Ethiopia: Motives Behind US Lifting of Human Rights Violation Designation

The revocation of the Human Rights Violation designation on Ethiopia by the United States, following Ethiopia’s application to join the BRICS, has triggered discussions and speculation surrounding the motives behind this decision. The lifting of the designation, previously used as a means of exerting pressure on the Ethiopian government, has raised questions across Africa about whether this action is a deliberate response aimed at dissuading Ethiopia from joining the BRICS.

This narrative, originating from U.S. media, has permeated media discussions in the Global South, suggesting that the U.S. may prefer Ethiopia not to join the BRICS. Consequently, there is a growing belief that the revocation serves as Washington’s tactic to entice Ethiopia back into its fold as a key partner for U.S. engagement in Africa.

Dissuading Ethiopia from Joining BRICS

In light of these speculations, it is crucial to consider the broader context of Ethiopia’s pursuit of BRICS membership. Ethiopia’s decision to join the BRICS is well-advised and timely, given the evolving dynamics of the global landscape. BRICS represents the heart of the new world architecture as the multipolar world takes shape, offering tremendous opportunities for progressive and ambitious countries.

Moreover, Ethiopia has experienced the impact of Western sanctions and has witnessed the emergence of BRICS countries as its major trading partners. Joining the BRICS aligns with the country’s strategic goals of diversifying partnerships and seeking alternative avenues for economic development and cooperation.

By joining the BRICS, Ethiopia would gain access to a platform encompassing major emerging economies, offering potential benefits that surpass what the West and Europe can provide. However, this decision would also signify a significant break in Ethiopia’s relationship with the United States, given the geopolitical implications of aligning with nations like Russia and China, who are BRICS members.

Ethiopia’s growing economy, vast population, and geopolitical significance position it as a crucial partner for global powers seeking influence in Africa, and the United States recognizes this reality. Consequently, one can reasonably analyze the lifting of the Human Rights Violation designation in the context of Ethiopia’s pursuit of BRICS membership and the strategic importance of maintaining relationships with Ethiopia amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics in the Horn of Africa. It is a conclusion that many are making, suggesting that the revocation is tied to an attempt to discourage Ethiopia’s BRICS membership.

Undisclosed concessions or hidden agendas

This initial conclusion seems plausible, but it is important to consider the U.S.’s operating methods. One must ask: is this the true intention, or is this narrative deliberately crafted as a smokescreen to conceal undisclosed concessions that could be unpopular among ordinary Ethiopians, as well as with Ethiopia’s geopolitical allies such as Eritrea, Russia, and China?

While it remains a supposition, it is worth considering in light of past experiences that highlight the U.S.’s tendency to maintain sanctions or demands on a country until its conditions are met.

For instance, Eritrea remains under sanctions since 2009 due to its refusal to comply with the U.S.’s demands, exemplifying the U.S.’s consistent approach of exerting pressure until its desired outcomes are achieved.

Similarly, Zimbabwe continues to face Western sanctions due to its refusal to reverse its land reform program, which aimed to rectify historical land imbalances by redistributing farmland from predominantly white commercial farmers to landless black Zimbabweans. The enduring nature of these sanctions on both countries reflects the U.S.’s insistence on specific policy changes.

It, therefore, seems to me that while the revocation of the Human Rights Violation designation on Ethiopia could be meant to discourage its BRICS membership, we must not overlook the possibility of undisclosed concessions or hidden agendas behind this decision. The U.S.’s history of leveraging sanctions and demands to shape outcomes certainly suggests that there may be more to the story than meets the eye.

Sever the Eritrea connection

It is no secret that one of the key areas of contention between the United States and the government of Prime Minister Abiy, which ultimately led to some of the sanctions, was Ethiopia’s peace agreement with its neighbor, Eritrea. This decision did not sit well with Washington, and it is worth noting that it was at this point that the United States shifted its support to internal belligerents who sought regime change and even the disintegration of the country.

Since then, a key demand of the United States as a precondition for restoring aid to Ethiopia and loosening its support for the internal belligerents has been for Ethiopia to sever its relationship with Eritrea, as the Eritrean government has remained steadfast and refused to comply with Washington’s demands.

With the current revocation, one must naturally ask: did the government of Ethiopia finally consent? There is a tiny possibility, but it is also highly unlikely, as Prime Minister Abiy has proven consistent in his efforts to normalize relations between his country and Eritrea.

Surrender the Disputed Lands

Another sensitive matter has been the disputed lands between the Tigray and Amhara regions. This dispute pits the TPLF of the Tigray region, who are allies of the United States, against their neighbors, the Amhara, and it has often been marked by ethnic undertones.

The dispute gained prominence in 1991 when the TPLF seized national power as part of a multi-ethnic coalition and, according to the Amhara, also annexed historical Amhara land to their own region.

Since then, it has remained a contentious issue under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s leadership. The TPLF and its Western allies have consistently demanded that the government cede the disputed land in favor of the TPLF as a precondition for ending their belligerence.

In fact, the TPLF previously rejected the constitutional legitimacy of a federal boundary commission that the central government set up in December 2018 to resolve this and other territorial disputes. So, once again, the question arises: Has the government of Ethiopia finally consented to the demands by TPLF and its US allies on the Welkait land question?

There is an outside chance, given the Pretoria agreement between the federal government and the TPLF and the semblance of peace that has returned, that the Prime Minister might see the concession as necessary.

However, the chances are quite slim, as it would require Prime Minister Abiy to jeopardize his country’s sovereignty for the temporary respite of power. The disputed area is of particular interest as it provides a corridor to Sudan, which, in the event of internal or external conflict, would significantly disadvantage the federal government and potentially give the United States leverage over any government in Addis Ababa.

Pivot away from Russia and China

As a country of strategic significance in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia has endeavored to navigate the complex dynamics of regional and global power struggles. It has sought to maintain a delicate balance in its relationships with various regional and global actors, leveraging its position to safeguard its national interests.

 However, since the United States imposed sanctions on Ethiopia, Russia and China have emerged as significant partners, offering economic cooperation, and investment, and fulfilling Ethiopia’s desire to diversify its alliances and explore alternative partnerships.

This development has been met with disapproval from Washington, as Ethiopia is considered its last remaining ally in the Horn of Africa, especially given that Eritrea’s ties with Russia and China show no signs of diminishing.

Consequently, the United States has exerted pressure to compel Ethiopia to shift its focus away from Russia and China. In doing so, it has consistently applied pressure to shape Ethiopia’s decision-making, disregarding the agency and autonomy of the Ethiopian government in determining its geopolitical strategy.

One can speculate with reason that Ethiopia may have acquiesced to the US’s demand to pivot away from Russia and China, leading to the revocation of the designation. However, it should be noted that this is merely speculation, and the Ethiopian government cannot have forgotten the support China and Russia provided during Ethiopia’s time of greatest national need when the US-backed TPLF sought regime change and the country’s disintegration.

Maintain TPLF as a viable political entity

Another issue on which the United States has consistently applied pressure on the Ethiopian government is the continued presence of the belligerent TPLF as a viable political entity in Ethiopia. The United States recognizes the TPLF as its committed ally within Ethiopia, particularly in the broader context of maintaining stability in the Horn of Africa.

However, the legal feasibility of TPLF’s existence as a viable political entity has been compromised since it waged war against the federal government. With the recent revocation of the Human Rights Violation designation in Ethiopia, there is speculation as to whether the Ethiopian government made concessions that allowed TPLF to maintain its prominent political status in the Tigray region. Recent events have further fueled this speculation.

Last week, Birtukan Mideksa, Chairperson of the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), resigned from her position. While she cited health reasons, rumors suggest that her resignation was related to her firm stance on the legal grounds for disqualifying TPLF. At the time of her resignation, the NEBE had been engaged in a dispute with TPLF after rejecting its registration as a political entity, citing non-compliance with electoral law.

Conclusion

Overall, the revocation of the Human Rights Violation designation on Ethiopia by the United States, amidst discussions of Ethiopia’s potential BRICS membership, has sparked speculation about the motives behind this decision. While some argue that it may aim to deter Ethiopia’s alignment with global powers like Russia and China, it is important to also consider the possibility of undisclosed concessions or hidden agendas.

As Ethiopia faces complex regional and global power dynamics, it becomes essential to analyze the broader context and multiple perspectives to comprehend the motivations behind the revocation and its potential implications for Ethiopia’s future relationships and geopolitical strategy.