No Independence without Sovereignty!

The Resistance of Emperor Haile Selassie I to the

British Occupation of Ethiopia (1941-1944)

Sterling Joseph Coleman, Jr.

Florida State University

Introduction

                On May 5^th 1941 Emperor Haile Selassie I, recently restored to the throne of Ethiopia, delivered a stirring message of hope and triumph from the steps of his imperial palace in Addis Ababa.  Within his speech, the Emperor declared his gratitude to the British Army and his Ethiopian patriots for restoring him to power and expressed his desire to maintain Ethiopia’s independence and sovereignty.[1]  However, from 1941 to 1944, the Emperor realized the price of British aid was far more costly than mere gratitude and his people’s liberty and freedom from Italian rule would have to be regained from British rule.  But why was he able to succeed in removing British rule from Ethiopia by the end of 1944?  What strategy and tactics did the Emperor utilize to achieve this end?  In an effort to answer these questions this study will argue that prior to his signing of the 1944 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement Emperor Haile Selassie I regained de facto control over Ethiopia by engaging in a strategy of resistance which employed the tactics of obstructionism, opportunism, brinksmanship, leverage and propaganda.[2]  However, a brief overview of the Emperor’s strategy of resistance is necessary prior to an analysis of these tactics.

Emperor Haile Selassie I’s Strategy of Resistance

                The Emperor’s strategy was a pre-Cold War variant of the doctrine of flexible response.  This doctrine was “based upon a measured and balanced range of appropriate responses…to all levels of aggression or threats of aggression.”[3]  The Emperor’s goal was to compel the British to end its rule over Ethiopia without provoking them into a disproportionate use of force which could either destroy his resistance, cripple his attempts to regain control over his empire or harden British resolve to maintain the occupation.  A crucial aspect of the emperor’s strategy was not to attack the British government directly but the instruments of power they utilized to maintain its control.  His probable rationale for utilizing such a strategy of resistance revolved around the fact that as much as he wanted an Ethiopia free of British rule, he still believed himself to be indebted to them for the sacrifices they made in his restoration to the throne. Also, the Emperor may have been reluctant to engage his people in another war of insurrection against a European power while they were still recovering from the Italian occupation. 

Obstructionism & Administrative Control

                And now I would like to address his first tactic to weaken British rule—obstructionism.  In early 1941, the British military placed Ethiopia under the control of the Occupied Enemy Territorial Administration (OETA) led by General Sir Philip Mitchell.  Believing his administration to be in control of Ethiopia, General Mitchell appointed British advisors to Ethiopia’s bureaucracy without the Emperor’s consent.  In response, the Emperor quickly took steps to obstruct the actions of British advisors and neutralize their hold over his court.  His first move occurred within a week of his return to the throne. In his autobiography, the Emperor wrote, “Since We had begun work on the New Ethiopia even before the conclusion of the war in Ethiopia, five days after We entered Addis Abeba [sic], on [May 10, 1941], We established a cabinet composed of seven ministers.”[4]  These ministers and their subordinates obstructed the British in their attempt to administratively run the country by mishandling official documents produced by their occupier and by ignoring recommendations submitted by British advisors. 

To further strengthen his hold over his empire and weaken British control, the Emperor quickly resurrected provincial and local governments and paid off debts incurred by patriot leaders during their struggle against the Italians.[5]  This tactic worked so efficiently that the British were compelled to work within the imperial administration the Emperor established rather than duplicate, undermine or dissolve it by force.  Once the British began to work within his bureaucracy and accept his appointments to government positions, the Emperor achieved de facto administrative control over his empire. 

Opportunism & Territorial Control

                Now I would like to address his second tactic to undue British control—opportunism.  In the immediate aftermath of the ousting of the Italians from Ethiopia, the British occupied the country’s population centers with elements of the 1^st South African Division, the 11^th and 12^th African Divisions comprised of Kenyan, Nigerian and Ghanaian troops, and the 4^th and 5^th Indian Divisions.  The Emperor knew that after five years of Italian occupation and insurrection by the Ethiopian patriots his people were too exhausted to directly challenge the full might of the British Army.  In addition to this problem, from May 5^th 1941 to January 31^st 1942 World War II was turning against the Allies in North Africa.  For example, on November 23^rd 1941 the Afrika Korps defeated elements of the British 13^th and 30^th Corps at the Battle of Sidi Rezegh in Libya.  And on January 21^st 1942 Rommel launched a counteroffensive against the British 8^th Army which ended eight days later with the German capture of the city of Benghazi in Libya.[6]

Realizing the dire nature of the Allied position, the Emperor joined official and unofficial international calls for the British to re-deploy their forces stationed in Ethiopia to other theaters of war.  Though the British Empire complied with these requests, General Mitchell maintained a Military Mission to organize and train a new Ethiopian army and police force as well as to occupy the territory of the Ogaden and the Franco-Ethiopian Railway under Articles II, V and IX of the 1942 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement.

With the removal of British troops from the majority of Ethiopian territory and by opportunistically taking advantage of Nazi victories in North Africa, the Emperor established de facto territorial control over most of his empire by appointing Ethiopian patriot leaders to regional administrative positions.

Brinksmanship & Infrastructural Control

And now I would like to address the Emperor’s third and riskier tactic—brinksmanship.  During the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, Fascist Italy established several factories, plants, breweries and mills in Addis Ababa along with improvements to the road and railways of Ethiopia.[7] 

However, before the Ethiopian liberation was completed by the British Army and the Ethiopian patriots, General Mitchell implemented plans to seize, dismantle and relocate Italian industrial assets to other British colonies where they could be utilized to produce war materiel for the Allied cause.  From November 27^th 1941 until February 28^th 1942, the British Army by Ethiopian estimates stripped the empire of 80% of its Italian-created industrial infrastructure.[8]  Until he signed the 1942 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, the Emperor lacked a legal and military recourse to halt these seizures.  By the terms of the agreement, General Mitchell had to request the Emperor’s permission to extract any future industrial assets before they could requisition them.  On February 28^th 1942 General Mitchell attempted to seize a sisal rope factory in the town of Jimma without his permission.  In an armed confrontation between British African troops and Ethiopian patriots led by Dejazmach Gorasu Duki, the Emperor ordered the patriot leader to prevent the British African troops from dismantling the factory. Over a period of several tense days in which Sir Robert Howe and General Mitchell attempted to bully the Emperor into submission on this issue, he refused to yield and made his full displeasure over General Mitchell’s industrial requisitions known to his occupier. The end result of the Emperor’s brinksmanship was the cessation of all requisitions of Italian industrial assets in Ethiopia and the Emperor’s de facto control over the infrastructure of his empire. 

Leverage & Economic Control

Now I would like to address the Emperor’s fourth tactic to restore Ethiopia’s sovereignty—leverage.  Under the terms of Article IV of the 1942 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, the Emperor conceded:

that in all matters relating to currency in Ethiopia the Government of the United Kingdom would be consulted and that arrangements concerning it would be made only with the concurrence of that Government.[9] 

 

In adherence with the terms of the agreement the Emperor consulted the British government about stabilizing the value of Ethiopia’s official currency, the Maria Theresa dollar against the Italian lira and the British East Africa shilling both introduced during the Italian and British occupations. 

The British proposed to establish a Currency Board in London and replace the Maria Theresa dollar with a new Ethiopian currency linked to the British pound. The Emperor submitted a counter-proposal of an Ethiopian national bank which would limit his empire’s economic dependency upon Great Britain.  When the British refused to create a national bank, the Emperor created the bank by edict, capitalized it nominally with one million Maria Theresa dollars, yet rested its solvency upon the Maria Theresa dollar itself, the Italian lira, the East African pound, and the Indian pound. These fluctuating currencies kept the Emperor constantly under pressure to accept the British proposal.  To resolve this problem, in May 1942 the Emperor instructed his Vice Minister of Finance, Yilma Deressa, to seek a loan of $40 million as credit to be made available in the United States in cash balance, to purchase consumer goods from the United States, and to seek an additional loan of $10 million under the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 to rebuild Ethiopia.[10]  The Americans responded by not only lend-leasing 5,430,000 ounces of silver for the purpose of coinage in Ethiopia and fulfilling the Emperor’s request for credit but also dispatched in December 1943 an economic development a mission to help the Ethiopians rebuild their country. 

By leveraging the United States against the British Empire, the Emperor weakened the British hold over the Ethiopian economy long enough so that he could stabilize the Maria Theresa dollar, establish a national bank, and ensure his de facto economic control over his empire by the end of 1943.[11]

Propaganda & Informational Control

And now I would like to address the Emperor’s fifth tactic to secure Ethiopia’s independence—propaganda.  Immediately after the Emperor regained his throne, he confronted an active yet uncoordinated disinformation campaign designed to weaken and discredit his rule.  As he recorded within his autobiography, “Among the British military officers in Ethiopia, there was a person called Brigadier [Maurice S.] Lush, who led a political group which had sinister intentions toward Our country…They spoke publicly that the purpose of their coming was to rule Ethiopia.”[12]  To counter this disinformation campaign, the Emperor found a champion in the most un-likeliest of people, Estelle Sylvia Pankhurst.

Sylvia Pankhurst, as she was popularly known, was a noted British suffragette who during the 1920s supported anti-imperialist and anti-fascist causes.  What began as an alliance of convenience between the Emperor and the British anti-imperialist blossomed into a life-long friendship which reaped huge dividends for both parties during and after the Italian and British occupations.

In the person of the Emperor, Pankhurst gained something which she did not possess—legitimacy.  Her interviews with the Emperor and other members of the imperial family allowed Pankhurst to eloquently address Ethiopia’s concerns before a British and international public which could have dismissed her as being an anti-imperialist malcontent who knew nothing about the cause she championed. 

In the person of Sylvia Pankhurst, the Emperor gained a tireless crusader who within the pages of her newspaper, New Times & Ethiopia News fearlessly held the Italians, the British and the world responsible for the war-torn conditions of Ethiopia.  Initially the goal of her newspaper was to defend the cause of Ethiopian independence, attack Italian Fascism, assault Nazis aggression and defend the cause of other nations victimized by the Axis.  Once the Ethiopian patriots and the British Army liberated Ethiopia, Pankhurst redirected her attacks squarely against the British occupation in a bid to secure Ethiopia’s independence and sovereignty. 

With a circulation that reached ten thousand copies weekly, Pankhurst and her newspaper permitted the Emperor to regain de facto informational control over his empire.  While the Emperor never controlled the media or the means by which information about his empire was distributed to the world, he did control the debate over Ethiopia’s viability as an independent nation and sold his empire to the world as a sovereign member of the international community.  The reward for his effort was international recognition for his empire’s sovereignty and independence by gaining a seat at the United Nations in 1942, while Sylvia Pankhurst was rewarded for her efforts with the Queen of Sheba medal and the Patriots medal awarded by the Emperor as well as the privilege of immigrating to Ethiopia.[13]

Why Was the Emperor’s Strategy Successful?

So why was the Emperor’s strategy successful?  There are two reasons why it succeeded.  The first reason is that his opposition, the British Empire, was neither united nor coordinated in its occupation of Ethiopia.  The main entities of the British government which had a direct bearing upon the occupation—the Foreign Office, the War Office and Parliament—harbored opposing views which muddled their control over the African empire.  For example, William Murray, the American Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs observed:

The War Office favored a virtual protectorate, saying that, given the chaotic condition of the country and the incapacity of the population, close British control would be advantageous to both parties.  The Foreign Office, however felt that emphasis should be laid on independence, rather than control, and agreed that it would set a bad political precedent to deny independence to the first country to be freed from Axis rule.[14] 

                While the Labour and Tory wings of Parliament vacillated between granting full sovereignty and limited autonomy to Ethiopia.[15]  This policy confusion provided the Emperor with an opportunity to clarify his position, take advantage of British indecision, and relentlessly press for Ethiopia’s sovereignty and independence.   

The second reason the Emperor’s strategy of resistance succeeded was because he wanted to remove the tendrils of British control over Ethiopia without entirely removing the British presence.  The Emperor realized that it was not in his best interest to immediately call for the complete removal of all British troops in Ethiopia upon regaining his throne.  He knew he needed the British Military Mission to help maintain order over his empire and train a new police force and army which would allow him to centralize his rule once the British departed.  But the Emperor also acknowledged that he quickly needed to regain full control over his empire lest the British arrive at a consensus to govern Ethiopia as a military protectorate or crown colony.  Finally, the Emperor’s strategy allowed him to assess the threat he confronted, counter the British with a firm yet measured response equal to the level of threat he faced, and gradually wear down his occupier’s instruments of control until he achieved mastery over his empire by the signing of the 1944 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement which guaranteed Ethiopian independence and sovereignty. By employing such tactics as opportunism, obstructionism, propaganda, brinksmanship and leverage in a strategy of resistance to British rule, the Emperor secured his nation’s future in the post-war world.

Return to FCH