Teferi Mekonnen - US Geopolitical interests and Involvment

[secretaire-scientifique]

Full article sent in October

US Geopolitical interest and involvement.docx

[secretaire-scientifique]

30.01. Jean-Nicolas on charge of the article Suggested reviewers: Emanuele Fantini, Beatriz Schouin

[jeannicolasbach]

J'ai parcouru l'article et le trouve correct pour évaluation. Je suis allé un peu vite, donc inévitablement je l'ai trouvé un peu descriptif et peu original - ou bien il n'insiste pas sur les aspects originaux du papier, ou bien je ne suis pas assez compétent pour juger de cette originalité. Mais l'histoire semble bien documentée et les sources sont solides et nombreuses. Voici l'adresse de Emanuele: e.fantini@un-ihe.org Je peux lui envoyer, je le connais. Vous avez l'adresse de Beatriz Schouin?

[jeannicolasbach]

Décision comité 28 avril 2023: à envoyer à Emanuele et Gérard

[jeannicolasbach]

Article envoyé pour évaluation par JNB à Emanuele Fantini et Gérard Prunier. Le 11 mai 2023.

[jeannicolasbach]

Le commentaire de Gérard Prunier (27 mai 2023): "Lu en détail . C’est excellent , bien documenté, bien présenté , très clair et détaillé . Deux (petits) problèmes :

• Page 6 il y a un problème avec la note n° 38 (présente dans la liste des notes en fin d’article) qui apparait inopinément sous le n° 1 comme un éléphant sur le Mont Blanc . Juste à faire sauter. Il n’y a pas de notes infrapaginales.
• La conclusion c’est le bla-bla mollasson typique des textes des Nations Unies et autres conneries du même genre. Ça gâche un peu par une conclusion bêtement tiède un texte de très bonne tenue".

Je reprends pour la version anglais: "An excellent paper, well documented, well organized, with a very clear and detailed argument. Only two specific and minor remarks:

• check the note n°38 that appears as note n°1.
• Re-elaborate the conclusion that, as is it, does not reflect the interests of the texts and could be strengthened.

[jeannicolasbach]

15 juillet, commentaire laissé par Emanuele: Dear editors of Annales d’Ethiopie and author(s) of this manuscript,

thanks for inviting me to review it: it has been a pleasant and interesting reading, on a topic that is relevant for ongoing news and debates, and on which this study offers important insights based on archival research. My overall assessment is that the paper can be accepted for publication provided that the author(s) address(es) the following recommendations:

1) foreground primary sources and data, by adding more quotes from the original sources, letting the document speak, like done for instance at p. 10 (see also my comments to the text);

2) better position this study in ongoing historical and political debates, by adding key literature and authors like Terje Tvedt and by clarifying if the thesis presented in this paper confirms or rather challenge other analysis of the history of international relations in the Blue Nile basin;

3) clarify the research question, by framing it explicitly as a question, and bring it forward. At the moment the only explicit research questions is asked at p. 13, almost at the end of the paper (see also my comment to the text) and just before the conclusion.

4) clarify role and responsibilities of the Ethiopian government in relation to the lack of implementation of the 1963 technical study commissioned by the US (also here, for further discussion on this point, see my comments to the text)

5) sharpen the conclusion of the text, by clarifying the novelty of this study in terms of contribution to the historiography debate, by adding a more nuanced and critical statements on the role of the US, and by clarifying role, responsibilities (in one word agency) of the Ethiopian government.

I hope that these recommendations are useful to revise and strengthen the paper. I am available to review its new version and I am looking forward its final publication! [Uploading US.Geopolitical.interest.and.involvement review EF.docx…]()

[jeannicolasbach]

JNB: retour fait à Teferi Mekennon le 5 septembre, message ci-dessous + fichier joint:

Dear colleague, Please accept our apologies for the delay of our response to your submitted paper. We have received the two reviewers' comments and they are positive. See below. Please, also see the attached document with inserted comments by the second reviewer. We invite you to resubmit the paper with the few modifications proposed, especially by the second reviewer. Both also agree that the conclusion should be strengthen. I would also agree that raising a strongest question or better explicit the aim of the paper from the beginning (introduction) shall give a better idea for the reader about the general argument of the paper. I believe these modification are relatively minor revisions. We hope you can address these demands in the coming weeks or months, so that we can publish the paper in our issue n°35 (year 2023), that shall be finalized before the end of November. Would it be feasible for you to revise before this date? Thank you so much again for submitting this very interesting and timely paper to our journal. We are looking forward reading the revised version. Kindest regards, Jean-Nicolas, for the editorial committee

Reviewer 1: An excellent paper, well documented, well organized, with a very clear and detailed argument. Only two specific and minor remarks:

check the note n°38 that appears as note n°1. Re-elaborate the conclusion that, as is it, does not reflect the interests of the texts and could be strengthened.

Reviewer 2: t has been a pleasant and interesting reading, on a topic that is relevant for ongoing news and debates, and on which this study offers important insights based on archival research. My overall assessment is that the paper can be accepted for publication provided that the author(s) address(es) the following recommendations:

foreground primary sources and data, by adding more quotes from the original sources, letting the document speak, like done for instance at p. 10 (see also my comments to the text);

better position this study in ongoing historical and political debates, by adding key literature and authors like Terje Tvedt and by clarifying if the thesis presented in this paper confirms or rather challenge other analysis of the history of international relations in the Blue Nile basin;

clarify the research question, by framing it explicitly as a question, and bring it forward. At the moment the only explicit research questions is asked at p. 13, almost at the end of the paper (see also my comment to the text) and just before the conclusion.

clarify role and responsibilities of the Ethiopian government in relation to the lack of implementation of the 1963 technical study commissioned by the US (also here, for further discussion on this point, see my comments to the text)

sharpen the conclusion of the text, by clarifying the novelty of this study in terms of contribution to the historiography debate, by adding a more nuanced and critical statements on the role of the US, and by clarifying role, responsibilities (in one word agency) of the Ethiopian government.

I hope that these recommendations are useful to revise and strengthen the paper. I am available to review its new version and I am looking forward its final publication! US.Geopolitical.interest.and.involvement review anonyme.docx

[jeannicolasbach]

Réponse Teferi 7 septembre: il renvoie d'ici fin Septembre, parfait

Dear Dr. Jean-Nicolas Bach, Greetings.

Thank you for the feedback and your kind words.

I will submit the revised version of the manuscripts until the end of September 2015.

With kind regards

Teferi Mekonnen (PhD)

[jeannicolasbach]

Seconde version reçue le 11 octobre 2023 V2 Teferi US Geopolitical interest and involvement 11-10-2023.docx