Ethiopia and the Construction of Soviet Identity, 1974-1991

Ethiopia and the Construction ofSoviet Identity, 1974-1991 Diana L. Ohlbaum Johns Hopkins University Even before the formal dissolution of the USSR, as the Soviet economy fell into increasing disarray, the republics began clamoring for independence , and the Communist Party lost its legal monopoly on power, Soviet academics and politicians began asking themselves, "Who are we on this planet, where are we heading, what constitutes our uniqueness and our role in humanity, our contribution to its fate?"1 Whereas MarxismLeninism once provided clear answers to questions regarding the USSR's mission and goals, perestroïka and the "new political thinking" rejected the old answers without substituting new solutions, leaving the country without a common purpose. In the wake of the Soviet break-up, a sense of anomie has remained acute among Russians, for whom national identity was for so long associated with that ofthe Soviet state. Lacking agreement on even the mostbasic principles for a non-Soviet identity, Russia's foreign policy is now tossing adrift, unable to plot a course commensurate with Russia's diplomatic and military potential. Together with the United States, which has now lost the enemy against whom its own internationalist , anti-communist identity was defined, Russia must carve out a new place for itself in a world freed from the political and intellectual constraints of the East-West rivalry. The current period of ambiguity and flexibility in the roles of the military superpowers offers important opportunities. For Americans and Russians, it provides a respite to rethink fundamental assumptions that©Northeast African Studies (ISSN 0740-9133) Volume 1 Number 1 (New Series) 1994, pp. 63-8963 64 Diana L. Ohlbaum were motivated by, and in some cases obscured by, concerns about national security and state interests. For economically less developed countries in general, and for African states in particular, the transition period may offer a chance to break out of the dichotomy of being exploited or being ignored. This article seeks to contribute to both these endeavors by exploring the ways in which Soviet policy toward revolutionary Ethiopia served both to define and to reflect a particular identity for the USSR. By focusing on the internal dimensions of Soviet policy rather than the strategic objectives it may have served, this paper attempts to explain important aspects of international relations that traditional geopolitical analysis misses or occludes. While Ethiopia certainly is not the only example that could be used, it is important as a heuristic case study for a number of reasons. Not only were there extensive political and military ties between the two governments , but there are striking historical parallels between Ethiopia and Russia. A century ago both were vast feudal dynasties whose monarchs ruled with the help of a privileged class of landed gentry and the active support and cooperation of a traditional Christian church. In both countries there was a strong sense of geographic isolation and a historical distrust of surrounding peoples, who were conquered militarily as Ethiopia and Russia expanded into multinational empires. Despite their proud traditions of independence and their rich cultural and literary heritages, elites in both countries perceived their societies as "backward." Though their leaders aspired to be recognized as equals within the European political community, state attempts at rapid development of capitalism, precipitated by military defeats, failed to produce European-style legal and political institutions or industrialized economies. Like Tsarist Russia, by the time of its revolution Imperial Ethiopia had begun to develop the class distinctions among peasants necessary, in the Leninist conception, for the transition from feudalism through capitalism to socialism. Because of these structural similarities, Soviet perceptions of Ethiopia can be used as a looking glass into Soviet thinking about Russian history.2 Ethiopia is also significant for what it offered as an anomaly for Soviet thinking. Neither "black" nor "white,"3 and located at the crossroads between Africa and the Middle East, Ethiopia is in many ways a liminal country, falling along the boundaries of established categories. As Anne Norton has observed, liminars: Ethiopia and the Construction ofSoviet Identity, 1974-1991 65 provide the occasion for the nation to constitute itself in reflection upon its identity. Their likeness permits contemplation and recognition , their difference the abstraction...