali Islamic Courts.

Is Ethiopia’s aggression illegal?

It’s difficult to talk about legality in the Horn of Africa, and in today’s world. An expression which describes the situation well is “the law of the jungle in the bush”, and the ‘bush’ of Africa is Somalia.

What is the role of Europe in all this?

Europe is divided. London supports Somaliland, the former British colony which is not yet officially recognized. The EU, on the other hand, is pressing for the reunification of Somalia. Italy has assumed the role of facilitator, and has always fervently supported the hapless governments of transition, including the present one. The Horn of Africa has always been strongly influenced by Europe, but the rule is that during crises in regions belonging to smaller colonial powers, such as Portugal, Belgium or Italy, which used to control Somalia, it is the US which carves out for itself the leading role.

Translation by Liz Longden

Interview published by the newspaper Europa